Sitting of 27 March 1996

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

  Local Government (Dorset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  9.34 am
  Sir Jim Spicer: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing Dorset Members of Parliament this debate on the future of local government in Dorset. Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I should like to make a heartfelt plea for the future of Dorset's farming community. Just one week ago, that future looked secure and prosperous. It is amazing how much can change in a week. Over the past week, we have seen how inextricably the prosperity of our farming community is linked with the future of our county.
  I therefore make a plea to every Member of this House—especially those representing Dorset—to our county, district and parish councillors, and to everyone else, to spread the word that British beef is 100 per cent. safe, and that we should all make it a point of honour to eat only British farm produce until the iniquitous and politically motivated ban on British food in Europe is lifted. My plea is directed particularly to those who have done their best in our county to spread alarm about the safety of British beef and to cast doubt on the integrity and competence of the members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, who have given such splendid scientific advice to the Government—advice that we have all hitherto supported.
  We want to stress our anxiety about what will happen to services and costs in what will remain of Dorset once Poole and Bournemouth depart in May 1997—although I well understand that that will not be the primary concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). In broad-brush terms, Poole and Bournemouth contribute 45 per cent. of our population, and almost the same percentage of our finance. So, from 1 May 1997, the new truncated and much smaller Dorset will have just half the population and half the budget that we have at our disposal for 1996–97—roughly £550 million.
  These are stark figures. If I were the chairman of a company about to lose half my customers and income, I would by now be imposing draconian disciplines and preparing the ground for major reconstruction and cuts in staff and services.
  Over the years that I have been in Dorset, our staff at county hall have served us remarkably well, but at this moment they must be feeling insecure and extremely unhappy. They must be looking for leadership of a quality that has perhaps been lacking in the past two years. I wish that I had confidence that the Liberal-controlled
  944
  administration was of sufficient calibre to bite the bullet and take the necessary tough and unpopular decisions. Unfortunately, its track record to date suggests that it is not.
  I offer one or two examples of what I mean. Until about three or four months before the last county council elections, leading Liberals on the county council were kept fully informed of plans for a waste disposal site at Holnest. They wholly approved of the purchase of the site, and agreed that it desperately needed to be brought into use as quickly as possible.
  Then it became politically expedient for them to disapprove totally, using as an explanation for that complete about-turn the proposition that Liberals
  "are in the vanguard of progress and therefore support a policy of waste to energy".
  They indicated at that time that they were totally opposed to any future use of landfill sites, which were so terrible for the environment.
  On the night after their victory—by one vote—the leader of the Liberal group, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and their supporters drank champagne at Holnest to celebrate the birth of this great new environmental dream. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) will no doubt tell the House just what has happened since that momentous gathering; all I will say is that the whole sorry saga adds up to a lack of backbone and an unwillingness to take tough and unpopular decisions. What did the reversal of the Liberals' support cost the council taxpayers of Dorset? I would like to see that figure quantified. I have never seen it, but I have heard used the figure of approximately £1 million.
  Of course, to cover their tracks, on this and all other things, the Liberals are always ready to "consult"—or at least when it suits them to do so. Just a month ago, we were informed that the BBC is to close its local radio station in Dorchester. There was no consultation with the people of Dorset, the district councils or, for that matter, anyone beyond a small group from the county council. One official who met the BBC agreed that it would be worth while, and that there was no alternative. That is not consultation.
  When it suits them, however, they consult. For example, quite recently, about 55,000 glossy consultation documents were sent out, in which the people of Dorset were asked one simple question:
  "What do you want to happen to your waste?"
  Approximately 4,000 replies were received, and, inevitably, the vast majority were in favour of a waste-to-energy policy. Had a box been provided for the question: "Are there any other points you would wish to make?" all those people who replied would have said, "Yes. Waste-to-energy, but not anywhere near my house." What a waste of time. We all know that people want their waste disposed of in the most effective way.
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government asked county councils to consult on their waste plans, and that our consultation was part of that?
  Sir Jim Spicer: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. The consultation document was glossy in the extreme and implied all the way through that we were dealing with a caring council that had

  945
  marvellous views of its own and was committed to a waste-to-energy policy. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset will show only too clearly what has happened to that marvellous dream of waste-to-energy in Dorset in the face of opposition.
  As I have said, the BBC station in Dorchester will close on Friday. I regret that, and resent the way in which that has been done by the BBC, which did not consult me or any other Member of Parliament as far as I know—except, possibly, the hon. Member for Christchurch.
  My second example comes from Sherborne, and relates to the former playing fields at the grammar school there. Before the county council elections, Liberal candidates in the Sherborne area staunchly opposed the sale of the playing fields site. The inevitable "Focus" campaign leaflet condemned it as
  "selling off the family silver".
  Now, the same leading and formerly well-respected Liberals in the area are leading the charge to sell off that land for building.
  I caught one leading Liberal councillor slightly off guard, and asked, "Why on earth did you ever change your mind on this?" Unbelievably from a Liberal. I got an honest answer straight away. He said, "We never thought for a moment that we would win control of the county council." That says it all as far as I am concerned, and illustrates only too clearly the way in which some Liberals on our county council have behaved over the past two or three years.
  My hon. Friends and the hon. Lady will remember that, last year, we had a crucial and decisive meeting with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. At that meeting, the leader of the county council and his colleagues begged—I use that word advisedly—not only the Minister but all Dorset Members of Parliament to support the proposal for a rural Dorset county council as opposed to unitary authorities. They gave me—my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) was particularly concerned about this—a total assurance that they understood only too well just what this would mean in terms of a reduced service from county hall, and as a priority promised to ensure that the cost of the retention of the smaller county council would be kept to an absolute minimum.
  We asked for this debate because we are fearful that the present Liberal-controlled administration does not have the will, the stomach or, indeed, the ability to face the inevitable cuts that would result—if my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who sadly is on a Committee this morning, were here, they would disagree with me—from the departure of Bournemouth and Poole from our county, as announced by the leader of the Liberal group, who said that the Liberals totally supported that, on the night of the county council elections. That closed off the option that most people in my part of Dorset wanted: to retain our county exactly as it is. The Liberals sold the pass on that, and then had to fall back on this much smaller rural county council.
  What help can my hon. Friend the Minister give us and the people of Dorset to monitor the administration in county hall and to ensure that it has the determination to put in train the cuts that we all know will have to be
  946
  made? If the Government are not able to monitor in the way that we would want, and to force the county council to live up to the promises it gave, we all know that, on 1 May 1997, after the county council elections, the new Conservative-controlled county council will inherit the lack of will and determination that has been shown by the current Liberal administration in Dorset.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Jim Spicer: Not again—I am so sorry. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have her opportunity in a few moments.
  I make two further points. Liberals in Dorset are very much on the defensive at the moment, and rightly so. Two recent by-election results demonstrate that clearly—one in the Hamworth division of Poole, in which their majority was cut from 823 to 87, and the other in the Lodmoor division of Weymouth, in which their majority was cut from more than 900 to just 139.
  We all know that the Liberals are desperate—I do not blame them for that—to retain control at county hall. I fear that, over the next financial year, they might consider upgrading the priorities for schemes that might just retain, or even gain, votes in marginal county council seats. Such a course of action would put even more pressure on what is bound to be a very restricted budget from 1997 onwards. I hope that the Liberal Democrats in Dorset will not embark on such a devious course of action. I can assure them that, if they do, it will be noted and exposed.
  Equally, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not continue to raise expectations in our schools by asking them what services they would like to have after 1997. They should warn our schools that the range of services available from county hall will almost certainly have to be curtailed, a fact that may encourage more schools to opt out and take full control of their budgets with no deductions by county hall, and then buy in whatever services they need from the best sources at the best prices.
  Local politicians must spell out the education system they want. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East will know only too well, there are very good grammar schools and a number of grant-maintained schools in the Bournemouth area. Presumably, under the new unitary authority they will not only remain but be encouraged, by Liberal as well as Conservative councils. We certainly hope that that will happen.
  Mr. David Atkinson: When the Liberal-controlled Bournemouth borough council took control in 1991, one of its first actions was to pass a motion seeking the abolition of grant-maintained schools. I fear that the future of grant-maintained status in Bournemouth will be in jeopardy if the Liberals retain control.
  Sir Jim Spicer: I am very sorry to hear it. I had always thought that Bournemouth would take the lead in that regard.
  We should like to know what the present county council feels about the education system that will emerge in our part of Dorset after the elections. Is it completely opposed to grammar schools? Does it see any merit in

  947
  grant-maintained schools? If not, is it intent on maintaining the comprehensive system? All those questions must be answered during the next few months; the size and shape of central education services at county hall will depend on the answers that are given.
  Having spoken for just over 15 minutes, I want to end as I began, by saying a little about the morale and quality of staff at county hall. They are a superbly dedicated group, but, inevitably, their morale has been lowered, and many of the more senior staff have announced their intention of leaving. Decision-making from the top will be desperately needed over the next year. If we are to have a chairman and a managing director, they will have to make decisions of the kind that many of us have had to make in business over the past 10 years when our companies have been cut right back. We have had to make those decisions, and we have had to carry our staff with us. I implore the present county hall administration to cut out the politics, to do what is right for the people of Dorset, and to carry their staff with them.
  I was distressed when, last Friday, the Liberals on West Dorset district council—which has been a shining light in local government—decided to turn it political. None of us in West Dorset wants that: it is entirely unnecessary. Let me end on that sad note, while expressing the hope that some of the thoughts that emerge from today's debate will strike a chord with people at county hall.
  9.52 am
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: The debate is very well timed. It takes place just a few days after the publication of the Audit Commission's league tables for local authorities; it also gives us an opportunity to assess the progress that the county is making during the current reorganisation. Moreover, it coincides with an appeal in the House of Lords relating to a case involving the Government and Dorset county council.
  The debate also gives us an opportunity to put the record straight. There has been misinformation in Dorset. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) spoke of the need to take politics out of the county's affairs; I hope that he will do that himself, and that we Dorset Members will do our best to fight Dorset's corner here at Westminster.
  The Audit Commission's figures confirm what I have always believed—that the county council is very underfunded by Government. Although its spending is at the capping limit, expenditure per head in Dorset is the lowest in the country. Because of that, services might be expected to be poor, but the Audit Commission praises the county's efficient performance. Although it is the third lowest spender on education, its GCSE results are the sixth highest in England. As for the thorny problem of waste disposal, only two counties manage to recycle more than Dorset. It ranks fifth highest among the English counties in the provision of library books and other materials.
  If I had been allowed to intervene at the appropriate point, I would have asked the hon. Member for West Dorset when he last spoke to officers and councillors at Dorset county council about the progress they had made with reorganisation. As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman did not speak to officers, or even to the Conservative group leader, before today's debate—unless he has done so since yesterday morning.
  Sir Jim Spicer: That is absolute nonsense. I speak to the leader of the Conservative group on a weekly basis, and have done so ever since last year's crucial meeting. I do not take all my information from him, but I am told about some of the council's expenditure—such as the money spent on establishing a European office, which was wasteful and unnecessary. If you look after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the question of Europe, because that is one of the issues on which there has been disinformation. Hon. Members will see that if they consult this Session's early-day motions. At a town council meeting in Verwood on Monday, I was asked why we were not receiving more money from Europe. Those who asked me that question had attended meetings in Devon and Cornwall; I explained that Dorset was slightly different. The county council had, in fact, saved money by uniting with Hampshire to try to ensure that we obtained what we could from the European Community, to which we pay a good deal of money.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Maddock: No. I want to make some progress.
  Let me say something about local government reorganisation. The Minister was responsible for a conference entitled "Partnership Across the Tiers". He pointed out that the districts were doing good work, and identified three issues that needed attention. One was good will.
  I believe that Dorset county council has tried to generate good will between itself and members of district councils at all levels. The Minister also wanted a systematic review of all services. There is an agreed programme for that in Dorset; much of the work has been undertaken at officer level, and reports will be submitted to the county's reorganisation committee. The chairmen of policy and resources meet every fortnight to discuss reorganisation.
  Only a few counties are working with all districts: that was the Minister's verdict. Dorset is one of those counties. Its chairman of policy and resources has written to the district councils assuring them of its good will. The door is open: members of district councils have been invited to attend and speak at meetings of the county council. I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) will give credit where it is due. County council officers have given every help to Bournemouth and Poole in the run-up to unitary status.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset drew attention to the serious problem of funding during reorganisation. Dorset's budget could be reduced by up to 45 per cent. However, Bournemouth's budget will increase by 600 per cent. I know that it is taking on new powers, but even so, that is a large amount. Poole's budget will go up by about 700 per cent. Obviously, we will need to monitor with great care the massive transfer of staff and budgets and services.
  There will be a drastic reduction in chief officer posts in the county departments, and a reduction in the committee structure. There is a root-and-branch examination of staffing and the funding of county services. There are detailed discussions on specialist services, and discussions

  949
  are starting to ensure joint administration where possible, so that we do not duplicate what is happening in the two tiers. We also want meaningful dialogue between district, town and parish councils.
  I spoke about the meeting that I attended in Verwood on Monday. I knew that there would be a local government Minister in this debate, so I promised to raise the concern of the people at that meeting about funding. When the uniform business rate was introduced, part of their funding disappeared, and I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether he sees any other way of returning finance to the town and parish councils which do so much good work at local level.
  As we speak, an appeal is taking place in the House of Lords involving the county council and the Government. The Government have asked county councils to try to make sure that, where possible, services are put out to the private sector. Dorset has done that for residential homes for elderly people who need care. That has cost the council money, but the Government are not prepared to reimburse it. There was one appeal which the county won, but the Government are appealing against it; that is not the best way to support our county when it is going forward, and in view of its good record on providing services for the elderly. It has followed the Government's advice.
  Hon. Members have spoken about education and about what should be happening in Dorset. Over the years that I have been in this place, it has become clear that Dorset does not get a fair deal. That has also become clear to the local electorate. That is why, in the May elections, despite the points that were made by the hon. Member for West Dorset, the Liberals made an enormous number of gains and the Conservatives lost many seats. We gained 21, and the Conservatives lost somewhat fewer seats than that.
  Over some years, the verdict on the Liberal Democrats is that they like what they do. People are pleased that we consult them and listen to what they say. The hon. Member for West Dorset spoke about leadership. Leadership is also about working with people for the benefit of the community and listening to them. That is what Liberal Democrats have done in Dorset, and that is why they have been rewarded with votes.
  It is for the Government to look at why Dorset is the lowest spender and how they can help us. Rising numbers of children are entering our schools, and increasing numbers of elderly people need care, but we are not being given the grants to keep pace with those rising demands. It is up to the Government to recognise that Dorset is not the same as some of the counties in the south-west. They give extra help to counties in the south-east in recognition of the costs of providing services, and anyone who crosses the border from Hampshire to Dorset will see that the amount plummets.
  There is as much as £100 a head difference on each child in a school, and in the average first school that means an extra teacher. Some children in Highcliffe cannot get into the school, because there is not enough space and there are not enough teachers. If those children lived two or three miles down the road in Hampshire, there would be enough money to fund a teacher, and they would be able to attend school there.
  950
  The Government should reward Dorset for its increased good stewardship, but that has not been done. Dorset Members should unite. I ask Conservative Members to stop fighting the Westminster corner in Dorset, and join me in fighting Dorset's corner in Westminster for a fair deal. People in Dorset recognise that they are not getting a fair deal, and that is why they have voted for those who have spoken up for them.
  I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for West Dorset agrees that we need to encourage all those in county hall, and that we need to do our best. I ask him to join me in ensuring that we stop the knockabout and fight for a fair deal for Dorset.
  10.5 am
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) on securing this debate on local government in Dorset. The debate is timely and urgent. I associate myself with his remarks about BSE and its effect. I endorse his wish to restore confidence to people in Dorset, who eat beef, I am glad to say, and to the farming community. His remarks were timely and they have my complete support. The ban on beef in schools and its extension to Dorset county schools is not the way to address the scientific evidence or to restore confidence in that excellent product, British beef.
  The history of Dorset county council until 1993 under Conservative control was of a low-spending, low-charging authority that was free from borrowing. It was managed on sound and clear lines and had councillors who were good at listening, were free from party politics and worked for the benefit of Dorset people. Examples were the continued, responsible financial management of the county's affairs, a resistance to borrowing and steady improvements.
  Capital spending in the schools programme was noteworthy, and additional spending on, for example, the education of children with special needs was a substantial achievement. The roads programme was responsibly managed, and, thanks to good capital management, road maintenance and new road schemes were implemented. All those areas are currently under threat.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that Dorset county council has been blessed with high-quality officers and staff, to whom I pay tribute. They have followed their instructions and have done the best they could within them for the county. Any criticism in my speech is directed not at them but at their political masters.
  I return to the point succinctly made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. The local government review will have a substantial impact on Dorset, and I make no secret of the fact that the plans that are being implemented to allow Bournemouth and Poole to go their own way, for reasons that I understand, while the remainder of the county remains a one-county unit, were not my favoured solution. However, it was clearly agreed that, if that plan were decided by the Secretary of State, the county council would make strong endeavours to reduce the cost and administrative expenses in the county that remained, so that, after reorganisation, the level of services and charges, apart from reorganisation costs for my constituents, would be unaffected.
  County council leaders clearly recognised that that would involve a reduction in administration and the severing of offices between the county and the urban

  951
  authorities in Poole and Bournemouth, and that maximum co-operation would be ensured between elected representatives in Dorset at all necessary levels to achieve the necessary economies, contractions in administration and preservation of services.
  Mrs. Maddock: When was the last time the hon. Gentleman had discussions with the county council and with councillors? What progress has been made in the direction that he has mentioned?
  Mr. Baker: The answer to the hon. Lady's suggestion that I have not been in touch with the chief executive is that I received a written report from him in the past week. She has anticipated the next part of my speech.
  I requested a report on the current situation of the local government review. I was glad to receive the reply, but it was less than satisfactory. Necessary progress in achieving economies and reduction in bureaucracy and administration has not yet materialised, although the officers are, of course, doing what they can. They are doing an excellent job, as they always have done, but a funding shortfall of 5 per cent. to provide current standards of service will not do. There must be some political will and co-operation, which was agreed in my original discussions, to ensure that services for my constituents and all our rural constituents are preserved.
  Dorset county council must do a great deal—of course, there is a great deal that the district councils and district councillors must do as well—to reassure the people of Dorset that services will be maintained.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend recall that the reports we were originally given by the district councils and the county council ruled out the current suggested reorganisation in Dorset, because it was financially unviable, as no savings were coming from unitary authorities for the rump of the county? Are we not criticising this county for deciding at the last minute to change its negotiating tactics, and providing something to Dorset taxpayers that will never be paid for?
  Mr. Baker: Yes; my hon. Friend is, of course, quite right. I think that it was explained to the county that, if it changed its mind in that way, there would be very severe financial implications for the administration and bureaucracy, which had to be attacked. We received an assurance that they would be attacked, because of the point that my hon. Friend rightly made.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: No; I am sorry, but I have given way once, and I have other things to say.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset described the Liberal Democrats' U-turn—supporting the landfill site at Holnest and then abandoning it when it proved unpopular, which unseated a distinguished and respected Conservative councillor—to achieve control of the county council at the election. That they abandoned the alternative of incineration when it proved unpopular was a disgraceful episode, and it has done nothing to improve the standing of politicians, particularly the standing of Liberal Democrats, in Dorset. I hope that such episodes will not be repeated.
  952
  In order to secure votes in the election, Liberal Democrats gave commitments to support capital expenditure on schools. Speaking as an outsider and one whose constituency was not affected by those commitments, I must say that the urgency of the commitments was questionable. They achieved power with the assistance of promises on school capital spending, but they found that they had so skewed the budget that vital revenue expenditure on education had to be cut.
  Instead of providing, for example, for part of the easily anticipated teachers' pay settlement—as the previous Conservative administration had done—at a time, I accept, of a very tight financial settlement, they failed to provide sufficiently for the settlement and simply passed on the costs and the problem to schools, urging them to deal with the matter and saying that it was all the Government's fault.
  The well-worn and substantially misplaced complaint that everything that is inconvenient or difficult is the fault of central Government may have fooled some of the people on that occasion, but it is increasingly failing to fool all of the people all of the time. The frequency with which the Government are blamed for facts of life such as budget constraints, awkward choices and other decisions that are local government's responsibility—which responsible local government should be willing to exercise—is not only wearing thin in Dorset but is eroding local responsibility for local matters.
  Dorset county council has grievously disappointed those of us who support the extension of nursery schools. It rejected the opportunity to act as a pilot for the nursery school voucher scheme, which would have benefited many parents in Dorset. Some courage, some leadership, and a decision that was not entirely easy to make were required to grasp that opportunity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, vigilant as ever, and others of us arranged for a visit to Dorchester by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, so that we could explain the scheme and extend the time in which Dorset county council might have joined in. That visit was to no avail. The minds of council leaders were made up on the matter, and—on party political and doctrinal grounds—the parents of Dorset were denied that opportunity.
  As an hon. Member has already said, I hope that the county council will respond positively to applications for grant-maintained status where schools and parents wish it. I should like to add a bouquet here. There have, hitherto, been no grant-maintained schools in my constituency, but I am very pleased to say that Beaucroft school, in Colehill, which is doing a first-class job of educating children with special needs, has been granted that status. I am sure that the county council joins me in wishing it well on its independent status, which I have no doubt will be to the benefit of all its students.
  One of the county council's responsibilities is, of course, social services and therefore implementation of care in the community, which has had the support of all political parties and everyone involved in social services. The total amount available to spend on social services through the special transitional grant and standard spending assessment is £93.8 million in 1996–97, which is an increase of £7.285 million—or 8.4 per cent. in cash terms—on 1995–96. Budget cuts below that provided for through the SSA by central Government grant have been a major setback for Dorset social services.

  953
  The very large hike in charges for non-residential care has also given rise to substantial concern among disabled people and others affected. I have the greatest sympathy with the social services department, which is gamely trying to provide a service against the financial background provided by its political masters, but the way in which this matter has been handled has surely called into question responsibility for care in the community, and whether it would not be better handled by the Department of Health and general practitioners. I know that my hon. Friends may have more to say on that matter.
  As I said earlier, I am concerned about the future of highway maintenance in the county. Many of us take the view that the days of large-scale road construction in Britain are over, and that the traffic schemes we have must increasingly be sensitively handled and justified in terms of cost. Part of our approach to roads in future has to be a much greater analysis of how each road is used, and how—by controlling traffic flows, using traffic calming measures and in other ways—the use of each square foot of road can be maximised without the expense of new road construction. It makes no sense, however, to downgrade road maintenance in a way that threatens road transport in the county, which only serves to defer the financial bill, as some of us have already had to point out.
  I am glad that we have played some part in persuading the county council to consider traffic calming measures and a more sophisticated use of roads. I hope that those measures are developed in the future. I pay tribute to the county surveyor and his staff for their continuing dedicated work.
  I have mentioned the perennial wail of Liberal Democrats at county hall about Dorset county council's budget and its standard spending assessment. I know that the Minister will address that point in his reply, but I must say that—in the years in which the Government have rightly reigned back on their own and on local governments' expenditure—Dorset has, with one exception, been treated fairly.
  The SSA settlement for the current year was increased by 2.9 per cent., and the education component was increased by 4.8 per cent. I will not be alone in Dorset, certainly among hon. Members, in saying that I regard education expenditure as a very important priority.
  The exception, to which I referred a moment ago, is the way in which Dorset is affected as a result of the area cost adjustment factor in the SSA. The hon. Lady also referred to that. Although Dorset and adjoining counties to the west are excluded from any beneficial treatment, it is true that Hampshire to the east has benefited under the formula in a way that can hardly be justified in comparison with Dorset. I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Environment has asked for that factor to be investigated, and that the relevant team is due to report in June. I hope that some adjustment to the formula will result, and we anxiously await the outcome of that investigation.
  I hope that the present regime at county hall will carefully consider its planning responsibilities. As part of those responsibilities, I am aware that it is conducting a consultation on Dorset's structure plan, and that it has said, as a regional guidance figure, that about 63,000 more homes will be built in Dorset by the year 2016. It is quite
  954
  clear that that figure has been found as a result of a mechanical extrapolation of existing trends. It is far too high.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I must not shut out other hon. Friends, or I shall be lynched.
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has made it clear that he would like a debate to be held on the precise needs of each county, as well as an examination of the capability of each county to absorb increased development. I am pleased that he has also stated the aim that half of new developments should take place on existing developed land. I hope that that could be regarded as a minimum requirement in many parts of the country.
  I hope that the county council will try to assess properly the needs of the county, rather than swallow wholesale a figure arrived at mechanically, and then simply pass on responsibility for it to the Government. I expect, however, that it will do that. The greater say in local planning matters for which I and a number of my colleagues argued strongly in the past was not achieved in order to allow the county council to abandon responsibility for such housing figures. The people of Dorset do not want over-development of the county. They expect our precious environment to be respected and conserved, and so do I.
  It would be fair to summarise by saying that the current delivery of local government services in Dorset is a matter of concern to me and my constituents. One day, Dorset county will again have an excellent Conservative administration, as it enjoyed in the past, but until then I hope that hon. Members and county councillors of all parties can work together. I renew that wish, despite the criticisms I felt it right to make today.
  I hope that the Liberal Democrats who control Dorset county council will abandon partisan party politics for its own sake; consider the best interests of the people of Dorset; and have the courage to take the difficult decisions which are necessary to preserve the services that the people of Dorset deserve.
  10.22 am
  Mr. David Atkinson: I, too, welcome this timely opportunity to discuss local government in Dorset. As the House knows, the borough of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), together with the borough of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), who is present, are looking forward to becoming unitary authorities next year, to which elections will take place on 2 May.
  In our constituencies, there is near-universal acclamation at the prospect, now certain, of ending our direct relationship with county hall. We can then become responsible for our own destiny. The achievement of that break during the lifetime of this Parliament was one of the principal aims I set myself at the general election. That aim will now be delivered, despite the opposition of the Dorset county Labour party. Our constituents will applaud this Government for making it possible.
  In Bournemouth's case, the change represents a reversal of the injustice imposed in 1974 when it ceased to be a county borough council. We also lost our county,

  955
  Hampshire, and were moved into Dorset to underpin—that is, to subsidise—a predominantly rural economy. I am still receiving letters addressed to "Bournemouth, Hants", either as a result of continuing ignorance or in continuing protest.
  Even though Bournemouth did not choose to have its major services run by Dorset, I believe that it made every effort to make the new arrangements work. As we come to the end of our 23-year relationship with county hall, I hope that due tribute will be paid, as I pay it today, to all those who have represented Bournemouth and Poole for their contributions to the county of Dorset.
  Despite those contributions, however,it must have soon become clear that it would prove impossible to assimilate adequately the provision of services to the predominantly urban and expanding conurbations of Bournemouth and Poole with those of the predominantly rural county; and so it has proved. It has, however, only become apparent in more recent years that that credibility gap between county and district has widened, and certainly so following the election of a Liberal-controlled council in 1993, for the first time in the county's history.
  This winter is the first for three years that I, and I suspect all my Dorset colleagues, have not received waves of orchestrated letters from angry parents of primary school children complaining about overcrowded classrooms. They had every right to complain, as I saw for myself when I visited all the primary schools in my constituency in response to their letters. Of course we all pursued those concerns with Ministers, whose replies acknowledged the problem, but fairly pointed out that Dorset's SSA for education increased by 30 per cent. between 1991 and 1995—well above inflation. What has been the problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, with great assiduity, has exposed the fact that the cost of the provision of central services from county hall is at the heart of the problem. Dorset is spending £660 per pupil per year on county bureaucracy—far more than other shire counties.
  What cannot be challenged is that overcrowded classes in our primary schools represent a failure by the strategic authority—the county council—to match the provision of education with those planning permissions it has allowed, which has led to the increase in classroom populations. Yet it was the same county council which, 10 years before, closed down a much-loved school in my constituency, Beaufort, because it was surplus to requirements. Much of its site was sold for redevelopment.
  Another cause for concern that my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West and for Poole have asked me to raise is the continuing lack of speech therapy provision in Dorset's special schools, notably Winchelsea. I accept, of course, that the Health Commission is the providing authority. It seems that the local education authority and the Health Commission blame each other. It is hoped that the forthcoming reorganisation will produce a new determination to resolve that problem once and for all.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: No. I do not have much time, and I want to hear from other hon. Friends, the Opposition spokeswoman and the Minister.
  956
  In addition to primary school education, growing dissatisfaction has been expressed about the county-run library services in Bournemouth, because of reduced opening hours and threats to close down local libraries such as Springbourne and Strouden Park in my constituency.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) has said, undoubted dissatisfaction is felt at the dramatic increase in home help charges to the elderly and the housebound, particularly when it is realised that the county does not even spend its SSA-related grant for personal social services. There is also growing awareness of the dire consequences of the county's abandonment of the route that would have completed the link between our superb inner-urban highway, called Wessex way, from the east, with the equally good Dorset way, which leads to the west. I hope that the two new unitary authorities of Bournemouth and Poole will be able to rescue that completion as soon as possible.
  In the light of those experiences of a Liberal-run county council, it would be the greatest tragedy if, having once again become our own masters in Bournemouth, the Liberals were to be elected to run the new unitary authority in May. In that event, one would expect Bournemouth council, with a Liberal majority, to follow the official Liberal party policy. It is not awfully clear what that policy is, but I understand that the Liberals remain committed to a local income tax. That would mean that income tax payers would be taxed not once but twice, and someone at the town hall—it might be one's neighbour—would know all about our tax returns.
  The Liberals are also committed to higher income tax, so income tax payers would be not only paying twice, but paying more. That should come as no surprise, because, this year, Liberal-controlled councils have, on average, charged 20 per cent. more in council tax than Conservative-controlled councils. That is equivalent to an extra £112 on a band C house. The Liberals also want to get rid of the capping regime, so that they could spend even more than the Government allow them to spend at the moment.
  A Liberal-controlled council would be expected to follow official Liberal policy to abolish Bournemouth's grant-maintained schools—Bournemouth school for boys, Bournemouth school for girls, Avonbourne and St. Peter's in my constituency alone. They were good grammar and secondary modern schools before, but, as the league tables show, they have excelled since being free of bureaucratic LEA control.
  That, however, should come as no surprise, because, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer), when Bournemouth council fell under Liberal control in 1991, one of its first actions was to pass a resolution committing itself to end grant-maintained status for schools. Its policy was to end the assisted places scheme for children from poor backgrounds to obtain places in independent schools, about which the vicar of St. John's, Boscombe recently wrote to me to thank me on behalf of his daughter, who goes to Talbot Woods independent school.
  After our experience with Liberal-controlled Dorset county council, any prospect of Liberal councillors, supported by Labour colleagues, taking control of our new authority, whose budget will rise fivefold up to

  957
  £150 million, and of our good schools, social services, libraries and highways, horrifies me. It should horrify my constituents.
  The voters of Bournemouth will want to know the Conservative alternative for our borough's future. Having read our draft manifesto, they will not be disappointed. It represents a clear strategy for the future that will carry the support of residents and businesses. It emphasises that Bournemouth's future success, like that of its past, lies in the promotion of the quality and value for money of its attractions and services.
  My constituents will welcome the 10-point plan to make Bournemouth safer from crime and from the criminal, including more security cameras, crime prevention initiatives and an increase in the police presence on our streets. We know that, following the Prime Minister's announcement of 5,000 more police nationwide, Dorset will receive 66 extra police, on top of the 128 extra officers that it has had since 1979, but there is no reason why our chief constable cannot add to those. He now no longer needs Home Office approval. He will have more money to do so—there will be an increase of £4.1 million, or 6.2 per cent., next year—and he has scope to replace deskbound police with civilian staff.
  We all welcome the recent announcement that, thanks to our persistent representations, council tax payers will no longer contribute to the cost of securing party conferences in Bournemouth. All that is different from what is suggested by the Liberal Democrats in their current propaganda campaign. I quote from the so-called "Parliamentary Spokesman for Bournemouth East"—obviously the Liberal Democrats' candidate to challenge me at the next election, but I can understand why he does not want to say so. He says:
  "For years the government refused to allow Dorset Police any extra officers."
  We know that that is not true. He goes on:
  "Recorded crime is rising in Dorset according to Home Office figures."
  I hope that he will withdraw that statement in the light of yesterday's figures that, last year, recorded crime fell in Dorset as well as in the rest of the country.
  My constituents will welcome our Conservative manifesto commitment to improve standards in bedsits and hostels, the so-called houses in multiple occupation. I commend the Government on going further than they were originally prepared to go in the Housing Bill, which is before the House, to give town halls the powers they need to deal with the problems, which, if left unchecked, would have destroyed tourism in our town and, ultimately, the town itself.
  That will require, however, a council with the will and determination to use the new powers to their fullest extent to hold to account the seedy landlords and their organisations, so that it may remove this cancer from our midst. Only a Conservative council will do that. Our voters will respond to that message in particular.
  It will, I hope, be clear to my constituents that the outcome of the elections on 2 May will be crucial to Bournemouth's future. It was Conservative councillors who laid the foundations and built the Bournemouth of which we were proud. The past five years of Liberal
  958
  leadership, with Labour in support, have proved no better and, in many ways, much worse, as last week's Audit Commission report has shown. As our relationship with Dorset county council becomes history, I hope that our voters will have the good sense to return a Conservative council again, to take Bournemouth into the 21st century.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir H. Spicer) on securing this timely debate. I especially welcome the opportunity to nail once and for all the biggest lie in Dorset. That lie has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). It is that Members of Parliament for Dorset and the previous administration in county hall have not fought Dorset's corner. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I cast no aspersions on other people's ability to fight for Dorset, but any Member of Parliament who comes to this place knows that they represent their constituents, and that no one else will fight for a better share of national resources for Dorset. I therefore become angry when I read headlines trying to steal the thunder of Members of Parliament, all of whom have been in this place much longer than me and have done an extremely good job, constantly bringing to Ministers' attention what we need for our Dorset constituents.
  That should never remove from our minds the way in which we correctly use money in Dorset, and the fact that. throughout the decades, our officers have been extremely skilful in dealing with the low resources coming to Dorset. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned what good education we achieve with virtually the lowest spending on education. That must be reflected at the beginning of all our remarks. We must be proud of teachers in Dorset and of how they achieve value for money. Many people could learn front what we do in Dorset. We are proud of everything we do in our national health service and other such organisations. I hope that any robust comments I make should not reflect on the abilities of the people who work in those organisations.
  At our first meeting with the new administration, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the new chairman of the policies and resources committee came to see us in a spirit of co-operation. We had what seemed to be an extremely positive and sensible exchange of views. I did not agree with Councillor Trevor Jones's view that we would be wasting our time if we continued to press the Government on several issues. That was annoying.
  One of the issues was the area cost adjustment. Councillor Jones said that we had been banging on about it for many years, and that the Government simply would not listen. To a certain extent, we were becoming worried that that was true.
  Another issue was the funding of the police. At the meeting, he specifically said—I have noted it down; I was a little surprised—that we should concentrate on increasing the standard spending assessment for education and on other sectors, arid remove from our campaigning tactics the area cost adjustment and the funding of the Conservative conference for the police force. Councillors agreed, however, that we should still bang on about those issues and press the Government.
  The Government have now said—belatedly, but it is to be welcomed—that they are considering the area cost adjustment, and that a report will be published this

  959
  summer. I hope that the inequities of the policy will at long last be clear to everyone. It will be shown that area cost adjustments were a fiddle factor for high-spending inner-city authorities, and that the Labour party could not have continued such high spending if the authorities, especially those in London, had received only their fair share. It shows that the south-east has been receiving far too much of the national cake.
  Given what has happened, it has been difficult to get at the facts and figures of the low SSA, as newspaper headlines on the latest settlement have shown. The Government will know that Dorset has just received the best settlement ever. One only has to read Councillor Trevor Jones's speech to discover that that is exactly what he thinks. One headline said, however, that there would be £4.7 million-worth of cuts. The council came to that wonderful figure simply because it decided that it would like to increase its budgets across the board by 7 per cent., and when it received only an increase of 6 per cent., the difference was £4.7 million.
  Mrs. Maddock: Conservative Members seem to be afraid of facing the facts. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of Trevor Jones's excellent budget speech—I understand that Mr. Jones is yet to receive a reply from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to questions on some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised in the press that appear not to be quite right—all his Conservative colleagues said that, although the proposed budget was excellent, they were not prepared to vote for it, which is pretty poor, and that they sat on their hands? They did not propose another budget. I have yet to hear how Conservative Members think that all the wonderful services that they think are necessary should be paid for.
  Sir Jim Spicer: Just get on with your speech.
  Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) suggests that it would be a good idea if I got on with my speech and did not give way. It clearly would have been wise not to allow the hon. Lady her to make a fool of herself over that issue.
  We all know—I am glad that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) emphasised it—that this year Dorset county council received its best ever settlement. Despite that, it issued press releases saying that it was losing £4.7 million, and my constituents believed that all their services would be cut. Yet the truth is that budgets will increase by 6 per cent., which most councils would have been amazed to receive from the Government in such a tight spending round.
  Mrs. Maddock rose
  Mr. Bruce: If the hon. Lady can contain herself a little more, I shall try to explain exactly why it was so difficult to get to the truth about the county's financial arrangements.
  When Dorset received what we all agree was its worst settlement, we had great difficulty in understanding why, when the Government allocated only half the cost of the increase in teachers' salaries, the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council decided not to allocate even that amount to schools. It gave the schools zero per pupil from that amount. The newspapers then of course reported how terrible that was and advised people to write to all their lousy Conservative Members of Parliament about it.
  960
  At the end of that year, when we were looking for about £5 million to give to schools, we found that the county council had been able to put away, apparently in its back pocket, £10 million. Some people have been rather upset about my use of the word "filched" concerning that money, and I withdrew it in December in a letter to the chief executive.
  I should explain to hon. Members exactly what happened. I had the greatest difficulty understanding the reports on the county's funding. Although it said that it had been able to put £5.5 million in one year into its balances, I could not find the other £4.5 million that it claimed it had underspent. I wrote to the chief executive and received a rather interesting reply. Rather than what I had expected him to say—that the money was to be found in this fund or that—I was told:
  "The cost centre underspends in 1994–95 are not included in the general balances; as explained they are earmarked for spending in the current year and are playing a vital contribution to maintaining existing services."
  In other words, one can look as hard as one wants at the county's accounts and one will not find that money. How can councillors, Members of Parliament and head teachers put a case for funding to the county when money is hidden so well?
  I should like to turn to local government reorganisation, where I am afraid that again we find the Liberal Democrats' sleight of hand, at which they seem to be so adept. It is interesting that, when the county council suddenly changed its policy on the way in which the county should be divided, a campaign, financed at county hall, was launched to keep the county as one body, and resulted in the distribution of petitions, posters and all sorts of literature, which were so misleading it was unbelievable. The official line was in fact that the county should be split into three and that all the district councils should be retained.
  The House will be pleased to know that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Geoffrey Tapper, wrote to me when I made allegations about that campaign and passed them to the district auditor. He said on 29 April:
  "I shall not lie awake at nights worrying about the district auditor checking out your allegations."
  I hate to tell Geoffrey Tapper, but I spoke to the district auditor this morning and discovered that he will be having a meeting on 3 April with the county council's chief executive. That will give the council the chance to comment on the district auditor's report. I think that Geoffrey Tapper ought to start having a few sleepless nights.
  The allegations have been levelled not only by the Labour mayor of Dorchester and myself, but by many others. I discovered them at a dinner party where a lady arrived late because she had to load into her car all the material that was being produced and photocopied in county hall in order to spend the first few hours of the following morning passing the stuff out to all the education institutions. When I challenged the county council about whether such a practice was a proper use of council funds—I assumed that it must have voted on it—I was told that the cost had been absorbed in the budget. Which budget? It was of course the education budget, the one that was under such pressure that all the allocation could not be spent. We ought to find out what is going on.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch wanted to jump to her feet to challenge the fact that there have been fewer police officers recently, which is right. The reason for

  961
  that, however, is that, when the council became Liberal Democrat-controlled, it got rid in a by-election of Chips Selby-Bennett. who had been the biggest campaigner among the Conservatives for more bobbies on the beat.
  The Liberal Democrats attacked him on the premise that the Conservatives were not doing enough for the police, yet the first thing they did was pass an emergency budget to cut police spending. The proposal was sent off to the police committee, which was not Liberal Democrat-controlled and included magistrates and all sorts of other representatives. The committee of course threw out the proposal, and forced the council to think again and retain the Conservative commitment to spend an extra £2 million every year on policing.
  When the Government decided that policing should be funded separately, the county could still have allocated that £2 million to the police force if it had wanted to and if it had believed its own propaganda that was being sent out week after week. Of course it did not. It said that the funding was separate, and it was therefore able to dump it without being blamed. Press releases then said that the council had to get rid of some of its police officers. That is the sort of lie that we shall nail in this debate.
  We have heard a little about the European office. Does it cost £50,000? Does it cost £100,000? Direct costs may be about £50,000, but we would like to know all about the indirect costs of having officers in this country.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about a parish council asking, "Where can we get help?" Well, when I asked councillors from Weymouth and Portland council, which is not controlled by my party, how much help they got from the county council's spending on the office in Europe, they replied, "Nothing." They do not even know where it is, and have never had a report from it. Nor has any Member of Parliament. We have never heard anything from that office.
  I have told councils time and time again that we are allowed at least one free visit to Europe every year, and that we have an excellent Member of the European Parliament in Bryan Cassidy, who knows everybody. "Please use him," I say. Of course they do not, because that would not give them the headlines, or allow councillors to go and open offices and have freebies in Europe.
  Another forthcoming report suggests that we join yet another such organisation. That would be fine if it saved us money or got us more money, but if it does not, we must find out what is happening.
  I know that I am rapidly running out of time, but I must say something about waste disposal. In my constituency there is a site at Crossways, and I worked with local people who were upset about the life of that tip being extended. I also worked closely with the Liberal Democrats—they were in the Social Democratic party then—and the campaign was successful. It was fought on the planning issues, and the application was turned down, so we thought that there would be no tip there.
  Then the county spent a lot of money—about £1 million, I think—deciding on Holnest, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has mentioned. It spent that money producing a scheme that had the total support of all the political parties—until election time came round. Then
  962
  the Liberal Democrats went out and campaigned with other people, many of whom were Conservative supporters, against a tip at Holnest. They promised to dump the idea straight away and choose another type of waste removal.
  The council then decided on an incinerator, and even negotiated a contract with a company, which must have spent tens of thousands of pounds getting it organised, with details of the pricing for the incinerator and everything else. But of course, when a decision had to be made on the siting—the choice was between two sites in my constituency—the local people would not have it. Indeed, the local Liberal Democrats would not have it, either, and they campaigned against it. So that idea was knocked on the head. We are now back to Crossways.
  I know about the difficulties of waste disposal, and the county's problems. None the less, the Liberal Democrats cannot keep marching their troops up to the top of the hill, spending millions of pounds on plans and then, as soon as there is some resistance, saying, "Sorry, officers. Rip all that up and do something else." That is Liberal Democrats through and through. They are not willing to take difficult decisions; they just want to moan and tell people that it is somebody else who is stopping them spending the money.
  We were also told that, if the council were allowed a higher cap, it would not spend all the money. But needless to say, as soon as it was given a higher cap, it spent right up to the limit. I hope that we shall get some good news for Dorset from the Minister. He can rest assured that Conservative Members will ensure that any money is spent correctly.
  10.53 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Like everybody else, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) on securing the debate. I congratulate, too, my hon. Friends on having joined in, and, of course, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock).
  Today, a number of markers have been put down for local authorities, especially Dorset county council, which will be called upon to meet those targets—targets which in many ways it has set for itself. The hon. Member for Christchurch was to some extent trying to defend the indefensible—but we shall wait and see; the results will come forward.
  In defence of the council, the hon. Lady mentioned the Audit Commission report. I do not think that I have ever seen an Audit Commission report on a council that could not be called a curate's egg, so obviously she can pick out some of the nice bits and leave some of the more distasteful bits for other Members to ponder upon. I hope that they will do so.
  The hon. Lady also made comparisons of costs with other counties. That is difficult to do. As she will be aware, one must consider standard spending assessments and other factors, and also the nature of the other members of the family. Those factors alone are enough to suggest that savings would be available.
  The hon. Lady made the standard complaint about expenditure vis-a-vis Government expenditure. We must recognise that, as has been said, the SSA for the county increased by 2.9 per cent, its SSA for education rose by 4.9 per cent., that for the fire service by 9 per cent., and

  963
  the capping limit by 3.3 per cent. Those figures are not targets but ceilings, and I am sure that the county council could spend well within and below them.
  The other predominant factor in the debate was the result of the recommendations of the Local Government Commission. As has been said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered the commission's report and the representations that he had received, and on 21 March last year he announced his decision. He accepted the recommendation that there should be unitary authorities for Bournemouth and Poole, but decided that the rest of the county should remain with two-tier local government.
  As my hon. Friends have pointed out, that hybrid solution was promoted by the county council itself.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Paul Beresford: I have only about five minutes, and I have already cut my speech considerably. I shall just run through a few points.
  Mrs. Maddock: I realise that time is short, but to blame Dorset county council for what happened over local government reorganisation is amazing. It was a Government-inspired operation, and there was no agreement in Dorset among anyone—county council, district councils or Members of Parliament—about what should happen. In the end, we have all had to suffer a hybrid position that very few people wanted.
  Sir Jim Spicer: Who inspired it?
  Sir Paul Beresford: If the hon. Lady is having some problems with private grief over her own disabilities and so on, I shall leave her to struggle with it. The fact is that the hybrid solution was ultimately promoted by the county council. To my mind, that means that the county council must make it work.
  The order to make Bournemouth and Poole unitary was made on 11 July last year. All-out elections to those authorities will be held in May this year, and reorganisation will take effect on 1 April 1997.
  The county council has said that it is committed to carrying out a fundamental review of the division of functions and finances between the two tiers. As part of that service review, it proposes to delegate decision making and service delivery where appropriate, and carry out service audits jointly with the districts. It is committed to streamlining service provision in collaboration with the district and other councils. It also proposes sharing principles and objectives with the districts—for example, for trading standards and for libraries.
  964
  During the local government review, many local authorities made such undertakings. We made it plain that we expected local authorities not only to make such undertakings but to put them into practice.
  As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, I was at a conference on Monday at which the Local Government Management Board launched a report analysing the commitments given to the Local Government Commission during the review. The report shows that some authorities are putting their words into action and introducing many innovative improvements.
  On the other hand, it is clear that progress across England has been patchy. That is true not only of the nature and scale of improvements, but also of the range of people involved. Dorset was not one of the areas used as a case study, but there is some evidence of intentions, and we expect those intentions to be fulfilled.
  Mention has been made of costings, expenditure and the anticipated standard spending assessments of the authorities affected by reorganisation. The methodology for each service will be the same as it is now. Indicative 1996–97 SSAs will be available in May. That gives a short but physically possible time in which authorities can organise themselves.
  Of course, Government offices will be keeping watch over progress towards reorganisation date; their interest will be directed towards particular local authority services in which they have a special interest. However, it would be fair to say that we shall not see clearly how things are developing until after the elections to the unitary authorities in May. Indeed, the regulations placing powers and duties on authorities to prepare for reorganisation reserve much of the power to make policy decisions to the councillors who will be elected then.
  Apart from the Government office, the Audit Commission and the district auditors are in a unique position to see what is happening in each authority, and the Audit Commission has a statutory duty to promote efficient, effective and economic local government. Preparation for reorganisation and developing co-ordination and co-operation across the tiers form a part of the agenda.
  As authorities consider their performance, external auditors will be able to help councils assess how successfully they are working with each other and will suggest areas where improvements can be made. It is fairly obvious that my hon. Friends will also do exactly that. I encourage them to do so, because it will help decide whether their constituents are successfully served by their county councils or not. I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to put pressure on authorities, as they have done this morning.

  Swimming (Schools)
  10.59 am
  Miss Kate Hoey: I welcome the opportunity for a slightly longer debate than I had perhaps expected. Wednesday mornings are useful in that they provide time for the House to consider issues which do not necessarily hit the headlines but which are important to millions of people.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), is probably wondering what he is doing here. I could not see swimming mentioned anywhere in his job specification. That suggests that there is a problem with responsibility for the matter. I would have liked to debate swimming generally, but there was a problem with finding the appropriate Minister. I decided that I wanted to deal mainly with swimming in schools and the attitude of local authorities to the subject, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been chosen to reply.
  I would have liked the Minister with responsibility for sport to be here, but he might not have been able to answer the debate because the Department for Education and Employment is responsible. The situation is unclear, and the departmental cross-responsibility shows the need for co-ordination and strategy. Nevertheless, I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment. In all my dealings with him, he has been generous with his time and prepared to listen to arguments.
  I wish to start by dwelling on the importance of swimming. The ability to swim combines a worthwhile and pleasurable activity with a skill that could one day save a life. Not for nothing is swimming sometimes referred to as a life skill. It is also medically advantageous to general physical and mental health and it has special benefits for people with disabilities. It is a very fine way to establish mobility and a feeling of balance and control.
  The difference between swimming and other sports is that, as well as being a superb recreational activity, the ability to swim is a critical factor in reducing the risk of accidental death by drowning. Research among all age groups has shown that the risk of drowning is more significant for non-swimmers and in the 10 to 24-year-old age group non-swimmers were three and a half times more at risk than swimmers. That may seem a somewhat obvious point, but it is worth making.
  The debate is timely, as it follows the successful Olympic swimming trials at the Ponds Forge international pool in Sheffield last weekend. I congratulate the Amateur Swimming Association and its chief executive David Sparks on the organisation of the event. The trials involved choosing not only the teams for the summer games in Atlanta but the those for the Paralympics that will follow. This was a first in British sport in that both able-bodied and disabled athletes were selected at the same event.
  Most of the 28 members of the British team for the summer Olympics are young—the youngest, a 16-year-old, is still at school. Our team is in the top 16 in the world, and I am sure that we all wish them every success.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My question may be slightly apart from the main thrust of the debate, but does
  966
  the hon. Lady agree that we should send a message to the Amateur Swimming Association and to those who help fund the British Olympic team that getting the coaches of some of our major swimmers to join the coaching team would be of great advantage? It seems odd that coaches who help swimmers to get chosen for the team and to have a chance of winning a medal are denied the opportunity to accompany those swimmers.
  Miss Hoey: The hon. Member raises an important point. Anyone involved in competitive sport realises the importance of a coach to an individual athlete. The relationship of an athlete or swimmer in the team representing their country with their coach is crucial, and I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's comment to the ASA.
  The members of the Olympic team are the stars of today, but my research suggests that there is widespread concern about what is happening in schools and about how schools are teaching and providing opportunities to swim. In the 1980s, despite the undoubted link between swimming ability and safety, many schools and education authorities had no requirement at all for schools to provide swimming lessons. Although many authorities did bear the costs of pool hire, transport and the provision of instructors, and although many schools raised enormous amounts of funding for themselves, until recently there was no legal compulsion for swimming teaching to he provided by schools.
  The three national governing bodies for swimming—the Royal Life Saving Society, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English Schools Swimming Association—became so alarmed at the trend that they formed the Swim for Life campaign, with the aim of securing the teaching of swimming by all schools. In 1988 the campaign surveyed local authorities and schools and found that more than half had no clear policy on the teaching of swimming and that more than 80 per cent. of local authorities could not meet the three basic standards for the provision of swimming lessons: the meeting of charges for the children, the setting of a minimum swimming standard and the specification of the minimum number of lessons to be provided.
  A more recent survey by the Secondary Heads Association in the late 1980s confirmed that trend and showed that there had been a further reduction in the provision of swimming lessons. The survey showed that fewer than half the 11 to 15-year-olds had any curricular swimming whatsoever. The Swim for Life campaign lobbied for a swimming requirement to be included in the physical education section of the national curriculum and in 1991 it was successful. Here I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who promoted a private Member's Bill—of which I was a sponsor—to raise the awareness of the need for children to learn swimming at school.
  In response to a report by the national curriculum physical education working party, the then Secretary of State for Education—now Chancellor of the Exchequer—said:
  "I note the group's firm recommendation on swimming. This … would have serious practical implications for many schools. I shall need to consider them in the light of what you and those commenting on your report have to say about their feasibility."
  He added:
  "it is not part of the group's remit to make recommendations on the resources to be provided for PE. I would expect your recommendations to be realistically related to the general level of school funding which can reasonably be expected to be available."

  967
  At a conference organised by the Swim for Life campaign to discuss the resource implications of the working group recommendations, the then Sports Minister—the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—said:
  "Our concern has to be with resources, and whether all maintained primary schools would be able to deliver swimming lessons for all pupils."
  The right hon. Gentleman at least recognised the importance of swimming, but he was unwilling to give a firmer lead on behalf of the Government. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment who is to reply to today's debate is demonstrating his ambition to succeed his hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) and become the latest in a long line of Conservative Sports Ministers.
  All schools have been provided with a programme of study for swimming that should be taught during key stage 2—for pupils aged seven to 11. If a school chooses to do so, the programme can be taught during key stage 1—for pupils aged five to seven. The programme holds that children should be taught to develop confidence in the water; to rest in water, float and adopt support positions; to develop a variety of means of propulsion using either arms or legs, or both; to develop effective and efficient swimming strokes on front and back; to swim competently, unaided, at least 25 metres; and to practise and understand the skills of water safety and survival. Those proposals came into effect on 1 August 1994.
  A tremendous amount of good work is going on in the teaching of swimming in the United Kingdom and we must recognise that fact. A great number of teachers and various organisations are working on improving and disseminating best practice. The Physical Education Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland produced an in-service manual for teaching physical education, including swimming, at key stages 1 and 2 and is soon to launch a national postgraduate training programme for primary teachers who want to become curriculum specialists, in association with a network of university training providers throughout the United Kingdom. I congratulate Peter Harrison and his colleagues at the PEA on the work that they do.
  The Amateur Swimming Association rightly regards education as a vital part of the job of the national governing body for swimming and invests heavily to ensure that there is an education programme for pupils, teachers and coaches. It will be doing a lot more. It has already provided some training for 17,500 swimming teachers and coaches in 1993–94, it issues 1.5 million incentive awards per year and it became the first national governing body to introduce national vocational qualifications into teaching and coaching. Good work is going on, but without a central commitment from the Government, it will not stretch to every school in the land.
  The regional sports councils for greater London and the south-east region have adopted swimming as what they call a focus sport and will be devoting officers and resources to developing the sport in the next three years. The London regional sports council points out, however, that provision for children with disabilities is patchy and in many cases tuition is not being delivered by appropriately qualified teachers. Where children with disabilities are integrated into mainstream education, problems are often exacerbated by the fact that teachers are unaware of and unqualified to deal with the needs of
  968
  such children. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the situation in relation to young children with disabilities and how he feels that that aspect of swimming is working throughout the country.
  The National Union of Teachers and other teachers' unions have taken a great interest in swimming. Doug McAvoy, the general secretary of the NUT, commented:
  "There is a much heavier burden of responsibility on teachers who undertake to teach swimming or act as a lifeguard".
  Obviously, the responsibilities placed on teachers when young children take part in any activity involving risk are greater. Unfortunately, we have seen the demise of county and local authority advisers; swimming and physical education advisers of that sort no longer exist. Greater responsibility has therefore been placed on professional associations such as the PEA to provide the training.
  There seems to be a tremendous variation between how much different local education authorities and schools spend on swimming. For the year 1992–93, approximately half the LEAs in England and Wales delegated swimming budgets to schools. According to the NUT, of those LEAs which retained swimming budgets centrally, to ensure that provision was made for school swimming, the amount varied between 26p and £17.20 per pupil. That is a very big difference and I should like the Minister to comment on the variation in the cost of swimming in different parts of the country. Does he really feel that 26p is adequate? Perhaps he does. Will he also comment on the huge disparity in provision?
  The pattern is for new swimming pools to be designed as leisure pools, which seek to mimic the seaside with wave machines and water slides—fun activities and all very commendable—but according to the Sports Council only 28 pools in London meet the recommended dimensions for a learner pool. In addition, there are apparently 66 indoor pools which are adequate even if they are not quite the right length or width. Although young children enjoy leisure pools, it is difficult to learn to swim in one.
  The Institute of Swimming Teachers and Coaches—another commendable organisation—has produced a good and thorough statistical report on swimming provision in schools. I commend it to the Minister and to colleagues—I presume that the Minister will have seen it. The work done by Colin Lee, the consultant, shows that, despite the inclusion of swimming in the national curriculum, less than half the infant, junior, primary, first and middle schools that he surveyed provided swimming weekly throughout the year for any given age range. Only one in 20 of the schools provided weekly swimming for pupils over more than four years at school.
  The Amateur Swimming Association tells me that a school swimming pool in Dudley, which was recently refurbished, is not being used as the school has no funds to run the heating system. The ASA says that there are similar problems throughout the country and it is hearing more and more reports of local authorities making substantial cuts—there have been cuts in swimming in Cambridgeshire, restrictions in Derbyshire, constraints in Hertfordshire and two schools in Warrington have abandoned swimming completely. I ask the Minister whether anyone really knows how varied swimming provision is throughout the country. Whose job is it to monitor that?
  The survey of 741 schools by the Institute of Swimming Teachers and Coaches showed that in 84 per cent. of cases children had to travel so far to a pool

  969
  that some form of coach transport was necessary. Public transport was not always possible. The increasing cost of coach travel, set against ever-increasing demands on the delegated school budget under local management of schools, is having an obvious effect. When new regulations on coach travel and seat belts come into effect this year, schools which were able to fill up a coach by transporting three very young children on two full-sized adult seats may find that they need a second coach, doubling the cost and forcing the school to reconsider the position.
  While I welcome a campaign for additional safety measures in the transport of young people—there was a particularly horrific accident involving a cadet troop from my constituency several years ago—I regret that the additional costs of the safety measures may ultimately cost lives because fewer children will learn to swim. I do not want to be alarmist, but I mention that fact to see whether the Minister has thought of it and whether there is any suggestion that local authorities and schools may be able to recoup some of the extra costs that they may have to bear to transport children to go swimming because of the safety measures.
  The survey also found that in 63 per cent. of cases parents were asked to contribute to the cost of coach hire for swimming lessons. That does not happen in other countries, where it is taken as a right that, if a school provides for children to go swimming, the parents do not have to pay. A further 59 per cent. of parents covered by the survey were asked to pay in part for the swimming instruction. That is all very well in some areas of the country and, indeed, in some schools—many parents will do their utmost to ensure that their child has the opportunity to participate in many non-curricular activities—but it is wrong if parents are being asked to contribute to paying for something that is part of the national curriculum and is meant to be happening in schools, particularly primary schools.
  It is worth briefly comparing our commitment with the action of other countries. In France, a comprehensive swimming instruction programme has been matched with a drive ever since the 1960s to build hundreds of extra 25 m pools and provide excellent teacher's guides. In Germany, every school leaver will have received three years of swimming teaching at no cost to the family. In Holland, I understand that swimming lessons are offered across the board in school time for children aged seven and over with nationally-applied qualifications for swimming teachers and a standard test of swimming ability for children. In London, there are 47,000 people per swimming pool against 18,000 in Berlin and 15,000 in Paris.
  The survey's most disappointing result was that only one in five teachers or parents teaching swimming in schools had swimming teaching qualifications. How can that be allowed? How can we claim to take the teaching of swimming in schools seriously if the Government have no central plan to tackle the swimming teacher shortage? It is not enough to have people, however enthusiastic, teaching swimming classes, even if they are lifeguard trained, if they do not now know how to teach swimming and promote stroke stamina.
  970
  When I trained as a physical education teacher, physical education was an arduous three-year course and swimming was a very important part of it. I know how much stamina and strength are needed to qualify as a swimming teacher. The matter has not been treated seriously enough by local authority education departments or by some schools.
  Another side effect of the resource implications of Government restrictions has been that some local authorities have been forced to put their leisure centres out to contract. That is not necessarily always a bad thing, but as the balance sheet mentality takes over, more leisure centres feel the pressure to charge more to schools for lessons and to consider different sorts of clientele who can pay more for the use of the facilities. That is affecting schools and the school use of swimming pools.
  In my constituency, Steve White, a very good head of physical education at Charles Edward Brooke school, has been telling me how difficult it is to hire swimming pools even if schools have the money. There is far less opportunity to hire time in a swimming pool when it is free of other users. Children are taken to swimming pools that the public are using. That can make the proper teaching of swimming difficult.
  If the Minister is serious about ensuring that proper attention is paid to swimming in schools, we need more information. Perhaps he will agree to commission the Institute of Swimming Teachers and Coaches to carry out a nationwide study to give us the national picture.
  I am a long-time supporter of the national lottery, which has had some positive effects. To date, it has offered funding to 43 swimming applications, almost exclusively for new pool developments, out of a total of 1,027 grants across all sports. Swimming has received £42 million, which is 23 per cent. of the £179 million paid in lottery awards by the Sports Council. The average award is £970,000 per pool because of the high capital cost.
  Of the 43 successful swimming applications, only five involve school pools. That is a problem because the more schools that have their own pools, even if they are small, the more travelling costs are cut and the easier it is for schools to have swimming as a genuine part of their curriculums. I know that the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the problem that applications for lottery funding must have a certain amount of other money. The small number of school-related grants is partly because there have not been many applications from schools because of the various difficulties and restrictions on application. I hope that the Minister will consider that and have a word with the Secretary of State.
  I have a good new idea that would change the face of swimming in London. Hon. Members may have seen in the Evening Standard a couple of weeks ago the announcement of plans to build a lido swimming pool floating on the Thames near the House of Commons on the opposite side of the river. It would be beside Gabriel's wharf in the Waterloo area. It would be called the Thames Lido and is being promoted by the excellent Coin Street Community Builders in my constituency and has been designed by Lifschutz Davidson. It proposes not only to tackle the lack of swimming provision in the north of my constituency and the London borough of Southwark but to consider ways of making swimming imaginative and

  971
  interesting. It may have a roof that could move back and forth so that people can swim throughout the winter. People would have the feeling that they were swimming in the river as they would be in the river, but not in river water—not many people would want to swim in the Thames.
  I hope that the proposal will succeed. National lottery funding will be crucial, but we are clear that if it is to happen there will have to be an arrangement whereby local schools and communities will have the opportunity to use the pool to learn to swim and to have their classes. There is a dearth of swimming pools in the borough of Lambeth and across the northern part of south London.
  I have mentioned the English Schools Swimming Association, but there is another good organisation that works in London—the London Schools Swimming Association. Brenda Sullivan is its long-time secretary and it recently held an anniversary celebration that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and I attended. I give his apologies as he is serving on the Noise Bill Committee this morning. I am supposed to be in that Committee, too, but he has stayed there as he is promoting the Bill. I know of his interest in swimming.
  The London Schools Swimming Association does an enormous amount to maintain swimming galas and competitions, despite all the difficulties. It, too, has called attention to the shortage of pools, the insufficient training of teachers and volunteers and the growing costs of transport. On the restriction to key stage 2 of a definite requirement for swimming in the national curriculum, Brenda Sullivan comments:
  "It appears that many secondary school children do not have swimming lessons unless they have a school pool."
  We know how few schools in the maintained sector have swimming pools. It is interesting that few of the fee-paying schools for which parents pay a lot of money do not offer swimming pools—usually indoors, which is even better. The independent sector, where people are prepared to pay lots of money, regards swimming as important. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that as many schools as possible have ready access to swimming pools.
  Brenda Sullivan stresses that more has to be done to encourage school competitions, which used to be more regular. When schools compete together in a friendly way, they learn the benefits of competition. They learn how to lose and win properly. I am afraid that such competitions no longer happen in the way that they used to. There may be many reasons for that, but crucially, schools do not have the opportunity, within the tight restrictions of curriculum and costs, to stage activities that are not clearly related to the curriculum but that give the benefits of swimming to children in a fun way.
  The London Schools Swimming Association is concerned that children are simply struggling through their 25 metres. If children cannot swim with confidence and with stamina, the lessons must continue. Does the Minister realise that in many cases, once children can swim 25 metres with difficulty, that is their last opportunity to take swimming lessons? Primary schools are relieved to have fulfilled that part of the national curriculum and, because of other restrictions, they stop providing swimming lessons. Therefore, many children do not have the opportunity to swim throughout their primary schooling.
  972
  There is more involved than simply the ability to swim—although that is important. Stamina and confidence while in the water are not achieved by attending the two or three lessons that will get children through their 25 metres. Roger Millward of the Swimming Teachers Association tells me
  "the general feedback from our members is that due to strict budgets swimming is severely curtailed and either not enough time has been allocated to this sport within the academic year which makes it difficult to provide a continuous, progressive teaching system, or alternatively the absolute minimum is achieved and then the lessons stop."
  Primary schools in my constituency take varying approaches to swimming. Sometimes it is only the children in their final year who receive swimming lessons and sometimes it is the top two classes. Some schools are committed to teaching swimming, despite all the difficulties, and all the children in those schools swim every week.
  Walnut Tree Walk primary school in my area is absolutely convinced of the importance of swimming—not just for safety reasons, but in view of the health aspects and the comradeship associated with a worthwhile activity that everyone enjoys—and it ensures that every child at the school takes swimming lessons every week. That imposes a massive burden on the school in terms of transport costs and time. All the children are transported by coach to the pool in Clapham, they spend only a short time in the pool and then have to travel back to the school. The activity also takes a number of teachers away from the school.
  I believe that swimming is a valuable activity and that all schools should receive assistance to allow every child—like those at Walnut Tree Walk—to take swimming lessons. At present, it is pot luck whether primary schools in my constituency and across the country are able to provide such opportunities.
  A number of problems need urgent attention. Does the Minister accept that, in view of the obviously sketchy provision of swimming teaching across the country, someone should take a definite lead? I am not quite sure which Government Department will take the lead, as the activity crosses the boundaries of responsibility for schools, local authorities and sport generally. How can schools do their job and take their responsibilities seriously if the national curriculum, and the Government's checking and monitoring of it, fail to ensure that teachers are adequately prepared? That is crucial to organising the proper teaching of swimming in our schools.
  The Physical Education Association, which seeks to maintain standards in physical education teaching, has said that a postgraduate student undertaking the general postgraduate certificate course can spend as little as 12 hours per year on the whole subject of physical education, of which swimming is just a part. The PEA recommends that all generalist primary teachers should devote a minimum of 60 hours initial teacher training to physical education. In my view that is not enough, but I am perhaps slightly biased in that regard. We must also provide career-long training for teachers by significantly increasing the funding for in-service teacher training. It is no wonder that there are reports of teachers who cannot swim conducting swimming lessons.
  Swimming is one of the main recreational activities in the United Kingdom. It is ranked second in the top 10 sports for men and women, according to the 1990 general

  973
  household survey. The increase in adult swimming has shifted the balance in pool use. Whereas children once outnumbered adults at swimming pools by three to one, the figure has now reached parity as more adults and fewer children swim. The sex ratio has also changed: indeed, it has been reversed: there are now three women swimming for every two men.
  Throughout the country, there is a piecemeal and arbitrary approach to swimming training. There is no national strategy. No Government Department is taking responsibility or showing leadership. The practices of local authorities and schools differ widely, and it is important to know exactly what is going on. I do not think that we have that knowledge at present. Apart from the surveys which have been crucial in raising certain issues, much of the evidence is anecdotal. Does the Minister agree that there should be an annual statement to Parliament about the status of swimming in our schools? Swimming is part of the national curriculum, but it requires different resources which are not provided in the classroom. Will the Minister comment on that?
  I urge the Government to do more to encourage all schools to provide swimming lessons. They should not try to get away with doing as little as possible, but should ensure that swimming is an important part of the teaching curriculum. It is a life-saving activity which brings enjoyment and is good for the country generally. If the Minister cannot comment on particular points that I have raised this morning, I ask him to refer them to whoever has the relevant responsibility within his Department.
  11.36 am
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) for introducing the debate and for paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who has also been involved in Swim for Life. The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the benefits of research and the importance of enthusiasm. She made the sensible suggestion that we should debate the matter again in a year to see whether the situation had improved.
  There are one or two ways to monitor progress. First, we should examine the number of applications for new swimming pools, not just from the independent sector—where, as the hon. Lady said, swimming is considered to be important—but from private leisure companies, which make their facilities available to schools, and for lottery funding. It is clear that one of the tasks of the millennium fund should be to ensure that, within three or four years, all children can expect to have access to a swimming pool that is located a convenient distance from their school. That will not necessarily apply to the children on Rathlin island, but at least their families will introduce them to swimming. In every conurbation—whether it is a large village, small town, London borough or municipal district—people should say, "We deserve to have, and we shall work to make, a swimming pool available to us—preferably within walking distance."
  In addition to the points raised by the hon. Lady. there is the question of providing worthwhile activities for young people. More adults are swimming today because they learned to swim while they were young. Imagine what it must be like for 10-year-olds or 12-year-olds who
  974
  live in an inner-city or suburban area. What are their worthwhile activities after school, at weekends or during the holidays?
  I know that hon. Members too often fall into reminiscences, but swimming was almost the only thing that I was any good at when I was that age. I used to walk around the corner to the swimming pool in Chelsea Manor street. When our children were young, they were fortunate to attend a primary school whose headmaster, Mr. Mudge, was very keen on swimming and where every child learned to swim as a matter of course.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall paid tribute to the London Schools Swimming Association. Inter-school swimming galas, which involved primary schools in the local area, meant that there was an expectation that people would not just learn to swim but would participate in competitions and lose—as in politics—and their parents would be involved with after-school swimming in addition to, rather than in substitution for, what happened during the school day. The primary school had a small and overcrowded playground, and swimming was the one way the children could participate in an activity, have fun and do well.
  When I lived in the hon. Lady's constituency, I used the swimming pools at Stockwell Manor and at Clapham Manor on the weekends, but they were not sufficient, and Elephant and Castle was quite a journey—it was necessary to go by bus or by' train. Young people deserve to have a way of letting off steam, at a cost they can afford and within a distance that it is safe for them to travel. They are the challenges. In a year's time, I would like the Minister who responds then to say how it will move forward.
  In my view, it is not only the responsibility of central Government to make it all happen; parents and teachers associations, and residents and tenants groups should put it on their agendas as well. People should be saying with pride, in public, what they have managed to achieve or what they take for granted for themselves. There is an old Malaysian poem—which I can now only remember in English—which goes like this:
  "The turtle lays a thousand eggs
  and no one is the wiser;
  The hen lays a single one
  but is a worldwide advertiser."
  If people can he as proud of their development of swimming as they are of their local theatre or their local sports stadium, swimming will get the prominence that it deserves, which will lead to progress. Obviously, the pinnacle of swimming is the Olympic games. I was glad to hear the hon. Lady refer to the selection for the Paralympics as well as for the able-bodied Olympics.
  Swimming is an activity where, in effect, people become equal—the water has the same effect on bodies whether they are fully able or disabled, whether they are elderly, young or somewhere in between. Swimming is not like a game of squash—if one is slightly better than someone else, one does not have a game and one does not have much fun. Everyone can share in swimming and it is not always competitive or for toning up one's body; it provides a whole range of activities, from the incidental to the purposeful.
  The hon. Lady will agree that swimming is the key to other sports. For example, people cannot go canoeing, rowing or sailing without being able to swim. Swimming

  975
  is the key in the growth of water-based sports. One need only go to the Westminster boating base at Plimlico, opposite Dolphin square, to see how young people in an inner-city area get the benefit of the leadership of Robin Turner and his team and get involved in activities that develop confidence and competence and are likely to be the key to other worthwhile activities.
  Our problem in this country is not about the people who fail in any way—they may get into trouble once or twice with the law or they may fail an examination; those things are fairly normal. Our problem is about people who never experience success—they do not start to accumulate the badges saying that they have gone from the bronze, to the silver, to the gold, from this standard to the next standard in life saving or in swimming. People who are involved in the organised chaos of youth activities—such as the woodcraft folk, the scouts, the brownies, the boys' brigade, et cetera—take it for granted that they will start to accumulate recognition for short-term achievements that become cumulative.
  Virtually all hon. Members participated in worthwhile activities when they were young and they thought it was normal to do things, whether they were paid for it or not, that lead to association with others and to the feeling that they could contribute more.
  I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all the teachers who take the swimming instructors' qualifications. She is right in saying that the swimming instructors organisation should have some public funding and should conduct a survey to find out what is being achieved, what proportion of schools have the required number of teachers with the qualifications and what could be done—not just in teacher training courses but in various ways—to encourage people to develop themselves and achieve the extra qualifications. Perhaps teachers should receive extra financial recognition if they go beyond the normal school day in providing leadership and training to young people.
  A number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate—I am glad to see that there is able representation on both Front Benches. There is much to be said about other pastimes and other sports, but swimming provides an easy opportunity for people to do something—whether organised, with friends or alone—that is healthy, gregarious and stops them from becoming couch potatoes. There is a lot to be said about video games and skills with interactive media, but it ought to be combined with swimming—which many hon. Members have taken up, whether it be at 4 Millbank or elsewhere.
  I conclude by making a positive suggestion to people around the country: they should invite their Member of Parliament and their councillors to come to their primary school and spend half a day going out with a swimming class or hearing why swimming is not possible in that school. Once Members of Parliament are exposed to that—perhaps once a year—the level of support in the House will drive forward and others will be able to share in what many of us have enjoyed, which is what the Government and the sports authorities want to achieve.
  I fear that we will not have a parliamentary swimming championship this year—I do not think I have won it for the last 10 years, but I have been in training. If hon. Members want to find a way to put it on, I challenge any Member of this House or the House of Lords and I shall see whether I can get back to the pinnacle of success that I experienced when I was young.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Tim Devlin: My contribution to the debate will have to be brief as I am serving on a Committee upstairs—I ran down to the Chamber when I saw the debate on the monitor. This is an important subject. I declare an interest—following on from the interesting contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—in that I am one of those people who started off with the bronze swimming award when I was about nine, and I then got the silver and the gold; I became an instructor for the Amateur Swimming Association; and I became an instructor and then an examiner for the Royal Life Saving Society.
  Swimming is an important part of my life now and it always has been. At one time, I swam at county level—sadly, not for Yorkshire where I now live, but for what was part of the Greater London council. The boys with whom I swam throughout my childhood enjoyed the activity. I then went on to work for the Thames rescue service in the school holidays. I have also worked as a lifeguard in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees at Thornaby swimming pool, which is in my constituency, and at Stockton swimming pool, which is just outside my constituency boundary. They are both good facilities for swimming—and they have recently been refurbished.
  Many hon. Members campaigned for swimming to be part of the national curriculum. We recognise just how important it is that every child learns to swim, not just from the point of view of personal safety—although that is critical—but from the point of view of giving young people the ability to express themselves in another way, to develop their bodies and their physiques, and to enjoy themselves. I have always found swimming to be a tremendously enjoyable experience. I still enjoy swimming and I very much enjoy taking my young nephews and nieces swimming and teaching them to do it properly, which their parents have not done—I hope that they do not read Hansard.
  It is important that children learn to swim properly. The school competitions, which were mentioned earlier, are important in developing swimming as a sport. Like everyone else in the country, I enjoy it when our athletes come back from the Olympic games with a handful of gold, silver and bronze medals—and I hope that in due course they come back from the Olympic games with some swimming medals.
  Given that swimming is in the national curriculum, it is critical that we ensure—and we have a national strategy to ensure—that it is properly taught in schools and that every child has access to a proper swimming pool.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) made a forceful and persuasive speech, much of which I agreed with whole-heartedly. The Government should introduce a proper strategy for the provision of swimming pools across the country so that they are within easy reach of all our schools. The Government should use more of the national lottery funds which have become available for that project. At the moment, we divide national lottery money into chunks for national heritage, the millennium, and so on, and then offer it around to various organisations. Unfortunately, because the amount raised from the national lottery has grossly exceeded our expectations, there is a significant problem throughout the country of matching funding.

  977
  In my constituency, we are requesting a national lottery grant to build a swimming pool at Yarm and we are having the devil's own job to assemble the money from other sources to meet the matching funding requirement. That is not just a problem for swimming pools and sports facilities; it is a problem everywhere. Another isolated example—as some London Members of Parliament are aware—is that of Sadler's Wells. The large redevelopment of the Sadler's Wells theatre in Islington will not happen unless it is able to raise some £19 million privately. The Royal Opera house has the same problem, as do all the other arts and sports facilities. They are now beating a path to the doors of the major corporate donors—the large oil companies, insurance companies, chemical companies and the banks. The same people are always being asked to hand out money on a private basis to swimming pools, theatres, playhouses, activity and outdoor centres and the whole run of worthwhile facilities that could be funded by the national lottery except that we insist that 50 per cent. of the funds have to come from the local community.
  In the northern region, we have had applications for millennium funds for all sorts of daft schemes. Last week, I was sent something called "Bridging the Millennium". Some genius had come up with the idea of building a footbridge over every river in the northern region and calling it a millennium bridge, to soak up some millennium money. That would be paid for by 50 per cent. from the lottery and 50 per cent. from local authorities, which already have great problems with their spending requirements. The suggestion is ludicrous. If we have the sort of money that means that people have to think up daft schemes to soak it up, perhaps we should return to the originating legislation and reconsider.
  Perhaps we should have a strategy for the whole country to have a swimming pool within a certain distance of so many people in the local population. That project could be funded by, say, 75 or 80 per cent. from national lottery funds. We could also consider endowing those facilities for the long term. It is no good giving a large dollop of capital to a local authority to build a swimming pool and then not giving it the money to run the facility. In Stockton-on-Tees now, we have a newly refurbished swimming pool at Thornaby in my constituency and we have recently switched over to the unitary authority of Stockton borough council, which is trying to find ways to reduce expenditure. It has turned immediately to leisure facilities as something that it is not statutorily forced to deliver; therefore, it has discussed the possibility of closing our newly refurbished swimming pool. That is absolutely crazy.
  If we are serious about delivering swimming to every part of the population, especially our young people—I hope that we are serious—we will have to rethink. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment that the system is not working well at the moment.
  I fully endorse what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said about the need for school pools. School pools can often be advantageously shared with the local community. Just outside my constituency, a school in Stokesley has a large pool which is shared with the local community as a community centre for leisure and recreation. It is available out of school hours to the local population and is
  978
  extremely popular. I do not see why such a facility cannot he put in place in more communities in the north of England and in the country generally.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: If I had known of my hon. Friend's qualifications, I would have delayed my speech because he has more expertise than I have on this subject. He has referred to Yarm and Stokesley. What are their populations? I suspect that many of us who represent inner-city areas would dream of having two or three swimming pools in our constituencies, let alone in good-sized towns. Does my hon. Friend also accept that it might make sense for lottery funding to be available for a pool partly funded by a commercial partnership if a good proportion of the pool's availability were dedicated to schools and other community groups?
  Mr. Devlin: The population of the borough of Stockton is about 175,000. It has three swimming pools—at Billingham, Stockton and Thornaby. The population of Yarm is about 12,000 and it is a large and affluent community. It also has a large rural hinterland which it serves as a market town. It used to be the northernmost market town of north Yorkshire. In a survey that we conducted recently in my constituency, one message came back loud and clear about leisure facilities—if we were to build anything for the population, they wanted more swimming pools.
  I am aware of the problems of swimming in urban areas such as Eltham and Vauxhall. I went to prep school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and we swam at the Ladywell baths in Lewisham. I do not know if that facility still exists, but we certainly enjoyed it at the time.
  We must have a strategy. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we should have a formula so that everyone has a swimming pool somewhere in the vicinity. People should not have to travel large distances just to go swimming. There are private examples of just how popular an initiative that would be. I do not know if it is the same in London, but in the north of England many new leisure clubs—privately funded and developed—have sprung up. They include swimming pools, saunas, gymnasiums and jacuzzis, and people pay a subscription to use the facilities. Those clubs are usually quite expensive, but they are heavily patronised and many have waiting lists. If that is what people will use when they can afford it, we can be absolutely sure that they would use it if they could not afford it.
  We should be providing such facilities on a publicly funded basis. That would be something useful we could do with lottery money instead of looking around for schemes that people do not want. There is no demand in Teesside for either of the millennium bids that have been put forward by the borough council and the Teesside development corporation. We must identify what people want and try to provide that, rather than think up some whizzo scheme and tell people that that is what they want.
  In Teesside, we have recently developed an excellent new canoeing course in the centre of Stockton and Middlesbrough. It is the biggest white-water canoeing course in the country and is rapidly becoming the national centre for canoeing and white-water rafting. It is an entirely artificial construction and it is a wonderful facility, but it is amazing that many of the people who

  979
  could use it, including teenagers, are not equipped with the swimming skills that would enable them to rescue themselves from a difficult situation. We must try to put the horse in front of the cart, and not the other way around, when we consider this subject.
  11.58 am
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on winning the ballot and raising this important subject—a topic in which she and many other hon. Members take a great interest. Those who have spoken since she made her speech will agree that she talked a great deal of common sense and asked the Minister some informed questions. I hope that he will respond to them and to the points made in the excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin)—particularly the latter's point about matching lottery funding. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic. [Interruption.] We fully understand why the hon. Member for Stockton, South must now return to his duties upstairs; I just wanted to let him know that his speech was appreciated.
  It will not require much effort to convince hon. Members who are present of the value to health of swimming. In my book it is of greater importance to physical development than almost any other sport. It exercises the whole body and is virtually free of the risks of injury. The hon. Member for Eltham eloquently stressed that point.
  One of our greatest international swimmers, Sharron Davies, drew attention to the importance of swimming when she said:
  "Swimming is one of the best sports for promoting all-round fitness, suppleness and endurance. So if you are going to start with developing some sports then maybe swimming is one that you should always put in the forefront."
  Those were wise words. It is only a pity that the Government have not been as keen in this respect as Sharron Davies or the hon. Member for Eltham.
  Many hon. Members will remember only too well the last time this issue was seriously addressed in this place. That was in 1991, when the House was considering the position of swimming in the national curriculum. For hon. Members who were not here at the time, I shall briefly outline the events that led to its statutory inclusion in the curriculum for children up to the age of 11. At the beginning of 1991 the interim report of the national curriculum working group on physical education recommended that all 11-year-olds should be able to swim 25 m and have a sound knowledge of basic water safety skills. The report concluded:
  "Swimming was too important to leave to chance and should be an entitlement for all young people under the national curriculum."
  The group reached this decision after some startling research by the Swim for Life campaign. It showed that, in the preceding three years, 200 children under the age of 15 had drowned; 80 per cent. of them could not swim. At the time, it was estimated that, with proper targeting of existing facilities and resources, it would cost the Government a paltry £5 million to teach all 10-year-olds to swim. Surely that was a small price to pay when counted against hundreds of schoolchildren's lives.
  The Government, however, were not convinced. So there began a long campaign by hon. Members of all parties—this is truly an all-party issue, as the debate has
  980
  shown—and a number of us tabled questions and motions. We introduced ten-minute Bills; we took delegations to see Ministers. Finally, the Government agreed to our minimum demands, but they also stipulated that there was no point in placing a requirement on schools which they could not meet because of financial shortcomings.
  The Government appeared to accept the need for more funding when the then sports Minister, the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), said:
  "We simply cannot impose a duty on schools which they are unable to deliver."
  Unfortunately, this is another promise on which the Government have reneged. We are left with the classic Catch-22 paradox: schools are required by law to teach swimming to a certain standard but are prevented from doing so by a lack of central funding.
  The most comprehensive research carried out since then is damning in its criticism of the state of swimming in schools. In 1994, the Institute of Swimming Teachers and Coaches published a survey of swimming in 741 primary schools. The survey found that the average time primary school children spent in the water was less than 27 minutes a week. In addition, the report found that, in almost 40 per cent. of schools, parents paid all the costs of swimming—pool hire, entrance fees, instructors' fees and so on—and that only 20 per cent. of instructors possessed a recognised swimming teaching qualification. That is a scandalous state of affairs.
  The report reached four conclusions. First, the
  "time allocation is gradually being reduced".
  Secondly,
  "current funding levels are inadequate".
  Thirdly,
  "a serious lack of suitably qualified personnel are involved in the teaching of swimming".
  Finally,
  "there is significant over-reliance on parental financing of existing provision".
  This is a damning indictment of the Government's record on swimming in schools. Learning to swim is, in effect, being privatised. Whereas once this necessary and social activity was provided free in schools by local education authorities, parents now increasingly pay for their children's swimming education out of school hours.
  I obtained my one mile certificate at school at the age of 12 or so as part of my general physical education. It is a great shame that, because of the Government's cuts, youngsters nowadays have less opportunity to complete such achievements at school.
  The Government say that they are concerned about the state of sport in schools, but where are the references to the vital role of swimming in the school curriculum in their policy statement "Raising the Game"? I could find no mention of it even though I have scoured the document many times. Labour would like more support given to swimming for children of all ages. At the moment, the statutory requirement is only to teach 11-year-olds to swim 25 m. After that, swimming becomes an optional extra. Increasingly, however, schools are treating this as a maximum requirement, so once youngsters have met the target they are under pressure to give up swimming and to concentrate on other, less costly, activities.

  981
  I recognise that there is now an opportunity to use lottery funds to build and improve swimming facilities. Like the hon. Member for Stockton, South, however, I am concerned that there is no strategic national planning of such facilities. I also echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall in this regard. This lack has meant that certain parts of the country are well catered for, while others have no pool for miles on end.
  I would also urge the Minister to adopt a more flexible approach to lottery funding. The requirement is that a pool must be used for 40 hours a week by the local community outside school hours. I have often advocated the dual use of school facilities for the wider community, but 40 hours is a tough target to meet. Again, I urge the Minister to be more flexible.
  It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that entrances to local authority pools have declined a great deal in recent years. Between 1993 and 1994 they fell by 4 per cent., the equivalent of 7 million visits. I am particularly worried that the ratio of junior to adult attendances has decreased markedly. A few years ago, it stood at about 2.5:1; now it is down to 1:1. I hope that the Minister will pay heed to what my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said about that.
  The contrast with Europe could not be greater. It attaches greater priority to swimming than we do. In France, there has been an ambitious programme to build hundreds of pools. The French currently have 8,400 pools compared with our 1,200. German children leave school after receiving at least three years' swimming tuition, directly funded by the Government. Holland has a nationally applied qualification for swimming teachers and a standard test to enable teachers to assess the ability of their school children.
  The programmes run in each of these more enlightened countries are clearly paying dividends in terms of better standards, because they have adopted an integrated approach to swimming provision and national strategies of the sort for which we are calling.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and others in congratulating those who did well at Sheffield last week. I also pay tribute to the Amateur Swimming Association for all its work. It is true that there were some good performances at the Olympic trials. What came through most clearly was how far we are falling behind the rest of the world. Take James Hickman, for example. He shattered the British record for 200 m butterfly by more than 1.5 seconds, but that still leaves him ranked about sixth in the world, trailing well behind his other international competitors. In the women's section, increasingly we have to rely on more experienced swimmers to provide the backbone of our possible Olympic team. Just three of the team are under 20. If we are to nurture potential talent, we must invest in better facilities in which our young stars can train.
  If the Government were to invest more in swimming in schools, that would pay dividends both now and in the future. Not only would it contribute to saving children's lives—surely that is worth while in itself—but it would improve the health and fitness of a whole generation of our young people. Who knows, it might also go some way towards creating the future Olympic champions that we all desire.
  982
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall for securing us this opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively.
  12.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on securing a one-and-a-half-hour debate on what I hope we all agree is an important subject, particularly in sport.
  The hon. Lady referred to my presence on the Front Bench and said that it was difficult to know to which Department she should address the debate. She is right, of course, that, overall, sport is a matter for the Department of National Heritage, but as the debate is about swimming in the national curriculum, responsibility fell to my Department. There was another issue, which she rightly identified from studying my responsibilities, in that responsibility for the national curriculum falls to my noble Friend Lord Henley, who, of course, cannot reply to the debate. Hence my presence, but I shall endeavour to respond to the points that she made. I am grateful to her for her kind words, and I take them in the generous spirit of good will in which they were meant.
  The Government attach great importance to the role of sports of all kinds in schools and, indeed, in society in general. That is why—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) referred to this—only last summer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the sports policy statement, "Raising the Game". In his personal foreword to the statement, he made clear his firm view that one of his personal ambitions is
  "to put sport back at the heart of weekly life in every school."
  Indeed, he expressed his determination to see our great traditional sports, of which swimming is one, put firmly centre stage. I agree that physical education and sport rightly belong centre stage; but the sports policy statement goes wider than that and emphasises the importance of maximising sporting opportunity for young people in and outside formal education and the development of pathways into structured sporting activity.
  All hon. Members who have spoken—from both sides of the House—referred to swimming as a crucial sport, not just within schools but outside. I think that it was the hon. Lady who referred to the amount of time devoted to swimming; the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde certainly referred to it. When my right hon. Friend launched the policy document, he stated—as one would expect, I entirely support this—that he hoped that schools would decide to devote at least two hours a week to PE and sport. One can argue that that may not be sufficient, but it is one of the issues to which schools will have to respond in addressing the needs of the national curriculum.
  As a number of hon. Members have said, many exciting initiatives are under way, and my colleagues in the Department of National Heritage are acting on many of the proposals in the statement. A number of hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), referred to the lottery. As the House will be aware, I cannot speak from the Dispatch Box on issues relating to the national lottery, but I can assure the House that I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the national lottery, the issue of matching funding, and other points.

  983
  I shall take with me the point about combined education and public usage. I do not have the answer to give the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde directly, but the principle of making maximum use of any facility must be right. It is ludicrous that schools' sports facilities have been restricted to just a few hours use a week and not opened up to the wider community. That is changing dramatically, partly, I believe, as a result of delegating local financial management to schools.
  Physical education is crucial to the health and well-being of every child and, of course, adult. That is why the Government took the decision to make PE part of the national curriculum, which comprises 10 subjects that are necessary to provide children with a broad balance. The importance that the Government attach to PE is demonstrated by the fact that it is one of only six subjects that must be taught throughout a child's school career.
  As hon. Members have stated—there is no point my repeating it in detail—swimming is included in the physical education section of the national curriculum. The hon. Lady read out what is required by the age of 11—I shall not repeat the details—but then concentrated on 25 m and suggested that, as soon as children could thrash their way through 25 m of water, the matter was all done and dusted.
  I must make the point that 25 m is a minimum requirement and that schools can take their pupils further. More important, I must draw the hon. Lady's attention to all the other points that are specified in the national curriculum, which she read out but then seemed to ignore. I suggest that simply being able to thrash one's way through 25 m—I am sure that we all did that at some stage in our school lives—does not mean that one has fulfilled the other criteria of the national curriculum. Developing effective and efficient swimming strokes on the front and the back is clearly different from swimming 25 m.
  Miss Hoey: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Paice: Very briefly.
  Miss Hoey: I appreciate the Minister's point. I emphasised 25 m because the reality is that schools consider that to be the point that allows them to get away from their responsibility, not because they want to but because of the pressure of other subjects. They feel that they have done their bit once the child can swim 25 m.
  Mr. Paice: I understand what the hon. Lady says. I hope that my comments in a few moments will be a response to her.
  In secondary schools, swimming is an optional activity in the physical education section of the national curriculum, but the revised physical education order, which came into effect in August last year, includes discrete programmes of study for swimming for pupils who choose to follow them in their secondary years. The new options provide pupils with opportunities to develop their swimming skills and to learn the principles and skills of rescue and resuscitation in water-based activities. That is a significant advance in the opportunities for swimming available to pupils. In swimming, as with all aspects of physical education, the relevant safety features are important.
  984
  As the House will be aware, schools and local education authorities have a clear duty to ensure that sufficient provision is made to enable the swimming requirements of the national curriculum to be implemented. It is for them to decide on the precise form of that provision, as it is for them to decide on how it is timetabled.
  When the requirements were first introduced, as a result of much discussion, Ministers recognised that there might be practical and financial implications. That is why their implementation was deferred by two years until 1 August 1994. That was a breathing space to enable schools and local authorities to make the necessary arrangements to provide swimming tuition. It was particularly relevant to schools in rural areas and, perhaps, in inner-city areas, which may have faced problems.
  The Government have already earmarked substantial resources for the implementation of the national curriculum. It is up to schools and local authorities to decide how to deploy their total resources in the light of local priorities and needs. The great majority of primary schools, however—more than 80 per cent.—found it possible to teach swimming before it was made compulsory. Schools should be able to find ways to meet the swimming requirement from their existing budgets. Deferring the requirement should have given them time to make the necessary arrangements.
  Teachers are expected to assess their pupils in all aspects of the national curriculum, and that includes swimming. It is for heads to ensure that teachers are properly qualified to teach the subjects they teach. Substantial guest funding is made available for the in-service training of teachers.
  The hon. Lady asked who was responsible for monitoring. The Office for Standards in Education reports on the success of schools in meeting their statutory duties as part of the inspection process.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Paice: I would rather not. I shall give way in a moment if I have time, but there are a good many points for me to respond to.
  The statutory duties to which I referred include schools' obligation to teach swimming, which is a compulsory part of the primary curriculum. When a school is found to be failing in that statutory duty, its failure will be reported and highlighted as a problem to be addressed in the action plan that it will be required to produce. In extreme cases, failure to provide part of the national curriculum could be symptomatic of a wider failure of management or leadership in the school. That is one of the factors that could contribute to its designation as a failing school. The House will be aware of the powers of the Secretary of State in such cases.
  In 1993–94—just before swimming became a compulsory requirement—Ofsted stated in its annual report that, at key stage 2, where swimming was taught, standards of achievement were often high. Pupils were confident in the water, and had acquired technical competence in swimming strokes along with a range of survival skills. In 1994–95—the first year after the introduction of the requirement—Ofsted did not identify swimming as an area of concern within national curriculum physical education, but it will continue to monitor the position, as the hon. Lady rightly requested.

  985
  The survey by professionals that a number of hon. Members have mentioned predated the national curriculum issue. I can give the hon. Lady the good news that we are ahead of her request: the Government have already embarked on a substantial survey of physical education and sport in schools. A questionnaire sent to a representative selection of 1,500 schools—twice the number questioned in the earlier survey—devotes a whole page to swimming. It asks whether the school provides tuition and where that tuition takes place; it asks about the type and size of the pool, whether it is shared and who else uses it, and whether it is an indoor or outdoor pool; it also asks about access and transport facilities, and about the qualifications of teaching staff. We have had a 70 per cent. Response—a huge response for a survey. The closing date has passed, and we hope to release the results in the near future. The size of the response has delayed our analysis somewhat.
  The hon. Lady referred to the withdrawal of local education authority funds for swimming. Since the introduction of local management of schools, some LEAs have withdrawn central funds for swimming, while others have introduced the significant variations in provision that she mentioned. It is a question of priorities. The thrust of Government policy must be to give LEAs and, through them, schools the power and responsibility to make such decisions for themselves. A dichotomy can sometimes be observed. We want schools to make the decisions, but if they or LEAs are not getting it right, the Government should step in. I do not believe that both positions can be maintained.
  Whatever happens, there is no reason why swimming should suffer. Local management of schools gives governing bodies greater discretion in the determination of their own targets and priorities, and in the meeting of educational requirements in the way most appropriate to them. LEAs can give extra allocations to schools with swimming pools, or give schools an additional allowance to reflect swimming costs, which might include travel. There is no reason why LMS should damage swimming tuition.
  Every hon. Member who has spoken has described the benefits of swimming—not just safety, although that is crucial, but the health benefits and the opportunity that swimming provides to take part in other water sports. I understand that some schools have difficulty gaining access to suitable swimming facilities—both distant rural facilities and those in the inner-city areas to which the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred. As I have said, we delayed implementation of the original order for two years so that schools could identify suitable facilities and make arrangements to enable them to meet the requirements of the national curriculum.
  986
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham still wants to intervene, but I shall be happy to give way to him now.
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend was, in fact, wise to delay my intervention. The survey to which he referred has been widely welcomed. Will he not just announce the results in a written parliamentary answer, but place as much useful information as possible in the Library and publicise it so that people throughout the country can judge themselves against the general pattern and try to raise standards, increase effort and participation and restore the situation for which we all hoped?
  Mr. Paice: I shall discuss my hon. Friend's request with my colleagues, but I see no reason why we cannot comply with it. Let me add that I agreed with what he said in his speech about the need for communities and organisations to consider together how they can develop swimming facilities and co-ordinate the necessary bids, publicity and fund raising. Swimming is there for everyone; it should not be just for schools and local sports clubs.
  Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister stress to the Leader of the House that, in view of the House's interest in the subject, it would be a good idea to have a debate on the survey when it is completed?
  Mr. Paice: I shall draw that suggestion to my right hon. Friend's attention, but the opportunity for a debate similar to this will arise in any event.
  Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to schools' charging parents for swimming. Schools cannot charge for any activity that is either a part of the national curriculum—as swimming is—or a required part of the syllabus for a prescribed examination such as a GCSE. Schools can, however, ask parents for a voluntary contribution to the cost of swimming lessons, or ask them to undertake general fund raising for the benefit of the school. They must make it clear to parents that the contribution is a response to that request; they cannot require a contribution, nor can they exclude children from aspects of the national curriculum if parents are unwilling or unable to make that contribution.
  I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. As the hon. Lady said, this is not my normal field of activity. I, too, have learnt much from the briefings in the past few days and from listening to her speech and those of other hon. Members. The subject of the debate is important and I hope that I have addressed many of the concerns that have been expressed. I shall certainly take away the request that the results of the survey should be widely publicised. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the way in which she addressed the subject.

  Fishermen (Essex)
  12.29 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I am certainly no fisherman. I do not have the stomach for sea fishing, and I certainly do not have the patience for fresh water fishing. But I certainly enjoy eating fish, and I recently enjoyed some wonderful skate at the Peter Boat in Leigh-on-Sea.
  I think that it is fair to say that the finest fish products in the world are to be found in Essex, and especially in Leigh-on-Sea. This is an important debate for many Essex constituents, and I am delighted to see in his place my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was here earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) wanted to be here, but unfortunately he was called away on urgent business. Many Essex colleagues will want to read the record of the debate.
  Fish are fascinating, and over the years I have kept all types. At the moment, my wife is restricting me to keeping and breeding tropical fish, which, I am happy to report to the House, we are doing very successfully.
  I should like to concentrate on the catching of sea fish and the plight of the Essex fishermen whose livelihood depends on it. I certainly do not hold my hon. Friend the Minister in any way responsible for the problems. He and I became Members of Parliament at the same time in 1983, and much of what I have to say goes back to well beyond the time when he and I came here. I entirely accept that he is doing his best to try to come to some agreement with our European partners.
  The fundamental issue is that small is beautiful. We have only to look at shopping centres to see the way that some of our multiples have destroyed the livelihoods of little shopkeepers. In fishing, many of the larger vessels have destroyed the livelihoods of people who use small boats. All Essex Members have constituents in the industry, but Leigh-on-Sea is the nearest centre for most of us.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will freely acknowledge, old Leigh is a fascinating place, with a great fishing tradition. Its efforts in the war are of particular note. Its fishing tradition was mentioned in the Domesday book, and most of its ships went to Dunkirk. There is a memorial there to the men who were lost at Dunkirk in the Renown. Cutlasses are sharpened on the stone in the magnificent St. Clement's church, whose clock is positioned so that it can be seen by seafarers all along the Thames.
  Under present arrangements, British fishermen, and in particular Essex fishermen, are not being allowed to catch enough fish: 250 kg a month of Dover sole is not enough, and does not make fishing economically viable. Dredging for aggregates is a problem off the Essex coast, and I understand that that is the responsibility of the Crown Estates.
  The most recent annual report of the Kent and Essex sea fishery committee is an excellent document. I shall concentrate on the section that deals with Leigh-on-Sea and includes Holehaven. The report states:
  "Catches of sole were maintained at a low level throughout the Winter period by vessels working the central and outer sections of the estuary. These soles, together with light catches of cod. whiting and roker, supported continued fishing effort. Vessels operating twin beam, single, double and triple otter trawls pursued the sole fishery.
  988
  Catches were initially good, gradually declining as the Summer period progressed. Some trawlers moved to working from Harwich during June, July and August where reduced quantities of week and slightly improved catches were made when weather actually permitted. Catch rates declined as Autumn progressed. By-catches of roker and plaice were gradually replaced by small quantities of cod and whiting."
  Mr. Paul Channon: My hon. Friend rightly stresses the importance of sole and other such fish. I hope that he will refer the Minister to the problems facing the cockling industry, especially the threat from Holland. That is of special concern to some of the fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea to whom my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. Amess: My right hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to the cockle industry in Leigh-on-Sea, whose products are famous throughout the east end of London. The report from which I am quoting makes it clear that they have also been affected during the past year. The report continues:
  "Catches were generally good, although quota restrictions limited landings to a much reduced level."
  I shall put the matter into perspective, because some colleagues might ask, "How big is the fishing industry in Essex?" The answer to that is that it is very big and of great importance to all Essex Members. Some 44 vessels are manned by 68 full-time fishermen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, who has represented that constituency for nearly four decades, could tell the House how important it is to so many families in the town.
  There are also 24 vessels with 30 part-time seasonal fishermen, and they are also pursuing the matters that I have mentioned. The general secretary of the committee that produced the report states:
  "This has been a particularly difficult year for the majority of fishermen operating within the district. The Thames estuary has traditionally supported a large fleet of inshore trawlers. These are now being denied their major source of income as a result of a reduced share of sole quota. Diversification to other fisheries has not provided sufficient alternative income. The Winter cod fishery has not proved viable due to reduced stocks. Sprats have not been present in sufficient quantities also to provide an alternative income.
  Smaller sections of the local fishing industry have seen a better year. Fishermen have continued to explore new opportunities with particular interest in shellfish."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West is particularly interested in that.
  The report continues:
  "Fishermen have increased effort or assessed the viability of fisheries for whelks, oysters, mussels, shrimps and, of course, cockles. The now established Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order and ongoing bye-law controls give enhanced protection for the future of the cockle fishery."
  We thank the Minister for that.
  Here is the rub on fish quotas:
  "Quota restrictions have again continued to impose heavily upon the local fishing industry. The traditional sole fishery, supporting the majority of vessels within this district, has suffered severe restrictions."
  I know that that is also a very important issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe).

  989
  The report continues:
  "This has been as a result of loss of quota allocations. Prospects for 1996 look even worse with an overall reduction of 23 per cent. in sole quotas compared with the 1995 quotas.
  During 1995, over 10 metre vessels saw their sole quota reduced to an uneconomic level starting at 300 kg per vessel per month for the main period of fishing, increasing to a still low maximum of 500 kg per month during mid Summer, followed by a further decline to 350 kg per month.
  Under 10 metre vessels were able to continue fishing throughout. however this was under continued threat of an early closure. Restriction on quotas for 1996 has resulted in a total closure of the sole fishery for under 10 metre vessels until the 31st March."
  Sadly:
  "In December two West Mersea fishermen were taken to court by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for sole quota offences. They were fined and ordered to pay a total of £11,500."
  I have been informed that, only last night, action was taken against another six fishermen.
  I am indebted to the Leigh and Southend Fishermen's Association. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West has had a long and happy association with the members of that organisation. I am grateful for the help of the chairman, Mr. Knapp, the vice-chairman, Mr. Paul Gilson, and one of the committee members, Mr. Daryl Gobbold.
  I should like to refer the House to three documents. The first is the consultation paper on the 1996 fishing vessel decommissioning scheme, paragraph 17 of which is of particular concern to Essex fishermen. It says:
  "Since the majority of UK track record is held by POs. they are the principal beneficiaries under the current arrangements when the track record of a vessel is lost through decommissioning. If the change described above were introduced it is likely that POs would still chiefly benefit as only they or their members would be likely to wish to acquire the track records of decommissioned vessels. Under present quota management arrangements, vessels remaining in the non-sector would have no individual interest in securing track record and so the proportion of track record in the non-sector would tend to decline. If the necessary balance between the sector and the non-sector was to be maintained, it would be necessary to protect the non-sector's track record from erosion. To avoid over-complicated arrangements it is proposed that a notional amount of the track record from decommissioned vessels would be attributed to the non-sector, based on the latter's percentage of UK quotas."
  Leigh and Southend fishermen truly believe that there is discrimination against the non-sector, as is highlighted in that paragraph. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, if he cannot reply to that concern at the end of this very short debate, to write to me on the matter. The position has to be clarified, so that non-sector vessels are put on an equal footing on quotas and track records with producer organisation vessels.
  Leigh and Southend fishermen also believe that there has been some mismanagement by quota teams between 1990 and 1991. In 1994, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West asked a question of the then Minister that clearly highlights how things went wrong between 1990 and 1991. There was an excessive uptake by the larger vessels, which was detrimental to under-17 m vessels. Those amounts were used to build the track record accords of the over-17 m vessels.
  I should like to mention something for which neither the Minister nor myself can be blamed: the European Economic Community's 1970 treaty of accession, and the Command Paper of 20 October 1970. I draw the House's attention in particular to the paragraph that states:
  990
  "subject to certain specific conditions concerning the flag or the registration of their ships, Community fishermen must have equal access to and use of fishing grounds in maritime waters coming under the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of Member States; whereas, however, exception to this rule may be permitted transitionally for certain types of fishing carried on by local populations whose livelihood depends principally on inshore fishing".
  This issue and today's debate are of enormous interest and importance, not only to my constituents in Basildon but to people in all the other Essex constituencies, and particularly to the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I should like to invite my hon. Friend the Minister, if he wants further evidence of how important this matter is for Leigh and its traditions, to consult the wonderful president of the local heritage organisation, Miss Sheila Pitt-Stanley, who can tell him about the town's history. I hope that he will agree to visit Southend, West, and in particular to meet the fishermen of Leigh and Southend in the heritage centre.
  I also ask the Minister to reflect on the representations that I have made, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, about how we believe that we are being discriminated against. I certainly intend to go to Brussels, with some of the fishermen, to make representations there.
  At a time when socialists are controlling Europe, I want to know what the Member of the European Parliament for Essex, in particular, is doing about this issue, because it is no good blaming Her Majesty's Government for everything. Essex county council is controlled by the socialists, as is Southend district council and Basildon district council. Europe, in particular, is controlled by the socialists. The people who represent those councils and who represent Europe have been elected, and they should be assisting me in the representations that I have drawn to the Minister's attention in this debate.
  12.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on using this debate to draw attention to the concerns of fishermen from Essex, from the Thames estuary and from adjoining areas. As he said, the issues he has raised are a matter of concern to many hon. Members, including not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) but our many colleagues who represent constituencies around the Thames estuary.
  If it is agreeable to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, I should be delighted to visit Leigh-on-Sea. Since becoming the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in July, I have visited many ports and harbours around the country, and I should be very happy to go to Leigh and to meet the non-sector fishermen there. If I do not cover all the points raised by my hon. Friend in the time available to me, I will write to him to provide greater detail.
  When we speak about the fishing industry, there is a tendency to think in terms of the south-west—Cornwall and Devon—Humberside, Hull, Grimsby and the north-east; but there is, and always has been, an active industry in the south-east around the Thames, exploiting the resources available from the Thames estuary. Many

  991
  people have been involved in such fishing for several generations, and typify the independent and resolute nature of the British character.
  As my hon. Friend has said, much of the fishing activity is recorded as far back as the Domesday Book. Fishing has continued to be important in this century. My hon. Friend also quite rightly referred to the contribution that the fishing industry of the Thames estuary made at Dunkirk and elsewhere during the second world war. Those fishermen and their industry are very much an integral part of our highly complex and diverse fishing industry. To me they are as important as any other part of that industry.
  In the latter part of his speech, my hon. Friend spoke about the treaty of Rome's reference to common access to an equal resource. There never has been common access to an equal resource under the common fisheries policy, and I do not envisage that there ever will be.
  As the House will be aware, the common fisheries policy imposes a six-mile limit from our shore within which only United Kingdom vessels can fish. That includes most of the inshore fishing industry, and much of the Thames estuary fishing industry. A further limit of between six and 12 miles prohibits access to all boats except United Kingdom ones and those that have historical rights of access. We have historical rights of access into the 12-mile limits of certain other member states.
  To be honest, I do not envisage any circumstances in which we would be prepared to surrender our six or 12-mile limits. That is probably the view of other member states, because I cannot envisage any circumstances in which they would wish to give up their respective limits. Those limits are important to the inshore fishing industry.
  Reference has understandably been made to the UK's quota management arrangements and to the particular problems which local fishermen have encountered through belonging to what is known as the non-sector—that group of fishermen who do not belong to producer organisations. It may be helpful to explain what our quota management arrangements are and how they affect the non-sector.
  As the House knows, the amount of fish which can be taken from the North sea is fixed annually by the Fisheries Council, when 15 Ministers from the member states meet in December. That council takes account of scientific advice and the results of bilateral negotiations with Norway.
  Once the total allowable catches have been decided for the principal stocks—cod, whiting, haddock, saithe, plaice, sole, hake, nephrops, mackerel and herring—they are allocated among member states according to fixed percentage shares reflecting the level of fishing activity that took place in the 1970s, prior to the finalisation of the common fisheries policy. It thus follows that different stocks are allocated a different percentage.
  In the North sea, for example, we do rather well on plaice, because we have been allocated 56 per cent. of the North sea quota. We do lamentably poorly on sole, however, having been allocated 4 per cent. of the quota. That is one of the reasons why that stock is under such pressure.
  From time to time, representatives of the industry consider whether we would be wise to revisit the issue of stability and the way in which the percentages are
  992
  allocated. It is fair to say that the United Kingdom fishing industry has expressed to me the opinion that it did pretty well out of the relative stability regime and the consequent divisions of quotas. Our quotas were good for Scotland and much of the north coast. Concern has been expressed that, if we were to revisit those quotas, we would not do so well. I recognise that that means, of course, that, in certain areas, we have been allocated lamentably small quotas.
  Once the quotas have been fixed, it becomes the responsibility of each member state to manage its own quota allocation and to ensure that they are not overfished.
  Within the UK we have sought to devise arrangements that are fair and equitable, and to encourage fishermen, through producer organisations where appropriate, to take on day-to-day responsibility for the management of quota allocations. Each year, we divide the UK's quotas among three groups of fishermen—the producer organisations, the non-sector, representing vessels whose owners are not members of producer organisations—within that group comes many of the fishermen to whom my hon. Friend referred—and the under-10 m fleet. Those quotas are allocated in proportion to the aggregated catch that each group makes over the three previous years.
  Where allocations are made to a producer organisation, it is then responsible for sharing quota between its members and to ensure that they do not overfish the producer organisation's collective entitlement. The quotas for the non-sector are managed by the Fisheries Departments in close consultation with the industry. That involves setting monthly catch limits that take account of seasonal variations in fishing activity. Those limits are set at levels that ensure that fisheries remain open throughout the year, so that fishermen have the opportunity to fish them. Monthly catch limits are not set for the under-10 m fleet, and once the quota allocation for any stock is taken, further landings are prohibited.
  Those management arrangements are reviewed annually with representatives of all sides of the industry. It is fair to say that, in the past eight years, many fishermen, notably the more active, have opted to join or form producer organisations. Today, those organisations account for more than 90 per cent. of the uptake of UK quota.
  At the same time, the quotas available to fishermen remaining in the non-sector have inevitably contracted. That, along with declining stocks and increasing fishing effort, has led to a general tightening of monthly catch limits. I am conscious of that, and I have made it clear to hon. Friends that one of my great concerns is to work out means within the existing parameters of the common fisheries policy to give more help to the non-producer organisation sector.
  My hon. Friend spoke about what happens to the track records of boats when they are decommissioned. That is one of the issues that I am considering. I would, however, point out that a number of important steps have already been taken to safeguard the position of fishermen who do not belong to producer organisations.
  The quota allocations for fishermen with vessels under 10 m have been underpinned since 1994. That means that those fishermen now receive a guaranteed minimum share of the UK's quota irrespective of whether they have been able to catch their full entitlement because, for example, of bad weather or fish stocks failing to turn up on inshore

  993
  grounds. That underpinning has been extended to the non-sector allocations for North sea cod and sole, two of the stocks of major interest to fishermen in the Thames estuary. We have also insisted that all producer organisations wishing to manage quota allocations must do so for all stocks.
  I am conscious of the importance of the sole fishery and the concerns that monthly catch limits are not sufficient to maintain the viability of fishermen within the Thames estuary. I appreciate those concerns, but they must be put into perspective.
  As I have said, the UK share of the TAC sole quota is, and has always been, low. It is doubtful that we shall ever secure sufficient quota to satisfy the aspirations of our fishermen. Secondly, despite the claims that are made, our records show that, in the past, few fisherman caught significantly more sole than they do now. Thirdly, sole account for less than one quarter of the value of the total fish catch landed into Essex ports. For example, in 1994, cod, bass, plaice, sprat, skate and rays also made important contributions to the earnings of Essex fishermen.
  I am aware that exceptionally good catches of sole have been reported this year. According to the advice I have received from scientists, that is not indicative of exceptionally large stocks of North sea sole: it is due to the unusually low temperatures throughout February, which drove the sole into warmer deep water pockets, where their concentrated numbers and near-moribund state made them easy to catch.
  I also appreciate that fishermen around the Essex coast have other concerns—for example, the effects of aggregate dredging. One must recognise that marine aggregates make a crucial contribution to overall supply, particularly to the south-east, including Essex, where alternative materials are not readily available. They are particularly important for soft sea defences. I share, however, fishermen's concerns about the large number of applications for new dredging areas and I will not give a positive view under the Government's new procedure on any application unless I am satisfied that the marine environment and commercial fishing operations in the area can be adequately safeguarded. I would usually expect organisations to surrender licences for new licences that they take up.
  I am conscious that, in the time available to me, I have not been able to cover in detail all the points that my hon. Friend has raised—in relation to the cockle fishery and prosecutions, among others. I shall gladly write to him and to other hon. Friends who have attended the debate to deal with those points in greater detail.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  12.59 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: Buckley Hall prison was opened in my constituency of Rochdale on 14 December 1994. It is a male category C prison. By the end of January this year, it had 339 inmates. It is privately run by Group 4, on a five-year contract. The original contract to run the prison was worth £33 million.
  I and many of my constituents supported a prison coming to Rochdale, mainly because we wanted jobs to come into the region. I would have preferred the Prison Service to run it. When the contract was put out to tender, I would have preferred the in-house bid to win, but it did not and Group 4 won the contract. The reason for this debate, however, is not to talk about whether privately run or publicly run prisons are best—I did not ask for the debate because of that. All I am concerned about is the worrying incidents at the prison that have been reported to me. As Member of Parliament for Rochdale, I have an obligation to investigate.
  The more information I gained, the more worried I became. That is why I tabled a number of written questions, from which I found out that 10 prisoners—although the number is now nine—were given authorised leave and were still on the run. They are not petty criminals: they are people convicted of wounding, conspiracy to rob or burglary.
  It is extremely worrying that the problem is far worse at Buckley Hall than at other prisons. The average for such incidents at other male category C prisons is 1.6. It causes concern if even one prisoner does not return, but when nearly 10 times that number do not do so, the alarm bells begin to sound. I should like the Minister to tell me today how many prisoners from other category C prisons have been on authorised leave and did not return. Thirty Buckley Hall prisoners overall did not return, of whom 21 have either handed themselves in or been captured.
  There have been three unsuccessful escape attempts from Buckley Hall prison. For other male category C prisons, the average is 1.6. It appears from the written answers that I have received that Buckley Hall prison is understaffed. In November, I visited the prison with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Liberal Democrat spokesman on prisons. He and I and a member of the prison staff went to one of the accommodation blocks. I stood there while prisoners had free access to table tennis tables and free association.
  I was extremely worried because I could see no prison officer around. I asked that member of staff where the prison officers were. He said that there was one on the corridors above. I was worried that, if I could not see that officer, obviously, he could not see what was happening below him, so anything could happen if prison staff generally had a blind spot in that area of the accommodation block.
  As the Minister is aware, the answers that I have received show that Buckley Hall prison has one officer per 3.7 inmates and other category C prisons have one officer per 2.7 inmates. It was explained that the difference lay in the fact that there were different ways of defining prison officers. I would be happy if the Minister reassured me about that. Even if that is the case, my constituents and I

  995
  need assurances that the number of prison officers on each shift, in each block and on each wing is the same at Buckley Hall as at other male category C prisons.
  As the Minister knows, I have received all that information from written answers. Another reply concerned assaults on staff in 1995. For the first two months of this year, the position is a little better, but the figure for Buckley Hall was 7.1 per cent. compared with 2.5 per cent. for other category C prisons. My most recent written question involved concerted indiscipline. From 14 December 1994 to 20 March 1996, the number of incidents at Buckley Hall totalled seven compared with 0.6 at other category prisons.
  Those statistics are worrying by themselves, but I have received many more disturbing details. A prisoner got out of the prison with visitors and was recaptured in the car park. On Friday, I was told by people at the prison how wonderful it was that he had been recaptured, but he should not have been allowed out in the first place. I want to know how a prisoner could go out with visitors and be recaptured only in the car park. He should not have been allowed to reach the car park.
  On 19 February, a 22-year-old serving two and a half years for burglary escaped over the prison fence. An alarm went off, but I was told that prison staff did not know that a prisoner was escaping because of strong winds. That is not good enough.
  In the same week, an allegation was made that a prisoner was having an affair with a prison officer outside the prison. The prisoner had been given permission to go into town or further afield to Oldham, to train with Oldham rugby league club to try to get a job after he had served his sentence. The police investigated, the prisoner was transferred and the officer resigned. If that had been just an isolated incident, we might think, "That may happen in other prisons," but it is not.
  Buckley Hall has an appalling record on smuggling, especially drug smuggling. I know that it is a problem nationwide and that we must do something about the whole prison system, to stop drugs getting into prisons.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lynne: No. I do not have much time.
  Prisoners and visitors go to great lengths to smuggle in items, especially drugs. Prisoners on authorised leave swallow balloons. That is a well-known practice, not just in Buckley Hall, but in prisons throughout the country, whether they are publicly or privately run. I have heard that prisoners are scared to return to Buckley Hall. I appreciate that drug smuggling is difficult to stop, but most of it is done by throwing packages over the fence.
  I welcome the moves being made and the fact that the prisoners will not be allowed access to certain areas near the prison fence and that perimeter fences will be strengthened in particular areas, but why has it taken so long? It has taken 15 months to do that. Why was not additional fencing built into the plans when they were drawn up?
  There is a massive problem with drug taking. I have received several letters from prisoners and given copies to the Minister. For obvious reasons, I have taken the names out, but one ex-prisoner at Buckley Hall asks me to consider the following:
  996
  "An inmate climbs on the hospital roof to protest at being refused a home leave, after much skilful negotiation it is decided his home leave application will be fully supported by the management if he comes down, he did and went on home leave the following day, duly returned, and absconded while on an escorted day out a few weeks later."
  The same prisoner also says:
  "In the recent figures I noted from the radio, 10 inmates had failed to return from home leave"—
  as I said, the figure is now nine—
  "in a two year period. I am therefore sure, having spent 10 months at Buckley Hall, that these figures must contain people who I had come into contact with, like the lad who was in the next cell to me who made the choice not to return to Buckley Hall from home leave. This was he says due to the fact they refused to help him to come off heroin. The figures must also contain at least two inmates with whom I had personal contact. They could not return from home leave unless they could meet their heroin debts within the prison of £250 and £600."
  He goes on:
  "Buckley Hall is a time-bomb ticking away and releasing back into society people with far greater problems than which they already had. People who have no doubt come to the stark realisation that money conquers all. Buckley Hall must have a full investigation to safeguard all."
  Another ex-prisoner says in a letter:
  "there was no prison regime at all at Buckley Hall … The majority of inmates take heroin there … The majority of drugs and booze gets thrown over the fence of a night."
  He says that he has witnessed three escape attempts,
  "all unsuccessful, but only through sheer bad luck on the prisoners' side."
  He also claims that in August the prison hospital unit was broken into and all the drugs taken. I understand that that is correct; I have received confirmation of it. I also understand that no drugs were recovered. Will the Minister tell me whether that is true? I also understand from two different sources that one prisoner overdosed on those drugs and from another source that two prisoners overdosed on those drugs. Will the Minister confirm or deny that today?
  It is also claimed that 120 door handles were broken off cell doors. One prison officer was apparently so worried that he contacted my local newspaper, the Rochdale Observer, and was quoted as saying that there was a major drugs problem and that 95 per cent. of prisoners on one wing were using smack. He said that, because of mandatory testing, prisoners had gone from cannabis to hard drugs, because cannabis stayed in the body longer. He told the paper that two Buckley Hall prisoners had given themselves up at Strangeways because they feared being returned to Buckley Hall. That is confirmation of what the prisoners have told me. The prisoners who are bullied, the officer said, are shipped out, not the bullies. Indeed, I have been told that the prison relies on the bullies to keep the lid on everything. Will the Minister comment on that?
  The prison officer also said that one officer had his jaw broken and that a second had had four stitches because his eye had been slashed. The article continued:
  "We don't fear for a major riot, most officers want a major riot to close Buckley Hall down … It is a dangerous prison to work in".
  I do not know how true any of those allegations are; I have no idea. My duty as a Member of Parliament is to bring such matters to the House's attention. Prisoners have written to me, and I have received information

  997
  from prison officers and other sources. I also heard from one source that prisoners who were detailed to clean up outside the prison on a regular basis slipped off for a drink in the town. Will the Minister confirm or deny that?
  The list of events is disturbing. I know from the Minister's response to an oral question that I asked her, that she takes the subject very seriously. I am not attacking Buckley Hall prison because—as the Minister is well aware—it is privately run. It is immaterial whether it is privately or publicly run. I am concerned about the running of it. Regardless of who runs it, my constituents have a right to be reassured about security measures. I am therefore asking today for a full public inquiry into the prison.
  Is Buckley Hall properly staffed? Are prison officers trained well enough? Are junior prison officers properly supervised? Why was the prison fence inadequate? Who was responsible for its design? Who makes decisions on authorised leave? What has gone wrong with Buckley Hall prison? I want to know the answer to this specific question. How has the prison performed in official assessment? We need to know the answers to those questions today. Is it true that Buckley Hall has been financially penalised because of bad reports? We need answers as a matter of urgency. As one prisoner said, Buckley Hall is a time-bomb ticking away. There is no time to lose.
  1.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Although I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) on obtaining the debate, I am somewhat disappointed by her tone. I was not present for her introductory remarks, for which I apologised in advance to the hon. Lady and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in Standing Committee B and could not be in the Chamber at 1 o'clock. I do not therefore know whether she paid tribute to Buckley Hall prison staff and their efforts. I do know, however, that since becoming a Minister with responsibility for prisons, I have become very conscious of the huge amount of bashing of public sector prisons, private sector prisons and the Prison Service in general, and of the fact that at the same time people totally fail to recognise achievements.
  It is quite right that hon. Members should bring to the attention of the House criticisms and serious concerns, to which they demand ministerial responses. I do not have a difficulty with that, but it should be done in the context of wider achievements, and the good should be acknowledged with the bad. I say that for a good reason. Prison officers, whether in the private or public sector, have tremendously hard jobs, which require much dedication, courage and skill. It is totally unfair that they should be consistently demoralised by an endless flow of criticism that does not at the same time recognise their efforts.
  I should like therefore to pay tribute to the staff at Buckley Hall, who are trying their best, and I hope that I shall have time to pay tribute to some of their achievements in comparison with other prisons in that group, to show that the situation is not quite as bad as has been suggested.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that all the prison staff at that privately run prison have been
  998
  certified by the Home Office? Will she also confirm that, on a broad range of indicators, that private prison compares very favourably with a similar category C prison in the state service, and that it is costing the public purse 25 per cent. less to run than an equivalent state prison?
  Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm all that. I suspect that many of the staff have not only been certified by the Home Office, but are constituents of the hon. Member for Rochdale, and I am sure that they will be most interested to hear what she has been saying about them and the way in which they run their prison.
  Opening a new prison is very challenging. There are always teething troubles with plant and buildings, but that is nothing compared with a prisoner population that is intent from day one on testing the system. For example, it is quite common for a new prison to have a high assault rate when it first opens, and for the level to fall as the regime settles. That has happened at Doncaster and we have no reason to suppose that the same will not be true of Buckley Hall, which has, after all, been fully operational only since June.
  Secondly, we need to recognise that publicity from the media inevitably concentrates more on early failures than on subsequent successes. It is not only Buckley Hall that has attracted negative, distorted and often inaccurate treatment, but the contractually managed prisons generally. Only last week Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, who is not known for being backward when it comes to criticism, said that the press had given Doncaster prison
  "a very very unfair reputation".
  Indeed, he described some of the coverage as "absolute nonsense." Like him. I think that it is time to be positive about the real achievements of the contractually managed prisons as examples of good practice and value for money.
  Ms Lynne: What about Buckley Hall?
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The rapid construction of Buckley Hall by the Prison Service's own construction organisation was a tremendous achievement. Permanent accommodation for 350 inmates was made available within 10 months of construction starting. Before that, 90 prisoners had been housed in temporary cells located in what are now the workshops. Why? Because the alternative was police cells.
  However, in bringing prisoners into what was still partly a building site, we made extra demands on the contractor, and certainly on newly recruited prisoner custody officers. I am grateful for the way in which Group 4 helped us to avoid a return to the prolonged use of police cells in the north-west.
  My fourth point is also obvious, but it needs recognition. It is that most of the staff are new to prison work. They are nearly all local people. About 90 per cent. of them have been recruited locally, and the new prison has created 150 jobs. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Rochdale would join me in paying tribute to the dedication and thoughtfulness that the staff have brought to their new work.
  My last general point is that the hon. Lady is not alone in taking a close interest in the initial period of operations at Buckley Hall. During the period from November to

  999
  January, the Prison Service undertook a contract audit. The purpose of that was to review progress since the opening of the prison in November 1994. In particular, the auditors were charged to assess overall security and control.
  The Prison Service planned to identify any steps that would need to be discussed with Group 4 management with a view to consolidating and building on what had already been achieved to date, to monitor audit compliance and to establish whether the contract was being complied with in full. From all that, only two improvement notices, covering workshop places and sentence plans, were issued. Those matters were remedied in what the Prison Service judged to be a satisfactory manner, and it was also content with Group 4's plans for the next phase of the prison's operational life.
  That is because, in addition to responding to points that the Prison Service raised, Group 4 had done its own internal management review of Buckley Hall, resulting in an action plan to strengthen local management, increase the supervision of staff and expand and enhance staff training.
  The hon. Lady made comparisons between Buckley Hall and the average performance of other category C male training prisons. I want to spend some time on that subject. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's persistence in tabling a long stream of parliamentary questions, but such comparisons are not valid. Male category C prisons cover a wide range of prisons and prisoner populations, ranging from hutted accommodation converted from former RAF bases and former open prisons—for example, Haverigg and Ashwell—to other prisons with cellular accommodation built specifically to category C standards, with a secure wall—Risley, for instance.
  For the purpose of comparison, therefore, we take the group of category C male training prisons to which Buckley Hall most naturally belongs. Those are prisons with good control capability, based on judgments about the ease of supervision, the internal zoning within the prison, the site size, whether buildings are spread out or compact, and special programmes.
  The prisons most easily comparable are Risley, Coldingley, Stocken, Lancaster, Camp Hill and Wealstun. I stress that in addition, any assessment of relative performance needs to take account of the newness of the prison and the fact that most staff at Buckley Hall were on a steep learning curve.
  Taking the Prison Service key performance indicators, the first comparator is the number of escapes from custody—defined as no recapture within 15 minutes. During 1995–96, of that group, Coldingley, Risley and Stocken have had two escapes to date. Buckley Hall and the closed part of Wealstun had one such escape. Camp Hill and Lancaster Castle had none.
  Another comparator is the number of assaults. Any prison is likely to experience an above-average rate of assaults during its initial period. As the hon. Lady knows from a reply that I gave her recently, the rate of assaults against staff in 1995 was 7.11 per cent., and in January 1996 3.5 per cent., compared with overall averages for all category C prisons of 2.7 per cent. and 2.9 per cent. respectively.
  I shall now use the proper comparator group. Using the Prison Service's KPIs—key performance indicators—which record the average percentage of average
  1000
  population for all assaults against both prisoners and staff, for Buckley Hall the rate is 8.8 per cent. In the comparable category C group, Risley considerably exceeds that, at 15.6 per cent., and another prison, which has been in operation for many years and is therefore not on a steep learning curve, Camp Hill prison, rates 6.8 per cent.
  I am a great believer in attempting to use statistics fairly and sensibly, so I should add that the Risley figure relates to a prison with separate male and female units, the latter operating as a local prison with a high number of disturbed and disruptive prisoners.
  As for regime hours at Buckley, as I have already mentioned, the prison was handicapped when it opened because the workshops were used to house temporary cells. Numbers were built up on site, but the workshops were converted back for their intended use, and therefore for constructive activity, only at the end of July. By last Friday, the average regime hours figure at Buckley Hall for the preceding week was 29. In the comparator group, the figure for Camp Hill was 29.4, for Risley 28.7, for Coldingley 27.3 and for Lancaster Castle 26.1.
  One of the other issues raised by the hon. Lady was the escape on 19 February of Philip Buckley—a most unfortunate name, in the circumstances—who was serving a sentence of two and a half years for burglary. That incident was investigated by the Prison Service, and we concluded that a number of factors had contributed to the escape.
  Group 4 was warned that the Prison Service intended to impose a financial remedy for failure to maintain security standards. In the event, Group 4, having reassessed physical security, is investing in the provision of additional security measures, including fencing and security cameras. I understand that that was explained to the hon. Lady when she visited the prison recently.
  I fully share the hon. Lady's concern about the smuggling of illicit drugs—and, although she did not stress that aspect, alcohol—into the prison. Who would not share that concern? We face the same problem throughout the prison estate, and I am satisfied that Buckley Hall's management is tackling it with rigour.
  Every person visiting an inmate is searched. A drugs dog is available. In addition, visitors are requested to leave hand luggage in locked compartments in the reception area and, unusually for a category C prison, Group 4 has installed an X-ray portal through which visitors must pass before entering the prison. Cameras have been installed in the visits room for monitoring and, if necessary, for collecting evidence of attempts to pass on drugs or alcohol.
  In order to restrict illicit access to drugs, changes have also been made in the prison pharmacy. As the hon. Lady said, a quantity of drugs was stolen following a break-in during the first few days of August, shortly after the main accommodation had been brought into use. The drugs had been properly stored in a regulation steel drugs cabinet, and the lock was appropriate. However, the medical building itself proved to be insufficiently secure. Following that incident, the Prison Service improved physical security and Group 4 introduced new dispensing arrangements, to ensure no medicine capable of misuse was stored near inmate accommodation overnight.
  I do not wish to spend too much more time on the details of the debate, because I want to end with some general observations. As I said at the beginning, Prison Service

  1001
  staff, in both the public and the private sector, have a difficult job to do. The Prison Service has a remarkable record of achievement since it became an agency—in the reduction in the number of escapes, for example, which at the end of last year amounted to 83 per cent.
  I do not believe for one moment that if any private sector company had made such an improvement in its performance, people would denigrate it in such a fashion. I believe that we should pay tremendous tribute to the Prison Service—
  Ms Lynne: The Minister has not answered my questions in detail.
  Miss Widdecombe: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Rochdale is complaining that I did not answer all her questions. She asked me about drugs, about security, and about assaults, and I have addressed all those questions. If there is any question that I have not answered to her satisfaction, she has a pen and paper, and she knows very well that I shall always give her the courtesy of a reply.

  Dental Care
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of dental care. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that when I discussed with him the possibility of raising the matter on the Adjournment, he readily agreed. I am grateful to him for that, and I welcome him to the Front Bench today.
  The debate has three purposes: first, to highlight one highly unsatisfactory constituency case of unnecessary and unsatisfactory dental treatment; secondly, to reveal the shortcomings of the way in which the General Dental Council—the dentists' regulatory body—can deal with such cases; and, thirdly, to demonstrate the shortage of dentists providing NHS treatment in Gloucestershire.
  I am well aware of the vast annual growth in state spending on NHS dental services. Since 1979, there has been a 69 per cent. increase in real terms in spending, reaching £1.3 billion in 1992–93. The problem is that, as in other areas of the NHS, technology has moved on at such a rate that ever more complex dental treatments are possible. People's expectations are higher than ever before, and some new treatments are extremely costly for the NHS to provide. Everyone should be entitled to receive reasonable treatment under the NHS, however, and most people should now, with correct dental care, expect to keep their real teeth for most of their lives.
  Before I outline the facts relating to the case of my constituent, Mrs. Gee, I should state that I went to great lengths to check the facts, including corresponding with the dentist concerned and the independent consultant who reviewed the work. Mrs. Gee came to see me at the House so that I was able to question her face to face. I am convinced that there are a small minority of rogue dentists who undertake treatment that is unnecessary, or who augment basic treatment merely to earn increased fees. Of course, such cases are difficult to prove.
  Mrs. Gee's case began in October 1993 when, after some minor dental treatment involving a filling costing only £55, Mr. Scott-Holeyman of Moreton-in-Marsh, suggested that some additional dental work to replace an existing denture would be ideal. A new bridge would be fitted, and root treatment carried out. It was explained that the work would cost £1,500 and that having the work done privately would ensure top-quality bridgework with well-fitting crowns and pure gold posts. Mrs. Gee took the word of the dentist that the work was necessary and would improve her quality of life. In reality, as she was to find out later, the work was possibly unnecessary and could offer only a marginal advantage over the existing denture.
  My constituent was in constant pain from the bridge as soon as it was fitted. She endured 17 visits to the dentist—totalling more than 30 hours—where, on each occasion, minor adjustments were made, such as grinding down the teeth. The bridge, however, remained in place. Eventually she asked for a second opinion from the dentist's partner. It became clear from using a mould that the bite was seriously wrong, with the top and bottom teeth failing to meet.
  To this day, the dentist who treated Mrs. Gee cannot accept that his treatment was unsatisfactory. In a letter to me dated 28 February 1996, he stated:

  1003
  "I am unsure about exactly what it is I am supposed to have done."
  But the evidence is clear, because Mrs. Gee immediately sought a report from a consultant in restorative dentistry, which stated that a fixed bridge of the type that was used may not have been appropriate, and that the pre-existing removable denture may well have been better in the circumstances.
  Mrs. Gee finally went to have restorative work done at Birmingham dental hospital more than a year after the original treatment, and the bridge was removed. Five teeth were affected by the attempted bridge work, two of which have been lost and the remaining three extensively restored. The major point is that, two years later, remedial dental treatment continues at the taxpayer's expense in the NHS hospital at Birmingham. Mrs. Gee has had to endure 28 separate and very painful visits to the dental hospital to put right work that may not have been necessary in the first place.
  On my constituent's behalf, I took up the case with the General Dental Council which in theory has a remit to regulate the profession under the Dentists Act 1984. The GDC investigated Mrs. Gee's complaint, but concluded that there was not a prima facie case of serious professional misconduct by the dentist. The GDC can suspend a dentist only when serious professional misconduct has been proved. Although I am not a lawyer, that would amount in my opinion to something as serious as pulling out all of someone's teeth, or rape or a similar act. My constituent underwent unsatisfactory treatment, but it did not amount to serious professional misconduct and—under its present constitution—the GDC had no power to act.
  Court action would be difficult without access to all the documents relating to Mrs. Gee's treatment. There are double standards on the part of the GDC, because it is reluctant to co-operate with her since completing its own investigation. Mrs. Gee supplied a copy of her own report and an assessment of the original treatment before the restorative work commenced for the GDC disciplinary hearing to which I referred. The GDC happily passed that report on to the dentist so that it could be used in his own defence. Mrs. Gee, however, cannot get from the Birmingham dental hospital a document relating to her own treatment that would form a central part of any court action. That is unsatisfactory, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will request a copy of the report from Birmingham dental hospital so that he can satisfy himself as to the seriousness of the case.
  The House would be entitled to ask why the dental profession is dragging its feet. A sceptic might say that the dental profession is aware of the three-year time limit within which medical negligence cases must be brought. This period is fast approaching its end. But why must we have this limit at all? The Minister will know for example, that negligence claims against employers can take much longer than three years to come to court, and can take six or more years to do so.
  It has been important to highlight the issues surrounding Mrs. Gee's case because they highlight the shortcomings of the GDC's regulatory structure. All treatment under the NHS is subject to a complaints procedure that is not open to private dentists. Therefore, people such as Mrs. Gee have no redress under the NHS. It is high time that the GDC modernised its
  1004
  procedures in line with those adopted for doctors by the General Medical Council. Dentists who fall short of the serious professional misconduct category could then be disciplined for persistent professional misconduct. In particular, there must be powers to suspend dentists temporarily while they undergo re-training and to ensure that all dentists undergo continual professional development throughout their careers. That happens in many other professions, including my own—chartered surveying.
  I urge my hon. Friend to initiate an urgent consultation with the dental profession to implement these changes and all the changes recommended in the GDC consultation paper put out in November 1995, with a view to legislation along the lines of the Medical (Professional Performance) Act 1995 which will give the GMC powers to regulate GPs from next year. The people of this country need to be reassured on this matter.
  Action is vital because the provision of NHS dentistry in the rural areas of Gloucestershire is unsatisfactory. My constituency has one of the highest proportions of NHS dentists either opting out entirely of providing NHS treatment or merely treating children and those with exemption certificates. The health authority has attempted to alleviate the situation by employing salaried dental staff in local clinics. But the health authority provision lags behind potential local demand by a long way. For example, there is only one NHS salaried dentist in the Tewkesbury area every other Friday from 9 am to 1 pm and from 2 pm to 5 pm—this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to serve a population of about 14,000.
  How can the situation be improved? The health authority is keen to have at least one extra salaried post, but its hands are tied by the national Department of Health rules on salary levels which mean that the health authority is unable to employ the extra salaried dentists that it needs.
  Gloucestershire health authority has unfilled posts because it cannot attract dentists. Health authorities should be given more flexibility in, for example, the fringe benefits that they can offer salaried dentists, such as moving expenses and increased housing allowance, to fill unfilled posts. Ultimately, there are no other mechanisms whereby the NHS can provide NHS dentistry, if there are unfilled posts.
  I hope that there will be action as a result of this debate. First, I look to the Minister to demand the document from the Birmingham dental hospital which catalogues Mrs. Gee's ordeal and is central to her being able to pursue successful legal action.
  Secondly, I look to the Minister for action to ensure that the General Dental Council quickly follows the route taken by the General Medical Council to deal with rogue dentists who exploit private and, indeed, NHS patients. Finally, I hope that the Minister will look again at the regulations governing salaried NHS dental staff to find out what can be done to ensure that the vacant posts are filled by allowing health authorities greater flexibility in the allowances that they can offer to attract and retain dental staff.
  I would like to think that, in raising this matter today on behalf of my constituents, the dental situation in Gloucestershire will improve rapidly. I am thankful for the opportunity to raise the matter.
  1.40 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): First, I am pleased to be able to respond to the particular and the general issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised and to congratulate him on using one of the most powerful tools we have to raise the complaints of individual constituents and their concerns in this forum.
  Since last November, my hon. Friend has been working hard on Mrs. Gee's behalf to ensure that the problems that she has had following her dental treatment are properly addressed. I know too that the case raises wider issues, which will be of interest to all patients when they make choices about their dental health care.
  My hon. Friend will be well aware that Mrs. Gee's case is still subject to the legal process. I am sure that he will understand why, when I discuss it, I want to do so in terms of the general principles that it raises, but I will also respond to one or two of the points he made. I am pleased to be able to say that I will also let the House know about some of the successful things that are going on in dentistry today, including our plans for a new complaints procedure for NHS patients, which has some bearing on Mrs. Gee's case.
  It is to standards of service that I shall first turn my attention. The case raises two aspects of that matter, which go to the heart of Government policy for dentistry. Those are to ensure high standards of patient treatment and care and a mechanism whereby there can be an effective response when things go wrong, as they surely do from time to time in any profession.
  The General Dental Council shares our aim that the dental profession should promote high standards of treatment and care. I suspect that my hon. Friend—perhaps unconsciously—was a little more vigorous towards the GDC, rather than to me, than he should have been when dealing with this issue. As he pointed out, it has raised issues that have come to my attention on which we need to make progress. I have found the council extremely keen to move down the route that he suggested to ensure that patients get quality of care and high standards are promoted. It is part of its direct remit, flowing from the Dentists Act 1984, to promote high standards of professional education and conduct among all dentists—this is the important point—whether they be NHS or private dentists, which was the case with Mrs. Gee.
  To be legally entitled to practise dentistry, all dentists must appear on the GDC register; they must be suitably qualified. To that end, the GDC assesses standards of dental education at the universities and postgraduate bodies, which enables it to ensure that the qualifying examinations meet the appropriate standards. In the NHS, too, we aim to promote high professional standards throughout. It is a requirement of the dentists' terms of service that they keep their clinical skills up to date.
  To enable them to comply with that requirement, we provide a postgraduate education allowance, which allows them to claim a fee when they attend a postgraduate course and helps to ensure that their income is maintained and that there is no disincentive to keep up to date with skills. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, in dentistry, as in so many other areas of medicine, skills need to be developed to cope with the changing technology to which he referred. That
  1006
  provision is just one aspect of the dentists' NHS terms of service, which place the accent very firmly indeed on providing high standards of patient care.
  The second aspect concerns what happens when treatment does not turn out as well as patients and dentists hope. Of course, I acknowledge that patients need to have the security of the knowledge that their concerns will be addressed and remedies provided. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that much work is being done in that area following the publication of Professor Wilson's committee's report "Being Heard" and our response "Acting on Complaints". From 1 April, a new complaints procedure, which will be common throughout the NHS, will be put in place.
  The aim of the new system, which has been worked out with the profession, is to make the complaints procedure more accessible, speedier and fairer to all. I am sure that the whole House will welcome that, as many hon. Members already have. For all family health service practitioners, the new system will replace the present formal system.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will that complaints procedure cover private dentistry in any way?
  Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend has probably anticipated the fact that I will come to that point, because I understand Mrs. Gee's case to be in that category. I thought that it would be helpful, as my hon. Friend raised the subject of general standards of quality, if I dealt with his NHS constituents—of whom there are many—as well as with what happens with private dentistry.
  The new complaints procedure will be practice-based. It will follow the introduction of a new terms of service provision for dentists. Where it is not possible to resolve complaints at the practice level, which should be the first and most convenient port of call, the local health authority will have an independent review role to play to offer conciliation and take unresolved issues forward.
  The patients' rights of redress do not end there. If a patient is unhappy following independent review by the health authority, or has been denied an independent review, he or she will also have the right to take the case to the health service commissioner. From 1 April, subject to the approval of Parliament, the commissioner will be able to consider clinical matters as well as administrative maladministration. That is probably the most important aspect of what happens in cases of this sort, although Mrs. Gee's was not an NHS case. The new system will widen matters to an extent that will help the public greatly.
  The new system has two principal aims. One is patient confidentiality and the other is early resolution; both are extremely important. All NHS dentists and the new health authorities have received guidance about the new system. Much work has been done to get it into place and to ensure that everyone understands what procedures need to be followed so that, as at 1 April, it is up and running.
  Those are the provisions that will be in place to deal with NHS patient complaints, which may arise in my hon. Friend's constituency, although I hope that there will not be too many of them. I hope that those that do arise will be rapidly resolved. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the provisions do not apply to cases such as that of Mrs. Gee, whose treatment was undertaken on a private basis.

  1007
  I emphasise to my hon. Friend, who rightly asks what Mrs. Gee should do in those circumstances, that private patients also have their remedies. They can get help from a range of sources. They can get it from the British Dental Association, which provides guidance to its members in dealing with complaints. If Mrs. Gee had been privately insured with a scheme such as Denplan, she would have found that such schemes—which are becoming fairly common—usually provide a conciliation service as part of good business practice.
  Of course, the General Dental Council, which deals with matters of professional conduct and upholds professional standards, has a keen interest in all those matters, which are at the centre of my hon. Friend's arguments and of his queries about how we can take the matter forward and develop the council's ability to deal with such problems. At present, where a dentist's fitness to practise is judged by the health committee to be seriously impaired, the GDC may order the dentist's registration to be suspended or to be conditional on complying with conditions imposed for the protection of the public or in the dentist's interests.
  I shall now deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend about where we go from here, because, as he asserted, change is needed. The General Dental Council has approached my Department with a view to amending the Dentists Act 1984 so that it can set up a system to deal with patients' complaints about treatment outside the NHS. We shall consider that proposal sympathetically, all the better informed for my hon. Friend's powerful arguments about why that should be done.
  As this case has illustrated, it is important that private patients should have access to an acceptable complaints procedure. It is in the interests not only of patients but of the profession as a whole that there should be a procedure whereby complaints can be sorted out before the present right of recourse, which is open to patients, including my hon. Friend's constituents, to pursue complaints through the courts, is used. It is important that we do what we can to widen the scope for patients to resolve matters—and resolve them quickly, because, in cases where pain is involved, people need to resolve them quickly. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that, since we were approached about the issue, we have been active in its pursuit and we will continue to remain active in ensuring that patient complaints, NHS or private, are properly and speedily dealt with.
  The General Dental Council has plans to establish a statutory career redevelopment procedure that may be applicable to dentists whose performance, while not amounting to serious professional misconduct, falls below the high standards set by the profession. My hon. Friend made an apt analogy in referring to the legislation for doctors. Such a change would require primary legislation and an amendment to the Dentists Act 1984. In the meantime, any initiative by the General Dental Council to introduce voluntary participation in such procedures would be welcome. I hope that it has heard what he said and noted his concerns. Perhaps it will give that some thought.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the availability of dentistry. As he knows, dentists are independent contractors and can choose where to set up in business and which patients they will see. Patients are able to choose whether to have treatment privately, under NHS provision or on a part-NHS, part-private basis. In that
  1008
  situation, our aim is to ensure that there is real choice for all patients at all times. That raises questions about the availability of general dental services, so I shall set out our plans on that important matter. As my hon. Friend alluded to it and it is important that the situation should be widely understood, I will consider the national situation before moving to the difficulties in his constituency.
  First, the idea that NHS dentistry is disappearing across the country is far from the truth. It is not, and there is no evidence to support that contention. There are now more dentists providing NHS treatment on family health services authority lists. There were 15,942 on 30 December 1995, which is 516 up on June 1992. I lose no opportunity to put that fact firmly on record because, to hear some people talk about NHS dentistry, one would assume that it was dying. It is not. We are committed to NHS dentistry and to accessible and effective service. To that end, not only am I pleased that there are more dentists providing it, but the Government have supported it with cash. Between 1978–79 and 1994–95, expenditure grew 60 per cent. in real terms.
  Although that may reassure my hon. Friend about the nation, he specifically raised constituency matters. Of course, I know that it may sometimes be difficult to obtain treatment in some parts of the country. For example, there is often difficulty in isolated rural communities; it is a problem of locality. My hon. Friend's constituency is an example of such problems. Some adult patients there have to travel further to find NHS dentists to treat them. That is why we have already approved the recruitment of salaried dentists to help meet shortfalls in provision.
  Last week, Gloucestershire family health services authority reported that there were five salaried dentists in the county making such provision for patients. I understand the recruitment difficulties to which my hon. Friend alluded. It is sometimes frustrating for everyone trying to deliver the service that there appear to be mechanistic obstacles in the way, but I remind him that, at present, salaries for salaried dentists are recommended by the independent review body. That does not mean that I will not carefully consider his suggestions about flexibility. I am pleased to be able to say that we have approved the appointment of a further two salaried dentists in Gloucestershire. When appointed, they will help to augment existing salaried provision in the county.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that a possible way to ease the situation would be to move from a system of salaries for salaried dentists to one along locally determined pay lines, as nurses, for example, have done?
  Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend makes some interesting suggestions. Should those who are in a position to take advantage of them choose to do so, I would not stand in their way. Flexibility is important in these matters. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I am anxious to ensure that existing FHSA mechanisms are used fully. Many problems could be resolved with primary legislation, to which we are committed in due course, when we enter into a purchaser-provider system.
  My hon. Friend is interested not only in the long term but in the short term for his constituents. I conclude by dealing with the three specific points that he raised.

  1009
  First, I will write to him about the report that Mrs. Gee is trying obtain from the Birmingham dental hospital. Secondly, I can reassure him that we will consider sympathetically the GDC's plans to establish a statutory career redevelopment procedure that may be applicable to dentists whose performance, while it does not amount to serious professional misconduct, falls below the high standards set by the profession. Thirdly, we have a clear
  1010
  policy that effective NHS dentistry should be available to all who want to make use of it. We will take all available steps to ensure that it is. My hon. Friend has set out several practical ways that, in the context of his constituency, may be possible. I will consider that carefully as we take the discussion of this important matter forward.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Taxation
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about taxes paid per head by people living in Scotland and the public expenditure per head spent there. [21319]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have received lots of representations on the subject.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he aware of the report published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies about taxation as it will affect the regions should we have devolution in Scotland? It predicts that the basic rate of tax in Scotland would rise from 25p to 36p in the pound and that the top rate of tax in Scotland would rise from 40p to 58p in the pound. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Scotland know very well that it would be madness to opt for devolution?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Institute of Fiscal Studies issued a report today which examines the effects on income tax on the basis of its assumptions about the implications of devolution and regional assemblies. The figures that my hon. Friend has cited seem to correspond with the predictions of the Institute of Fiscal Studies. I do not have responsibility for the institute and its conclusions—which are not always helpful to the Government. However, on this occasion they reflect the dangers of devolution that we have drawn to the attention of the wider public and the taxation consequences for the Scottish people.
    Mr. Connarty: Is the Secretary of State aware that the tax that everyone in Scotland is talking about—the 23rd Tory tax and the second Forsyth tax—is called the council tax? It will go massively through the roof in most local authorities in Scotland, not because of overspending but because of massive underfunding by the Government on reorganisation which the Secretary of State's party forced upon the unwilling people of Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is a former leader of Stirling district council and a former parliamentary candidate in Stirling, where he was unsuccessful—twice. I am sure that he will be interested to know that when I visited the Central region and the new unitary authority to receive a briefing as to why council tax in Stirling is projected to increase by 18 per cent. I was told that, if the previous council had not spent the balances, the increase would be 4 per cent. The profligacy of councils in the current year has led to big increases in council tax. They are not Conservative councils, but Labour councils, and the hon. Gentleman should take responsibility for them.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House what he told me in the Scottish Select Committee—that public expenditure in Scotland is 35 per cent. higher per head of population than in England? Does he seriously expect my electors in the north of England
    1012
    to cough up for that level of transfer if the Scottish people are given their own Parliament and their own tax-raising powers?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right: the expenditure on those elements of the Scottish block is about one third per head higher in Scotland than it is in England. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the dangers—should a Scottish Parliament, with tax-raising powers, be established—of assuming that English Members of Parliament would continue to vote more for a Scottish Parliament than for their own constituencies. There is also the possibility of conflict which would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom; that is no doubt why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is so enthusiastic about the proposals.
    Mr. Wallace: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of public expenditure per head in Scotland if the Government were to introduce an immediate intervention buying scheme for beef? I am sure that he recognises the importance of the industry to Scotland, not only in terms of farming but in terms of meat processing and slaughterhouses. Does he accept that the urgent introduction of an intervention system is the minimum action necessary to get the Scottish meat trade moving again?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the crisis facing Scotland's farmers is very serious. I had an opportunity to discuss the position with the Scottish National Farmers Union this morning. It put a number of proposals to me, which I said that I would discuss with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my colleagues later today. I was also able to give the union an assurance that we would underwrite and take part in an initiative to help restore confidence in Scottish prime beef and that we would ensure that there is a co-ordinating committee within the Scottish Office drawing all interests together.
    I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the responsible view that he and his party have taken on a matter of great concern to people not only in farming but in all the downstream industries that are affected in Scotland.

    Productivity
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an estimate of productivity growth in Scottish industry since 1979. [21320]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Between 1979 and 1993 there was a productivity growth in Scotland of 30 per cent.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that productivity growth in Scotland has not only exceeded that of the G7 countries over the past decade, but has substantially exceeded that of the United Kingdom as a whole? Is that not an indication of the huge economic transformation and growth in competitiveness that have taken place in Scotland over the past 15 years? Does it not give the lie to the claims of the Labour party that this period has seen an erosion in the Scottish manufacturing base, which is total nonsense?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the spectacular success of the Scottish economy in

    1013
    recent years. The last three years have seen an increase in productivity in Scotland that has exceeded that of the rest of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom as a whole has been the job generator in Europe and unemployment has fallen as a result. Scotland has led the way, due to the enterprise of the Scottish people and the success of the Government's policies.
    Mr. George Robertson: On the subject of productivity in Scottish industries and the dilemma and crisis facing the farming and processing industries in Scotland, does the Secretary of State agree that this crisis needs all of us to work together to restore confidence in Scottish beef and to allay the legitimate health concerns on which the public will have to make up their own minds? Does he accept that the dithering, muddling and indecision on the part of the Government have played a decisive part in contributing to the crisis?
    Does he agree that radical and decisive action is now necessary for the future and that it must include some consideration of the National Farmers Union proposal for selective slaughter, a severe tightening of slaughtering laws and operation, and more publicity for the fact that quality-assured herds, both north and south of the border, are in a special case and class of their own? Will the Government consider a tracing scheme for cattle, such as that which already applies successfully in Northern Ireland? [Interruption.] Is it not time that much more energy went into accessing European funds to help this critically important and deeply endangered industry? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. There seems to be some confusion. The hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box is perfectly in order. He is talking about Scottish industry and I would have thought that the beef industry in Scotland was a most important industry in that country.
    Mr. Robertson: Perhaps above the noise of the gaggle of irresponsible Conservative Members, I could repeat the final part of my question. Before you rightly reminded hon. Members of the relevance and importance of the issue, Madam Speaker, I asked whether it was not time for much more energy to be put into accessing European funds by all of us, including the Government, to help that vital and deeply endangered industry.
    Mr. Forsyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assertion that what is needed is for people to approach the problem on a non-partisan basis, and I am therefore disappointed that he should accuse the Government of having dithered. I have been fully involved in all the discussions and the Government have acted on the basis of scientific advice, which has made it perfectly clear that British beef and Scottish beef are safe and that the risk from consuming beef is very small.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of specific questions. The Scottish National Farmers Union has not advocated a policy of slaughter, as he suggested. It has advocated that cast cows should not be allowed to enter the food chain. The Spongi form Encephalopathy Advisory Committee recommendations were that those carcasses should be treated in a particular way and deboned. The farmers union proposal is that the cast cows should not enter the food chain at all, but that their
    1014
    carcasses should be disposed of at the end of their useful life. That proposal is worthy of consideration along with the others.
    The hon. Gentleman's point about ensuring proper procedures in slaughterhouses was part of the SEAC recommendations, and we are proceeding on that basis. The hon. Gentleman has asked to see me tomorrow, with his colleagues, to discuss the way forward. I am sure that I speak for everyone in farming in Scotland if I say that they long for the House to address the problem in a careful and deliberative manner and to avoid the temptation to score party political points on an issue which affects the livelihoods of thousands of people. Careless talk will cost livelihoods and destroy public confidence.
    Sir Hector Monro: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said—and the comments of some Opposition Members—about the seriousness of the situation in Scotland. Is my right hon. Friend aware that auction marts, abattoirs and processing plants are at a full stop now? Given the advice that he has had from the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Government's discussions, will he be able to put some measures in place by next week so that confidence can be restored to the most important industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the position is very serious. Jobs are already being lost and people are being laid off. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the market is at a standstill. It is important to restore public confidence and those matters are being addressed. Discussions are going on between my officials, officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and people from the European Commission.
    I share my right hon. Friend's desire to see effective action taken quickly and I am grateful to him and to other hon. Members who have kept my office informed of the concerns that have arisen in Scotland. I am also grateful for the constructive role that the farmers union and others are playing at a difficult time.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State confirm that thousands of Scottish farms are in quality-assured schemes which have traceability? They have long banned any bonemeal or blood products, and that is why they are safe. In Scotland, we have breeds of Aberdeen Angus, Galloway and Highland cattle that are BSE-free. How has the Secretary of State allowed that quality of production, which is probably the safest in Europe, to be swept into the maelstrom surrounding the safety of British beef products? What proposals has the Secretary of State made to eradicate BSE from the Scottish dairy herd? What proposals does he have to exempt quality-assured beef production in Scotland from boycotts and bans? Can he argue that the confusion we have seen from Government Ministers has had any other effect than to cost the livelihoods of thousands of people in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman would do well to discuss his proposals with the Scottish National Farmers Union before advocating them. If he did so, he would find that his proposals do not command the union's support. The view of the SNFU is that both it and the NFU in England have a job to do—to restore confidence in British beef. All Scottish beef is safe to eat according to the

    1015
    experts, and the hon. Gentleman should not use this House or any other forum to say that there is beef that is not safe and beef that is. The expert advice is clear; what the hon. Gentleman has just said is an example of careless talk costing jobs in Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom has the toughest regime in existence for inspection, slaughter, disposal and sale, and that we should draw the public's and the media's attention to the work done since 1989 to produce that safe regime? Perhaps we should get them to think about the double standards on the continent and the misinformation coming from some sources.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We have been guided by science, and the scientific advice on the safety of British and Scottish beef is clear. The fact is, however, that market confidence has been severely damaged and we need to take specific measures to restore that confidence. Measures will need to be taken rapidly, and that is what is being considered at the moment. Recriminations and reaching conclusions with the benefit of hindsight are not for now: for now, we must try to ensure that British beef and those whose jobs depend on it are safeguarded by a restoration of confidence in the marketplace.

    School Buildings
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make additional resources available to local authorities to enable them to improve or replace sub-standard school buildings. [21321]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has made substantial resources available to local authorities for school building work in recent years. In particular, on 4 March he announced the capital allocations for the new authorities for the financial year 1996–97.
    Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind the 47 per cent. cut in capital spending on schools since the Tories came to power, how on earth can the Minister justify giving more than £12 million a year to private, fee-paying schools through the assisted places scheme while pupils in local authority schools such as Graeme high school in my constituency have to put up with sub-standard accommodation? Will the Minister reconsider his refusal to meet representatives of the school's parents? Will he also accept an invitation to visit the school so that he can see the situation for himself and be persuaded either to upgrade or to replace the sub-standard accommodation?
    Mr. Robertson: Of course I will visit the school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I was also delighted to be able to visit Bo'ness academy on 26 February at the invitation of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). I know that Graeme high school was badly affected by burst pipes during the cold spell at Christmas, but I understand that the necessary repairs have now been carried out. The broader question of refurbishment is a matter for the new Falkirk council.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in Strathclyde has been the fact that the
    1016
    education authority has kept open far too many school buildings for the number of pupils attending school? As a consequence, it has overstretched its budget. Does he recognise that the change to single-tier authorities will allow the local authority in my area to meet the needs of local people in terms of providing additional nursery places?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Accounts Commission has said that there are more than 300,000 surplus places in Scottish schools. I hope that the new authorities taking over on 1 April will look sensitively and carefully at the problem of over-capacity, at all times taking parents and others with them so as to ensure that the matter is dealt with sensitively.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the population growth in my constituency is quite high? Indeed, I understand that, within 10 years, Perth is likely to be the same size as Dundee, if not larger. In those circumstances, far from any overcapacity, schools in my constituency are full almost to bursting point and in need of long-term repairs and in some cases new schools need to be built. In the current circumstances of local authority funding cuts, particularly in capital allocations, does the Minister agree that it is outrageous that my constituency has no opportunity to rationalise and no real money to undertake work that is absolutely necessary for an area with a growing population?
    Mr. Robertson: I remind the hon. Lady that in the five years to 1994 we increased capital allocations for educational building by more than one third and we have maintained that record spending level. The hon. Lady should make her strident representations to her local council, because local democracy and local government are about local councils making their own priorities in the light of their spending decisions.

    Forestry
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the new framework document for forestry policy. [21322]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): The framework document for the new Forest Enterprise Agency was published yesterday. There has been no change in forestry policy.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the removal of tax reliefs and their replacement by a variety of grants has had the beneficial effect of removing the stigma of a tax haven and encouraged the implementation of new planting techniques?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The intention of the package of incentives introduced in 1994 was to raise planting levels across the board, to increase the potential timber quality of broad-leafed woodlands and to help to improve the environmental and recreational value of forests. The total area of woodland planted last year, including restocking, was more than 33,000 hectares, so I believe that we are moving in the right direction.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that some of us are concerned about the gap that seems to be growing

    1017
    between the Government's declared policy in relation to the sale of forestry land and practice on the ground? Can he say what proportion of sales are going through without the public access agreements to which the Government are supposed to be committed?
    Mr. Kynoch: Every effort is made to secure access agreements, which guarantee access for the public on foot. Following the forestry review, the Forestry Commission has encouraged local authorities to respond positively when offered access agreements; it has allowed them more time to consider the agreements and has offered to meet their reasonable legal costs.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils were assisted by the assisted places scheme in the last year for which figures are available; and how many will be assisted in the year 1996–97. [21323]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Provisional figures indicate that around 3,050 pupils are being assisted in the current 1995–96 school session. Approximately 3,500 pupils will be assisted in the 1996–97 school session.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many parents of those who have been assisted under the assisted places scheme have an income of less than £9,000 per year? Does he agree that the scheme makes admission to private schools classless rather than the preserve of the privileged few, as it was when the Leader of the Opposition went to Fettes?
    Mr. Robertson: I can tell my hon. Friend that 46.41 per cent. of those parents had incomes of less than £9,711. I agree whole-heartedly with the second part of his question.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Plowden report recommend that the pupil-teacher ratio in deprived areas should be as low as 1:10? Why is he spending £10.9 million—possibly doubling to £20 million in the next year—on 3,000 assisted places? Does he think that that is just?
    Mr. Robertson: We are also funding, through the urban partnerships scheme, an additional 1,000 teachers in deprived areas throughout Scotland to help to raise standards in the very areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noted that Opposition Members would like to stop children from deprived families attending schools such as Fettes although they are quite happy to be led by someone who went to such a school? Is not what is good enough for the Leader of the Opposition good enough for deprived children in Scotland?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme has helped 11,000 children from less well-off
    1018
    backgrounds in Scotland to be given the same start in life as many Opposition Members. I do not see much wrong with that; it is a pity that Opposition Members do.
    Mrs. Liddell: How does the Minister justify a scheme that is so much at odds with the principles of education in Scotland, where 97 per cent. of school pupils are in the state sector? How can it be acceptable to spend £3,500 of taxpayers' money on pupils in private schools when less than £2,500 is spent on those in state schools? With regard to the £9,700 ceiling, will he enlighten us as to the monitoring mechanisms which exist to ensure that people do not use creative accounting to avail themselves of the scheme?
    Mr. Robertson: This is the second occasion on which the hon. Lady has cast aspersions on parents currently using the scheme. When the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation considered the Education (Assisted Places) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, I asked her to furnish me with any details of abuse that she might have. That was more than two months ago and I am still waiting. If the hon. Lady cannot put up on this subject, she should shut up. As for the comparative costs that she mentioned—£3,438 and £2,658—when she gives details of the alleged cases of abuse, perhaps she will tell us whether she included the cost of capital building and other central support services in the second figure before making her spurious comparison.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the abolition of the assisted places scheme, from which 3,500 children benefit, would place an additional heavy burden on local education authorities? Is it not a case of Labour Members being dogs in the manger, trying to deprive children of opportunities simply because they cannot all take advantages of those opportunities themselves?
    Mr. Robertson: I remind the House, and my hon. Friend, that the money that we spend on the assisted places scheme does not come from what we spend on state education; it comes from a different budget. If there were no assisted places scheme, all my hon. Friends would have a claim to the money.

    Highlands and Islands University
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the establishment of a highlands and islands university. [21324]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since I gave my answer to the hon. Lady at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Inverness, officials have been engaged in a wide range of meetings with a number of people. They are now considering the steps that need to be taken to establish a university of the Highlands.
    Mrs. Ewing: We welcome the progress that has been made since that statement, but will the Minister tell us what hurdles have been overcome in terms of meeting the criterion for the millennium fund? I understand that some £38 million may well be allocated to a highlands and islands university project through that fund. I also

    1019
    understand that the Minister is meeting officials next week to discuss the matter. Will he tell us what issues need to be investigated and studied? We are all very keen to have the university, which could create about 700 direct and 400 indirect jobs and inject £70 million per annum into the highlands and islands economy.
    Mr. Forsyth: I appear to be in the embarrassing position of finding that the hon. Lady knows more about my diary for next week than I do. If she tells me that I am to attend such a meeting, I can only assume that that is correct. The hon. Lady is right: at least one application has been made to the Millennium Commission, and a second application is now before the commission. Such decisions are taken independently of me, but I assure the hon. Lady that we are considering all the options and that I am applying all my energy and enthusiasm to make the project a reality—just as I did in the case of the splendid hospital which was established in her constituency when I was last in the Scottish Office. If we can create a partnership, I am sure that it will benefit the highlands and Scotland as a whole.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of students entering higher education in Scotland has more than doubled since 1980–81, and that since then those students have made a major contribution to Scottish industry, particularly Scottish high-tech industry?
    Mr. Forsyth: Higher education is an example of that success and Scotland has taken the lead in the use of technology as a means of teaching and of encouraging learning. That is the opportunity that the university of the highlands project represents. It is a way of creating a new style of university that draws on the technology of the next century. It will create opportunities to study for people in areas with widely spread communities and low populations in a way that has been pioneered by the gaelic college in Skye. There are great opportunities for Scotland to lead the way in this field, as in so many others.
    Dr. Bray: In the context of the extension of higher education facilities in Scotland, the Secretary of State is aware of the proposal by St. Andrews university and Lanarkshire development corporation for the establishment of a university college in Lanarkshire on the Ravenscraig site. Will he confirm that he would encourage a proposal on those lines from Scottish Enterprise or Lanarkshire development corporation?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I do not think is directly related to the university of the highlands. However, I am aware of his constituency interest in this matter and I shall certainly write to him about the matter.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: The Secretary of State will be aware that Dunstaffnage marine laboratory in Argyll hopes to be part of this exciting new highlands and islands university. He will also be aware that we hope to attract students from all over the place, including Northern Ireland. How will he help such students to get to Argyll? When will the Campbelltown-Ballycastle ferry link be established?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Lady knows, this is a complex and difficult issue and I am still awaiting advice
    1020
    from officials. If I can show the ingenuity that the hon. Lady has shown asking a question about a ferry service on a question about the highlands and islands university, I am sure that we will be able to overcome some of the difficulties that have been identified.
    As the hon. Lady knows, I should like such a service to be established. There are difficulties with viability, but these matters are being addressed by officials. As soon as I have received the advice, which I understand is imminent, I shall certainly look at it with a view to being helpful to the hon. Lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a serious matter and I shall try to be helpful to the hon. Lady and to many others who have expressed an interest in it, not least many of the hon. Members who sit behind the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State confirm that £6 million has been cut from the training budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and that further education colleges in the highlands and islands face a severe funding crisis because of Government cuts? Is there not a contradiction between his rhetoric supporting a university and the reality of cuts on the ground?
    Mr. Forsyth: There was a contradiction in what hon. Members said only a matter of weeks ago, when they argued for more of the money that is provided under the local government formula, which could only be at the expense of the Scottish Office block, and then complained about reductions in that block because money had been used to fund Labour-controlled councils throughout Scotland. Scottish Enterprise has given undertakings that it will meet its training output on a reduced budget, and I see no reason why Highlands and Island Enterprise should not be able to do the same.

    Electronic Goods Exports
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the trend in Scottish exports of electronic goods over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [21325]
    Mr. Kynoch: Over the past five years, Scotland's exports of electrical and electronic engineering have nearly trebled to reach a value of £2.122 billion in 1994.
    Mr. Congdon: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that is reflected in employment in the Scottish electronics industry, which has increased by 5 per cent. since 1984, and that employment in electronics manufacturing in Scotland accounts for 13 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in Scotland? Does not that demonstrate the success of the Government's policies in stimulating an enterprise culture and competitiveness in the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Kynoch: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, not only do they do that, but they have contributed significantly to the change in the economy of Scotland, where traditional industries that have gone through difficult times have been replaced by a significant electronic sector. That sector is growing and is aided by inward investment, which is attracted by the highly competitive nature of the environment in which we work and live under the Government in Scotland.
    Dr. Reid: Given that, a few moments ago, the Secretary of State asked us all to pull together and not to undermine

    1021
    industry in Scotland, will he take the same ordinance to heart? In future, will he stop undermining the possibility of future inward investment in Scotland with his puerile scares about a Scottish Assembly? Would he not do better to take the advice of Neil Hood, former director of Locate in Scotland, and now head of the Strathclyde international business unit, who said that there is no prima facie case that devolution in Scotland will affect inward investment? Least of all, will the right hon. Gentleman stop attempting to use petty party political points, which undermine future investment in Scotland, when he and his colleagues are at the same time demanding that everyone else should follow that stricture when it comes to beef?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, who I considered to be a fairly responsible Member, given the co-operation he gave me when discussing the unfortunate incident at Cummins. I shall, however, continue to ensure that everyone in Scotland is well aware of the implications of the tax proposals put forward by the Opposition parties—
    Dr. Reid: There he goes, deterring investment again.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman does not like hearing it because he believes that a drop in competitiveness will not affect industry in Scotland.
    I believe, however, that it is clear that, if Scotland became the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, and if the tartan tax were applied by the Opposition parties, Scottish industry would become less competitive and therefore not succeed. That would be bad for employment in Scotland and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, make it much more difficult for Scotland, in competition with other parts of the United Kingdom, let alone other parts of Europe, to attract inward investment to Scotland and Lanarkshire, which is near to his heart.
    Mr. Stewart: Would my hon. Friend pay tribute to the management and work force of those Scottish companies that have achieved enormous success in the production and export of personal computers, automatic banking machines and workstations? Does he also agree that there is additional and considerable potential to improve Scotland's exports of software?
    Mr. Kynoch: Yes. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the significant contribution made by the many employees in the electronics industry. Their productivity gains and commitment to their companies have contributed significantly to the success of those companies. My hon. Friend is right to talk about improving the export of software. Certain initiatives have already been taken and there has been a good exchange between Virginia and Scotland and Scotland and Virginia, with inward missions going both ways, and good co-operation on successful joint ventures in the interests of the industry. I hope that that will be encouraged. I also hope that future initiatives will be taken under the Scottish export strategy, known as international challenge, which I launched last year, to ensure even greater success in that important sector of business.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the financial position of further education colleges in Scotland. [21326]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The financial position of the Scottish further education colleges is satisfactory, with total net assets of £390 million.
    Mr. Worthington: It is utter nonsense to say that the financial capacity of FE colleges is satisfactory when 15 colleges, including that at Clydebank, face cuts of more than 4 per cent. this year, which will lead to job cuts. Given that all parties agree that skills shortages and the lack of skills in the work force are key factors that inhibit the success of the country, why are the Government cutting funding to FE colleges in Scotland?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman does the college in his constituency and the further education sector in Scotland a disservice. He should take time out to see the sterling work that is being done by FE colleges throughout Scotland since incorporation. The number of students and courses is at a record level. There are more qualifications. More money is going into the sector and outputs are second to none. In many ways, FE colleges in Scotland are leading not just the United Kingdom, but the world. The hon. Gentleman should go to his local college in Clydebank and see at first hand what is happening.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely my hon. Friend agrees that, since the Government came to power, the number of people going into further education colleges in Scotland has more than doubled and that the excellent work in those colleges is reflected in the success of Scottish industries. Will he assure the House that he will keep a close eye on the number of people wanting to go to college as first-time entrants and ensure that excellent retraining courses are available to people further on in their careers?
    Mr. Robertson: I take on board all my hon. Friend's points. More money, more students, more courses—that is what is happening in further education throughout Scotland. It does little credit to Opposition Members that it takes an English Member to praise Scottish further education.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: May I praise North Glasgow college, which is in my constituency and has campuses in Springburn and in Barmulloch? It draws students from all over the Glasgow region and from Lanarkshire. If that college were not there, many young boys and girls would be unemployed and on the dole. At least gaining the college's qualifications gives them an opportunity to have a more secure future. I urge the Minister to increase expenditure on all such colleges because they are excellent places of learning.
    Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's warm words for what is happening at the college in his constituency. The same thing is happening throughout Scotland. We are putting more money than ever before into further education, and that has been shown by the results.
    Mr. Maclennan: I do not take issue with the Minister's general points, but will he consider with particular care the financial predicament of the colleges in Thurso and Inverness? Due to a new formula, central Government assistance for those colleges has been slashed. My hon.

    1023
    Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and I have received strong representations from the principals about that.
    Mr. Robertson: Formula funding is the fairest way in which to fund further education colleges. Last summer, when I visited many colleges throughout Scotland, I was struck by the number of principals who supported the formula funding policy. We have adopted a measured, phased approach of 100 per cent. formula funding, with a safety net to ensure that no college receives a grant of 5 per cent. less than the previous year. I am more than happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman and those principals if he wishes to bring them here.

    Tree Diseases
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount currently spent by his Department on research into tree diseases; and what was the figure in 1990. [21327]
    Mr. Kynoch: Last year, the Forestry Commission spent £785,000 on research into tree diseases. Its expenditure in 1990 was £715,000.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What areas of tree disease attract the most funding? On what basis are those priorities made? What trees are most susceptible to disease?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend has a healthy interest in tree diseases. I know that he has been invited to visit the research station at Alice Holt in Farnham. When he sets a date for his visit, which I understand he has not yet done, he will be able to have a root and branch examination into all the diseases and, possibly, at the next Scottish questions, he can branch out into another area.

    Health Board Boundaries
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the boundaries of health board areas; and if he will make a statement. [21328]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): We have no plans to change Scottish health board boundaries in the immediate future.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that, due to the reorganisation of local government, a fundamental change in local administration in Scotland has taken place and that, in those circumstances, reviewing health board boundaries would be appropriate? Does he accept that there have been other changes in the health service's structure and organisation, some of which have not been healthy? They include the dreadful experiment being conducted—against the public's wishes—at Stonehaven hospital.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Doctors and the local community have, of course, been consulted about Stonehaven. A purpose-built hospital is to be built very much faster than would have been possible through any
    1024
    other means, and it will be of enormous benefit to communities in the north-east of Scotland. We concluded that changing the boundaries would outweigh any advantages. Indeed, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made strong representations at a previous Scottish Question Time against boundary changes in his area.
    Mr. Stewart: My constituency, where GP fundholding practices have been an enormous success—
    Mr. Donohoe: Rubbish.
    Mr. Stewart: That did not sound as if it came from a constituent of mine. My constituency is currently divided between Greater Glasgow and Argyll and Clyde. I would be inclined to take the traditional Conservative approach and do absolutely nothing about it, but if my hon. Friend is inclined to make any change, would he agree to meet me before making any decision?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is most certainly yes. We shall keep the matter under review, but we have no immediate proposals to change any of the boundaries.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that one of his predecessors, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, advised me last year that, when the local government reform was complete, it would be time to re-examine the boundaries of local health councils in the Highlands health board area—which were decided several years ago by the present Secretary of State for Scotland in consultation with local hon. Members? Would it be appropriate, therefore, to arrange the meeting that the former Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland suggested and, given the parliamentary boundary changes in the highlands, to reconsider whether it would also be appropriate to establish an equivalent or, indeed, different local health council structure that would better suit the system of administration?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall indeed be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents if he so wishes.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that there are more than just geographical limits to the jurisdiction of Scottish health boards, and that Grampian health board has, uniquely, crossed a boundary line in commissioning private consortia to provide NHS services at a privately owned and privately run hospital in Stonehaven? Is it the Government's intention to repeat anywhere else in the national health service what his fellow Minister described as "the experiment" at Stonehaven? It is a simple question and requires a straight answer from the Minister—yes or no.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If other areas in Scotland want purpose-built hospitals very much more quickly than would otherwise be possible, of course I would support private finance initiatives. Indeed, many are now under consideration in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the people of the north-east should be deprived of the opportunity to have a brand new hospital within a very short period of time, that would be contrary to their interests.

    Gas-fired Generating Unit (Gartcosh)
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met PowerGen to discuss its proposed gas-fired generating unit at Gartcosh in Lanarkshire. [21330]
    Mr. Kynoch: No such meeting has taken place.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that there is over-capacity of generating units in Scotland? Is he aware that a 700 MW gas-fired station would displace 2.1 million tonnes of coal—half the production capacity of the coal industry in Scotland? The knock-on effect would be the closure of Cockenzie power station, resulting in a loss of 240 jobs and £7 million-worth of salaries from the economy. There are many more such facts. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of them all before he agrees to any such development. It is not needed, because there is already over-capacity.
    Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, for such an application to progress, consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 is required. PowerGen's application has only just been received and is still under consideration. It would obviously not be appropriate for me to comment on those plans. I would have much more faith and be more positive in my resolve about, for example, Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric. They are very successfully competing not only north of the Borders, but exporting power south and competing in England. I see nothing to fear from competition to those companies. I believe that they can compete well and succeed, and that there is a great future for them in the low-sulphur coal that is produced in Scotland.
    Mr. McFall: Is it not true that there is no rationale for that corporate sabre rattling by PowerGen? There is no economic logic in a market that is already chronically oversupplied, nor is there any employment logic in an application that will provide 35 jobs in PowerGen while possibly losing up to 4,000 jobs in the rejuvenated coal industry. Is PowerGen not simply using the application to beat the Government into submission over the way in which the interconnector between Scotland and England is presently arranged? Does not the buck stop at the Secretary of State's door, as the Electricity Act 1989 requires him to make the final decision? Can the Minister give some support to Scottish industry and society today?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman obviously prepared his question before he heard my original answer. Of course I know perfectly well about section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, and have already referred to it. I should have hoped that, rather than knocking the idea of competition, the hon. Gentleman would have recognised the significant success of Scottish companies and how they have competed south of the border, by exporting electricity.
    I have visited the successful Longannet colliery and seen it supplying coal to the next-door power station. It produces low sulphur coal, which is more environmentally friendly than some other coal used in power generation. I should have hoped that the hon.
    1026
    Gentleman would have adopted a rather more constructive attitude towards Scottish business, and perhaps followed the lead that I gave in my answer to the main question.

    Higher Education Students
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of students in further and higher education in Scotland; and what is the current ratio of school leavers to the number entering higher education. [21331]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Forty-three per cent. of Scottish school leavers enter higher education and the total number of students in higher and further education is 413,000.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures exceed not only the forecast in the 1987 White Paper, but also that in the 1991 White Paper, by an astonishing amount?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the record expansion in the further and higher education sectors. It is important to remember that that has been achieved without any compromise on the quality of teaching, which is a tribute to the professionalism of the staff in both sectors.
    Mr. Maxton: Is there to be a separate Scottish committee to undertake a review of higher education such as will be undertaken by the Dearing committee in England and Wales? If not, what will the Scottish membership of the Dearing committee be?
    Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are keeping in close touch with the Dearing committee. There will be a separate Scottish input to it, and we are consulting widely with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment on the broad terms of reference and the membership. Scottish input will be sought.
    Mr. George Robertson: It was understood that the Dearing committee on higher education would be conducted on a bipartisan basis. I hope that that will apply in Scotland as well as to the English Department for Education and Employment.
    The House is entitled to know a little more than the Minister has said so far about what the membership of the Dearing committee will be, and how a specific Scottish dimension will be recognised. After all, we have a completely different primary and secondary school system and a different degree structure north of the border. Can the hon. Gentleman be precise about the timetable? When will the Dearing committee's terms of reference and membership be announced? When shall we know who will represent Scottish interests on it?
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the broad ideas behind the Dearing committee. We expect it to start work after Easter and to report by the summer of 1997. The responses received to last year's consultations on the purpose, size and shape of higher education, especially the Scottish

    1027
    responses, will be made available to the committee. We are now consulting widely on membership, and the committee will embrace both consumers and producers of higher education.
    We are seeking comments from Scottish interests on the composition and draft terms of reference of the committee, and on behalf of the Secretary of State I extend to the hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) an invitation to discuss their ideas on those subjects, so that the peculiar and specific needs of the higher education sector—
    Mr. Wallace: Does the invitation extend to all parties?
    Mr. Robertson: Yes. They can all have their say before we finally agree on the terms of reference and the membership.

    Taxation (Inward Investment)
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with potential inward investors about taxation rates; and if he will make a statement. [21332]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Taxation rates regularly feature in our discussions with potential investors.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scottish life assurance companies are world leaders in their markets and are responsible for substantial life assurance business throughout the United Kingdom and, increasingly, Europe? Has he discussed with the boards and chief executives of those successful companies the implications for business of a different rate of income tax in Scotland?
    Mrs. Ewing: Boring.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), I think, suggested from a sedentary position that this was boring.
    Mrs. Ewing: No, it was me.
    Mr. Forsyth: On this occasion, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Nothing could be more central to Scotland's interests than the impact of different rates of income tax north and south of the border, as proposed by the Opposition parties which support a tax-raising parliament.
    Mr. Donohoe: He is clutching at straws.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are clutching at straws, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked a serious question. If the marginal rate of tax on savings is 23p north of the border and 20p south of the border, Scottish financial institutions will be put at an enormous disadvantage in their efforts to attract savings. Scotland's pensioners would also be put at an enormous disadvantage, as the return on their savings would be less. It is high time that Opposition
    1028
    Members faced up to the consequences of their disastrous policy proposals for Scotland, and their effect on jobs in Scotland.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that Scotland is losing too many factories and too much potential business to other countries—especially Ireland—because the Government have not provided sufficient capital to attract investment? My constituency recently lost a company to Ireland. If the Government had got off their mark, that company could have provided 400 or 500 new jobs. Should not the Secretary of State be trying to get jobs into Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about losing business in his constituency, he had better come across to this side of the House. He is a member of a party that is committed to policies that would add to the costs of business in Scotland through the minimum wage, the social chapter and the tartan tax. If those policies were introduced, the hon. Gentleman would find not only that jobs were not coming to Scotland, but that existing jobs would be going south of the border. That would be the consequence of Labour's policies. The sooner he gets his party leaders to wake up to that, the better for everyone concerned.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the investment into Ailsa Perth in my constituency by Cathelco, which has taken Ailsa Perth out of receivership? The company has good order books but has been short of cash recently, and the investment augurs well for my constituents, for jobs in my constituency and for the local authority.
    Mr. Forsyth: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's news, which I am sure the House will welcome also. The people of Ayr are extremely lucky to have him as their Member of Parliament. He is a doughty fighter on behalf of their interests, and I am sure that everyone in Ayrshire is well aware of that.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Will the Secretary of State consider discussing with his Treasury colleagues the possibility of making the enterprise investment scheme much more effective, perhaps by doubling the taxation relief?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall certainly give the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion careful thought. I always consider very carefully having any conversations with my Treasury colleagues because one does not always end up with what one expected at the beginning, but I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposal and I would be grateful if he would fill me in on some of the details of what lies behind it after Question Time.

    Private Finance Initiative (Health Service)
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private finance initiative schemes are currently being considered for the NHS in Scotland. [21333]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Fifteen.
    Mr. Ingram: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), the Minister avoided answering the question about the Stonehaven experiment. Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee here and now that no direct clinical services will be undertaken by the private sector under the Hairmyers PFI scheme? A simple, straightforward, yes or no answer will do.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no. Any board or NHS trust can put forward proposals if
    1030
    they are carefully worked out in the best interests of the community concerned. I would endorse the words of no less a person than the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who issued a press release on 10 January 1995 saying:
    "We are not opposed to public/private partnerships—they bring in much needed money for the NHS".
    He was right when he said so, and it is that policy that we are implementing today.

Qualifications (16 to 19)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.
Last year, I invited Sir Ron Dearing to review the framework of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds and to advise on ways to strengthen it. Sir Ron has completed that review and has now reported to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. His report is published today, and copies are available in the Vote Office. I am very grateful to Sir Ron and his team for their work.
We can be in no doubt about the importance of this report. To compete internationally, Britain needs a highly motivated, well-educated, well-trained and adaptable work force. We have set very demanding targets for the improvement of education and training and the achievement of qualifications by young people and adults. They are targets that we must meet or exceed to keep pace with our competitors.
Not long ago, most young people left education or training as soon as they could. Now, nearly nine out of 10 16-year-olds stay on, and they do better than ever before. More young people are getting good GCE A-levels. The new general national vocational qualifications are fast becoming recognised as a worthy alternative route. National vocational qualifications are well established and valued by employers, and their take-up is growing. There remains much to do, however. That is why I asked Sir Ron to take a long look at the qualifications framework, and to make proposals to improve it.
The recent report of the Select Committee on Education made it clear that the period between 16 and 19 is a crucial phase of education and training. It is a time when many young people build on earlier success in school to pass through gateways to employment or higher education. For others, it is a second chance to develop the skills and knowledge they need to make a good start in life.
The needs and aptitudes of young people and adult learners are diverse. Our system of education and training and the qualifications must therefore be responsive, flexible and innovative. Qualifications must also be rigorous and of the highest quality and standards. That is the task that we asked Sir Ron to undertake, and I am delighted to be able to welcome his report as a major step forward.
Sir Ron has conducted a thorough and far-reaching review, and consulted widely. He has given many pointers for further progress. Some proposals can be carried forward immediately; others need further work by qualifications bodies and other bodies before they can be given full effect.
To that end, I am writing today to the chairmen of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications setting out the Government's views on the proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will take appropriate action for the relevant bodies in Wales and Northern Ireland.
1032
I should like to highlight the most important measures that the Government propose in response to Sir Ron's review. We support the proposals to strengthen the existing framework of qualifications and to make it clearer and more accessible, by building on the high-quality qualifications that already exist and by introducing common national certificates. I also welcome the proposal to introduce a demanding new national diploma to encourage greater breadth of achievement.
SCAA and the NCVQ have already established a joint committee to take those proposals forward. The aim is to have the new framework in place, and to begin awarding new certificates, in September 1997. Like Sir Ron, as changes are made, I recognise the need to take fully into account the needs of employers and of adults who also use the qualifications.
We welcome the proposals further to strengthen the rigour and standards of A-level examinations and create a new-style AS-level. No one should be in any doubt about the Government's determination to ensure that our qualifications remain of the highest quality. I am asking the regulatory bodies to carry forward Sir Ron's recommendations, and to put detailed proposals to me later this year.
We welcome the proposals for the reform and strengthening of training for young people in England and Wales by the creation of a new system of national traineeships, following the successful introduction of modern apprenticeships. There will also be development of training arrangements for those young people who reach the age of 16 not yet ready for, or clear about, their next steps in learning throughout life.
My Department will shortly consult employers, the education sector and other interested parties on the detail of the new arrangements, which we intend to implement on a phased basis from September 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consult as appropriate for Wales.
If young people are to make the most of the opportunities that Sir Ron's proposed framework envisages from age 16, there are implications for the learning that takes place before that age. He has therefore recommended the introduction of the national record of achievement to young people before the age of 14, and consideration of new initiatives to provide new opportunities for 14 to 16-year-olds.
I welcome those approaches and will publish a consultation document next month that will invite views on those and other ways of making more effective use of work-related learning to help raise attainment among young people.
A vital part of Sir Ron's report concerns the key skills that are necessary for work and lifetime learning, particularly literacy, numeracy and information technology. Those skills are needed at increasingly high levels for the work force of tomorrow. The proposals will create opportunities to develop them, and incentives to do so, for all 16 to 19-year-olds pursuing education and training. We are asking the qualifications bodies to make detailed proposals to adjust existing qualifications and develop new ones. We shall consider, in partnership with employer organisations and the qualifications bodies, how best to take forward Sir Ron's wider proposals.

1033
The report highlights the central importance of careers education and impartial guidance about the full range of education, training and employment opportunities. Our reforms of the careers service are designed to provide more effective guidance.
Sir Ron has taken into account, and built upon, two important reviews of vocational qualifications that overlapped with his review. He has endorsed the proposals of the review led by Dr. John Capey to make GNVQ assessment and grading more rigorous and manageable. Those qualifications are highly motivating for students, but there must be clear, consistent, national standards through a simplified assessment regime that focuses on the quality of students' work.
Sir Ron has also endorsed the findings of the review of NVQs by Gordon Beaumont. That made recommendations to make NVQs more rigorous, to reduce the jargon that has grown up in them, and to increase the range of assessment methods used. I am today writing to the chairman of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications asking him to take forward action to improve GNVQs and NVQs in line with the recommendations of both reviews.
Finally, Sir Ron proposes that we should follow the successful merger of the Education and Employment Departments by bringing together the work on academic and vocational qualifications of SCAA and the NCVQ. I think that there is a strong case for a single body having responsibility for qualifications and also curriculum matters, but I want to be sure that the worlds of employment and education support it as the best way forward. I will consult widely on that part of the proposals in the next few months, before taking a final decision. My right hon. Friends will be conducting separate consultations on matters relevant to Wales and to Northern Ireland.
While we have made great strides in recent years in improving education and training for young people, we must continue to improve. To do that, we need a range of rigorous and high-quality qualifications. Only in that way can we build a well-educated and highly skilled adult population for the 21st century. Our international competitiveness and the future prosperity of today's young people depend crucially on our success in educating and training them to the highest level they can reach. Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for a reformed framework of qualifications set a powerful agenda for change. I thank him, and I accept the challenge of that agenda.
Mr. David Blunkett: I endorse the Secretary of State's remarks, and offer our thanks and appreciation to Sir Ron Dearing for the work that he has done in producing the report. We welcome the broad thrust of the report and the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, which echo the principles and the programme that we laid out in our document only a week ago. [Interruption.]
However, was Sir Ron not precluded from examining the key issues of structure and funding within which his proposals must be viewed? Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he was working within a framework of market competition that sets school against school and
1034
sixth form against college? Instead of receiving advice about their best route, young people are encouraged to stay on a particular route based on the existing framework.
The destructive market approach—which sets institution against institution and college against college, and which sees the Further Eduction Funding Council, local education authorities and training and enterprise councils at odds with each other—is an unsatisfactory and an unacceptable way forward.
Is it not deeply complacent for the Secretary of State to parade the notion this afternoon that the staying-on rates at age 16 are satisfactory, when last year the number of students in full-time education fell? [Interruption.] Only 59 per cent. of 17-year-olds are in full-time education in the United Kingdom, compared with an average of more than 80 per cent. in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. [Interruption.] At age 18, the figure falls to 38 per cent. The number of students receiving advanced qualifications in this country is half that in Germany and Japan.
Is it not time to set aside the deep complacency—which manifests itself in the heckling of Conservative Members—and come together to introduce a programme of change that will transform this country's future knowledge and skills base?
How can the Secretary of State commend her changes to the careers service when they have led to fragmentation and to privatisation? Some 30 per cent. of students taking A-levels drop out, and the drop-out rate in the vocational field is also extremely high. Sir Ron's proposals for traineeships point clearly to the total failure of the Government's youth training scheme, which for years we said was unsatisfactory.
This afternoon, the Secretary of State had the cheek to compare it with the modern apprenticeship scheme, which is obviously completely different, with differing aspirations and a different level of achievement. The low status and the narrow base of the YTS is rightly condemned in Sir Ron's report.
We commend the emphasis by Sir Ron Dearing's report and by the Secretary of State's statement on rigour and quality. However, does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is time to ensure—through a programme of information, education and advice—that employers and those in the education service are clear that the vocational route can offer the same rigour and the same quality as the academic route?
Does she agree that underpinning those routes by the core skills, and by extending and developing the A-level route, is a key way forward in terms of breaking down the artificial barriers, the demarcation lines, that have bedevilled this country, and have led to only 27 per cent. of our adults having a vocational qualification, compared with two thirds of the population in Germany, for example?
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is time to plan so that we can avoid the conflict between vocational and academic skills, and draw them together into a common route that will allow this nation to go forward using the real talents and skills of all our people? Would that not set aside the prejudice that has existed for far too long against those who dare to soil their hands by being engaged in industry and commerce? [Interruption.] It is no good Government Members heckling me, because if it was not true, we would not be in the position that we

1035
are in today, and the Deputy Prime Minister would not have undertaken a skills audit and admitted that the nation is in the plight it is in.
Finally, does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is unfortunate that there is any delay in tackling the issue of how to overcome disaffection and alienation in the 14-to-16 age group? We commend the way in which she is dealing with the proposals on the national record of achievement, but it is time to have common cause between the parties in overcoming the alienation and the difficulty that so many young people have in relating to the current curriculum. Is it not time to give young people hope—hope of a job, hope of learning, hope of being trained, and hope of having a future where they can earn and deliver for their families what we took for granted in generations gone by?
Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Gentleman wanted a common cause, he has not gone the right way about it, in the extraordinary way that he has sought to present the successes of the education policy over the past 16 years or so. Nevertheless, I thank him for his guarded welcome in so far as he has given it. As far as funding is concerned, clearly he will be aware that we are now spending a record amount on education. He will also be aware that there is reference in the report to extra sums for developing GNVQs and the careers service.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman confirm the Labour party's position: that it is against healthy competition—which we believe drives up standards between institutions. It is for that reason, of course, that we have introduced an independent and excellent education and guidance service. It will give independent advice to young people, so that they can choose the appropriate route for themselves.
In relation to staying-on rates, the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that the Government have been congratulated by the OECD on the improvement in staying-on rates: 90 per cent. of 16-year-olds, 80 per cent. of 17-year-olds and 60 per cent. of 18-year-olds are in full-time education or training. However, we accept that more needs to be done—and that is why we are having the report. Indeed, approximately 83 per cent. of people in our work force have qualifications.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman seeks to denigrate youth training, when there are excellent outcomes for young people who complete the course. Where we need to take care—this is an issue that is addressed by the report—is on the question of those who drop out of youth training, just as those who drop out of A-levels and out of GNVQs will have their interests addressed by the detail of the report.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of core skills—or key skills, as Sir Ron calls them. This concern has routinely been expressed by employers and by universities. The proposals in the report, which we shall accept, tackle those questions by introducing literacy, numeracy, IT and other skills at every level in the qualifications network. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had given the Government some credit for developing GNVQs and NVQs. GNVQs are very motivating and they are rigorous and demanding, but more needs to be done. That is why I have said specifically that we intend to accept the proposals from Dr. Capey, backed by £30 million to ensure that those reforms of GNVQs are in place.
1036
The vocational route is, of course, extremely important, but what matters in both academic and vocational routes is the question of standards and rigour. That is what this report underlines.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. May we now have brisk exchanges—questions and responses?
Sir Malcolm Thornton: May I say how much I welcome Sir Ron's report today? It echoes many of the recommendations and considerations that the former Education Select Committee gave to the issue, as my right hon. Friend said in her statement. When she writes to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and to the NCVQ to attempt to broker this marriage, will she stress again, as she has just done, the question of rigour and the absolute need for acceptance by all concerned—the teachers, employers, parents and pupils themselves—of the equivalence between the vocational route and the academic route? Without that acceptance, nothing that is proposed will work.
Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome, which is especially valuable given the distinguished position that he holds as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I certainly intend to write to the chairmen to emphasise the importance of rigour. When my hon. Friend has had time to absorb the report, I am sure that he will be glad to discover that the equivalences between the different routes will be given clearly on the backs of the proposed certificates. That will help young people, their parents and teachers, and, above all, employers and admissions tutors.
Mr. Don Foster: I too welcome Sir Ron Dearing's proposals and the Secretary of State's ready acceptance of many of them. I especially welcome proposals that will break down the barriers between academic and vocational courses and qualifications, because they reflect proposals made by Liberal Democrats as long ago as 1992.
In response to the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), does she agree that—notwithstanding existing levels of expenditure—there will be a need for increased expenditure if the proposals are to be successful in raising levels of achievement? Does she also accept that more needs to be done about YTS than merely re-badging and relaunching a scheme in which currently only about 50 per cent. of those on the scheme get any qualification?
Mrs. Shephard: I note that many have claimed authorship of these ideas. It is a pity that those people did not take the opportunity to support the Government in divisions and debates during the past 16 years.
On the question of extra resources, I might have expected that request from the hon. Gentleman. I have already explained that there will be some extra resources to ensure that GNVQs become fully rigorous. Otherwise, I see no need for vast extra resources. We need to re-target and make the current framework more coherent and the qualifications more rigorous. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not have had time yet to consider the

1037
proposals for national traineeships, but he will find that his anxieties are fully met in the proposals we have set down.
Mr. James Pawsey: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the saying that success has many fathers? We have seen some of the fathers in the Chamber this afternoon.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will disregard the entirely predictable and carping criticism that we have heard from Opposition Members. The overwhelming majority of the nation's parents, students and teachers will warmly welcome this review. It will do much good. I especially liked the reference to A-levels and NVQs. The golden thread that runs through the review is the intention to improve quality in standards and to increase rigour. That all augurs well for further education.
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The motif running through the entire report is an increased requirement that the system deliver rigorous standards.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I too welcome most of Ron Dearing's proposals, and congratulate him on them. I particularly endorse the suggested new national award. The Select Committee, of which I am a member, suggested that some months ago, and I am glad that Sir Ron has taken it up.
There has always been a considerable divide in status between vocational and academic qualifications. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied with the Dearing suggestion that equal status for the two can be achieved?
Mrs. Shephard: The pathways and their destinations are equal but different. The best way to achieve parity of esteem has to be an insistence on the rigour of the vocational route, as the report proposes.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, especially on her emphasis on quality, standards, rigour and discipline. All four are very important. Is it her view that the proposals in Sir Ron Dearing's review will provide, for traditional and high-tech manufacturing industry and the wealth-creating industries of the United Kingdom, the qualified, motivated young people who are so desperately neccessary for future economic progress?
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend's interest in manufacturing industry is well known. I believe that he will take great comfort from the sections of the report devoted to improvements in standards and rigour in A-levels, and to stretching the most able students. The proposals for mathematics and science may also please him; there are proposed special papers and additional mathematics, and a whole range of measures which I know will be welcomed by my hon. Friend and by the manufacturing industries that he represents so frequently and so ably in this Chamber.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is there not a danger of this country becoming besotted with the idea of examinations for all different groups of people? In many
1038
walks of life, the people who put out fires, those who save lives, and many others who do essential jobs do not get A-levels. Someone can become a Member of Parliament—for what it is worth—without passing any of these high-falutin' exams. Some can even become Prime Minister without a barrel-load of A-levels. People can win Hollywood Oscars without all these exams. Or they can finish up like the nobs opposite—the elitists who send their kids to Eton to be addressed by Vinny Jones. So much for examinations!
Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure what qualifications the hon. Gentleman has. I suppose he would like to say that he was well formed in the university of life—although I think that he has some qualifications hidden away. I thank him for his graceful compliment to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; I shall convey it to him.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and endorse the importance of rigour in exporting British education. May I, however, draw to her attention yet again the minority of young people with special learning difficulties who find it difficult to compete in the present structure? There are already signs that the amount of money paid out by TECs for these contracts in 1996–97 is being reduced, even though the money going to the TECs is being maintained. I know how hard Ministers in the Department have worked on this, but it is still a matter of enormous concern.
Mrs. Shephard: I know that my hon. Friend has a special interest in these areas. I refer him to the relevant section of the report, which includes excellent and practical proposals on helping those with special educational needs; and on those who have under-achieved and who need leaning on so that they can get on the qualifications ladder. I feel that my hon. Friend, who has a special concern for this subject, will be encouraged by that part of the report.
Mr. Max Madden: How many youngsters currently in the 16-to-19 age group do not have the job, education or training that they have been promised by the Government for years, coupled with the youngsters between the ages of 14 and 16 who are now dropping out of school?
Does the Secretary of State agree that tens of thousands of young people throughout the country are becoming a growing army of alienated and disaffected youngsters, many of whom are drifting into crime, prostitution and drug dealing, and are wasting their lives? What is being done to give those youngsters some hope, some purpose, some idea why it is worth bothering to pursue the plans that she outlined this afternoon? What are all the agencies that are involved in this sphere doing proactively to try to encourage young people to come forward to benefit from some of the schemes to which she referred?
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the youth training guarantee, which seeks to deal with and offer, through training, help to young people who are not in education or a job. I also announced that we shall consult next month on proposals for 14 to 16-year-olds, and bring the workplace nearer to the classroom. The hon. Gentleman is right—indeed, this matter is covered in the report—that there is a wastage of under-achievers, of young people who are demotivated.

1039
The key must be good teaching and the national curriculum. There is no question about that. The proposals for 14 to 16-year-olds, plus the entry arrangements that are described in the report, which will bring together some of the agencies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, should do a great deal to reduce that regrettable wastage.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend accept—from someone who spent 30 years in teaching—my congratulations on her repeated use of the words "rigour" and "rigorous"? Will she assure us this afternoon that those words, in addition to applying to vocational training and academic skills for examination, will also apply immediately and effectively to the key skills of mathematics and English, on which everything else depends?
Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure my hon. Friend. I have already described what is proposed in terms of core skills. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposals for mathematics, he will be greatly encouraged, and I hope enthused.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I particularly welcome the part of Sir Ron Dearing's report that refers to careers guidance, but was rather puzzled by the Secretary of State's reference to careers guidance and her use of the word "rigour". Can she assure us, despite the dogmatic way in which she has tried to privatise the careers service around the country, tumbling it into turmoil across England and Wales, that there will be consistency in the careers service, and that the rigour and quality that our young people deserve will be assured?
Mrs. Shephard: There will be greater consistency as a result of the new arrangements than there has ever been before, with free-standing careers services across the country free to develop services in the way in which they wish. There will be higher uniform specifications. I truly believe that the standard of service will improve.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I compliment my right hon. Friend on commissioning, as well as Sir Ron Dearing on producing, this excellent report, in particular the emphasis that is given to core skills as well as standards, because it is only thereby that qualifications will achieve parity of esteem. In particular, I welcome the extension of the national record of achievement. Does she agree that that is one means whereby young people can be encouraged to have pride in their achievement?
Mrs. Shephard: The national record of achievement has indeed been fairly well used by schools, but we want to extend its use so that it will encourage lifetime learning, and therefore it needs a proper relaunch. It needs to be made more specific. That is what is proposed in the report.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Secretary of State agree that, for many young people who were given to understand that this was what they must do, because A-level was the gold standard, it has been an educationally unrewarding experience to pursue perhaps one or two A-levels to a mediocre standard? For far too many young people, the narrowing of their intellectual horizons at the age of 16 that A-levels have meant has been false gold.
Mrs. Shephard: Certainly the number of dropouts from A-level courses is highly regrettable. It is very
1040
wasteful in terms of the young person concerned, the school and resources overall. The hon. Gentleman will be encouraged by the requirements of the new national diploma, which are two A-levels or a GNVQ as well as the study of four subject areas and the obtaining of core skills. That surely represents a practical broadening of education, retaining the rigour and standards of A-level and GNVQ, without destabilising the whole system.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Everyone who is concerned about standards will have cause to be grateful to Sir Ron Dearing and my right hon. Friend. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that one of the crucial tests of the success of the reforms will be whether undergraduates are able to master the written and spoken English language? There is great concern about that.
Mrs. Shephard: As always, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. As he will know, we have proposed a return to the separate recording of spoken English in GCSEs. Specific proposals for mathematics make clear our intention to introduce separate recording of skills in calculation, estimation and statistics. That, I think, will be a great help. The report contains a good deal about the improvement of standards in those basic skills at every level; it is a very important component, about which I am enormously enthusiastic.
Mr. Mike Hall: I welcome the Dearing report. May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to Sir Ron's criticism of the youth training scheme? Does she accept that criticism? If she does, is she prepared to replace the scheme with a scheme that gives our young people high-quality training and access to modern apprenticeships that will enable them to find secure full-time employment?
Mrs. Shephard: I have already spoken about youth training. It should not be forgotten that 71 per cent. of those who complete their courses achieve qualifications or jobs. That is not to be sneered at. The report, however, proposes a system of national traineeships, entry to which will require some form of qualification. A number of other reforms are proposed, which I would expect to find favour with the hon. Gentleman if he is really concerned about this age group.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I warmly welcome the step forward that the report represents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that diversity in NVQs, GNVQs and A-levels strengthens the system and increases opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds? May I invite her to disagree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said that competition between institutions was damaging for that age group? Does she not agree that the assisted places scheme, sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges, for instance, offer diversity of provision and are very strong in themselves?
Mrs. Shephard: We certainly think that diversity helps to drive standards up, by, among other things, encouraging competition between institutions. One of the aims of the report, however, is to introduce coherence to the framework of qualifications. Notwithstanding

1041
diversity, such coherence is needed—not least for the sake of employers, but also for the sake of young people, their parents and those who teach them.
Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the commitment to strengthen careers education and guidance. Will my right hon. Friend carefully monitor progress and check whether opportunities in the armed services are put to young people? Yesterday, I visited Bassingbourn barracks of the Army Training Regiment, where young people make their first entry to the service. When I spoke to some of the young people, I discovered that they had not heard about opportunities in the armed services during their years in school.
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend will be aware that, until very recently, the armed services had their own systems of recruitment, which, in a sense, were rather separate from careers arrangements that are made centrally. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that I recently took part in a joint launch with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence on a project about careers in the armed services. Further work is to be launched shortly after the Easter recess. I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend on all points.
Mr. Nigel Forman: From everything that my right hon. Friend has said, it seems that this is a sensible package, as one would expect, since it is the brainchild of Sir Ron Dearing. Does she agree that, if we are serious about parity of esteem, there seems to be a good case for merging at an early date the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority? Will she take note of a very important point that has not yet been made—that Sir Ron Dearing deserves a peerage?
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend will know from the document that the merging of SCAA and NCVQ is proposed. I want to consult on that. There are two proposals—one for a merger and one for a division of the functions—and we wish to consult on the alternatives. Such a proposal makes much sense, but it would create a very big organisation. We need to be certain that industry and academic interests would be happy with that. In terms of my hon. Friend's second suggestion, I am sure that the Hansard record can be brought to the attention of absolutely anybody who would like to see it.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the Opposition have
1042
every right to draw a distinction between our whole-hearted support for the main proposals in the Dearing report, on which we congratulate Sir Ron, and our anxiety about her response to what now needs to be done? Is it not obvious that, if we are to offer young people a full range of opportunities across the academic and vocational spectrums, we will need greater co-operation between providers at local level than her view—which is that these institutions can carry on in the damaging and somewhat dysfunctional competition in which they engage at present—would suggest?
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady also recognise the battering that this sector received from the Chancellor and from her last year in the November Budget? It so grievously affected sixth form colleges and FE colleges that some of them are in severe financial difficulties. For the right hon. Lady to give effect to Sir Ron Dearing's proposals, it will be necessary for her to ensure that there is no repeat of that onslaught in the forthcoming November Budget—if there should be one from this Government.
Mrs. Shephard: That was a rather sour, disappointing little response by the hon. Gentleman, I must say. What a pity, at the end of what was otherwise a rather decent session.
The further education sector was protected in the last public expenditure survey round. TEC resources went up by 5 per cent., and we are spending a record amount on education. I also remind the hon. Gentleman, because he does need reminding, as do all his hon. Friends, that there is not necessarily a connection between rigour and standards and what is spent. That has been the consistent position of the Government and of Conservative Members.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might spend an improving hour reading the document and examining the Government's proposals in this very important sphere. He could then perhaps come back with a slightly more encouraging response.

BILL PRESENTED
  SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (REGISTERS OF OFFENDERS)
  Ms Janet Anderson presented a Bill to make provision for the maintenance of registers of persons who are convicted of certain sexual offences against children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29 March 1996 and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

  Part-Time Employees (Equal Remuneration)
  4.14 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure that part-time employees have entitlement to remuneration on a pro rata basis with full-time employees.
  This Bill would ensure that part-time employees are paid no less—on a pro rata basis—than full-time employees for jobs that are the same and carry similar responsibilities. It would further ensure that benefits such as sick pay, pensions, holiday pay and maternity or paternity provision are awarded on the same pro rata basis.
  The world of work is changing. The nine-to-five, Monday till Friday generation is slowing passing, and will soon be confined to the annals of history. The future of the world of work is the flexible labour force and the part-time worker.
  In the past few decades, we have seen a massive increase in the number of part-time workers. In 1971, there were just over 3 million people in part-time work, which was 15.5 per cent. of the work force. The understanding of the day was that those people were predominantly female workers who were supplementing family income by carrying out relatively low-skilled jobs for low wages, or students and teenagers who were earning a little extra pocket money. Many employers thought that giving those people jobs was doing them a favour, and that it was therefore reasonable to offer part-time workers no protection and low wages.
  The number of part-time workers has doubled in the past 25 years. There are now more than 6 million part-time workers, which is nearly a third of the work force, and the number is increasing. It is predicted that, by 2001, nearly 7.5 million workers will be employed in part-time work.
  Part-time workers are fast becoming the linchpin of our economy. In fact, the reduction in unemployment in the past two years has been based on creation of part-time jobs. Since 1993, 500,000 part-time jobs but only 400,000 part-time jobs have been created. In my constituency, almost three in 10, or 28 per cent., of workers work part-time. Among the female work force, nearly half the workers now work part-time. Most other constituencies have similar statistics for part-time working.
  It would be absurd, with so many part-time workers, to perpetuate the claim that part-time workers are teenage waiters and mums who have kids at school and want to earn pin money. Part-time workers today are employed in every sector of industry and commerce, as well as in more traditional service sector occupations and on the factory floor. They are professionals, specialists and managers. They care about their careers. They want to fulfil their potential in the work force, and, obviously, they care about the wages and benefits they receive.
  It would be extremely foolhardy to ignore the skills, spending power and social significance of this sector of the work force, yet millions of part-time workers still receive inadequate employment protection and second-rate wages. Six out of 10 part-timers receive a lower hourly wage than their full-time colleagues, and—on average, on a pro rata basis—they receive less than half the fringe benefits that full-timers receive.
  1044
  Part-timers account for about three quarters of Britain's low-paid workers. A recent Trades Union Congress study showed that 77 per cent. of female part-time workers-3.7 million women—and 72 per cent. of male part-time earners, which is 800,000 men, earn below the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £5.88 per hour, with many workers earning significantly less.
  In recent weeks, my local newspaper, The Bath Chronicle, has advertised many part-time jobs, including evening and weekend catering assistants' jobs at £3 an hour; part-time work as a catering/kiosk assistant, also at £3 an hour; and a cleaner/general assistant at £2.90 an hour. Today, at the Bath jobcentre, the unemployed can consider the merits of part-time evening work as an elderly person's carer at £3.30 an hour; shoe retailing at £3.28 an hour; pub cleaning at £3.01 an hour; or waitressing at £3 an hour. Those are not figures of which we can be proud, and they are not indicative of a nation at ease with itself. Good employment practice does not mean short-changing employees. A thriving economy does not have millions of workers living below the breadline.
  Wage discrimination is currently practised in many forms. An employer may simply pay his part-timers less than the going rate, or may decide not to pay a part-tuner the going rate for overtime, commission or bonus pay. He may fail to give part-timers the same incremental rates or pay increases as full-time employees.
  Despite some welcome amendments to United Kingdom legislation designed to bring our laws into line with law on sex discrimination and European Union law, none of the practices I have outlined is illegal. I believe that such discrimination cannot be allowed to continue.
  The cost of paying such a large number of workers lower wages is profound. There is a cost to the state, which is forced to subsidise low wages with income support. There is a cost to the nation's skill base, because many employers decide that it is not worth investing money in training low-paid, part-time workers. There is also a cost to human life as many young people are dissuaded from entering the low-paid, part-time sector, and some turn to crime, drug dealing and the thriving black market.
  The Bill would make it illegal for an employer to pay part-time workers lower wages, pro rata, than full-time workers if they are engaged in the same work. It would also make it illegal for employers not to pay part-time workers the same fringe benefits as those received by full-time employees, again pro rata, simply because they are part-timers.
  Some will no doubt argue that that would place a burden on employers and lead to unemployment. The reality is that granting equal rates of remuneration to part-time workers would have merely a marginal effect on the total pay bill. A report by the Policy Studies Institute entitled "Value for Money" recently claimed that giving Britain's 6 million part-time workers equal rights with full-time workers would cost just half of 1 per cent. of the total annual pay bill. That is significantly less than the £1.8 billion of perks and expenses pocketed by the United Kingdom's top company directors—at least according to the Inland Revenue's figures.
  The costs involved would be more than offset by the increase in productivity brought about by job security, better training and increased motivation—all provided by

  1045
  equal pay legislation. Such a step would save the state money and ensure that our work force are motivated, skilled and secure. It would prevent us from entering the next millennium with an impoverished work force.
  The Bill has received the broad support of the TUC, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and the Equal Opportunities Commission. More importantly, it is supported by more than 6 million part-time workers in this country and by the majority of full-time workers.
  I hope that the House will support the Bill, and send a clear message to Britain's part-time workers that their efforts are valued and respected. Part-time should not mean second best. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Denis MacShane, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Chris Davies, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. David Chidgey, Mr. Roger Berry, Mrs. Diana Maddock, and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

  PART-TIME EMPLOYEES (EQUAL REMUNERATION)
  Mr. Don Foster accordingly presented a Bill to ensure that part-time employees have entitlement to remuneration on a pro rata basis with full-time employees: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
WAYS AND MEANS
  Finance Bill

    HYDROCARBON OIL (USE OF KEROSENE AND MIXING OF REBATED OIL)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in the Finance Bill with respect to—

    (a) cases where kerosene is used as fuel or taken into a fuel supply; and

    (b) cases where a substance is mixed with rebated hydrocarbon oil.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in the Finance Bill amending sections 633(1)(e) and 637A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

  Orders of the Day

    Finance Bill
    As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: New Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 29, Schedule 3, Clauses 30 to 65, Schedule 4, Clauses 66 to 195, New Schedules, amendments relating to Schedules 1 and 2 and Schedules 5 to 38.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

  New clause 12

    MISUSE OF REBATED KEROSENE
    `.—(1) The Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) to (5) below.
    (2) In section 11(1) (rebate on heavy oil) for "and 13" there shall be substituted "13, 13AA and 13AB".
    (3) In section 12(2) (restriction on use of rebated heavy oil for road vehicles), after "allowed" there shall be inserted "(whether under section 11(1) above or 13AA(1) below)".
    (4) After section 13 there shall be inserted the following sections—

    Restrictions on use of rebated kerosene
    13AA.—(1) If, on the delivery of kerosene for home use, it is intended to use the kerosene as fuel for—

    (a) an engine provided for propelling an excepted vehicle, or

    (b) an engine which is used neither for propelling a vehicle nor for heating,
    a declaration shall be made to that effect and thereupon rebate shall be allowed at the rate for rebated gas oil which is then in force instead of at the rate then in force under section 11(1)(c) above.

    (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, no kerosene on whose delivery for home use a rebate at the rate given by section 11(1)(c) above has been allowed shall—

    (a) be used as fuel for an engine provided for propelling an excepted vehicle;

    (b) be used as fuel for an engine which is used neither for propelling a vehicle nor for heating; or

    (c) be taken into the fuel supply of an engine falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.

    (3) Subsection (2) above does not apply to any quantity of kerosene in respect of which there has been paid to the Commissioners an amount equal to duty on the same quantity of gas oil at the rate for rebated gas oil which is in force at the time of the payment.
    (4) A payment under subsection (3) above shall be made in accordance with regulations made under section 24(1) below for the purposes of this section.
    (5) For the purposes of this section and section 13AB below

    `excepted vehicle' means a vehicle which is an excepted vehicle under any provision of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

    `kerosene' means heavy oil of which more than 50 per cent.by volume distils at a temperature of 240° C or less.

    (6) For the purposes of this section and section 13AB below the rate for rebated gas oil which is in force at any time is the rate of duty which at that time is in force under section 6(1) above in the case of heavy oil as reduced by the rate of rebate allowable at that time under section 11(1)(b) above.

    Penalties for misuse of kerosene
    13AB.—(1) If a person uses kerosene in contravention of section 13AA(2) above—

    (a) the Commissioners may recover from him, in respect of the quantity of kerosene used, an amount equal to duty on the same quantity of gas oil at the rate for rebated gas oil which is in force at the time of the contravention;

    (b) his use of the kerosene shall attract a penalty under section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 (civil penalties); and

    (c) if he uses the kerosene with the relevant intent, he shall be guilty of an offence.

    (2) If a person is liable for kerosene being taken into a fuel supply of an engine in contravention of section 13AA(2) above—

    (a) the Commissioners may recover from him, in respect of the quantity of kerosene taken into the fuel supply, an amount equal to duty on the same quantity of gas oil at the rate for rebated gas oil which is in force at the time of the contravention;

    (b) his becoming so liable shall attract a penalty under section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 (civil penalties); and

    (c) if he has the relevant intent in relation to the kerosene being taken into the fuel supply, he shall be guilty of an offence.

    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person is liable for kerosene being taken into a fuel supply of an engine if at the time—

    (a) he has the charge of the engine; or

    (b) subject to subsection (4) below, he is the owner of the engine.

    (4) If a person other than the owner is for the time being entitled to possession of the engine, that other person and not the owner is liable.
    (5) If—

    (a) a person supplies kerosene having reason to believe that it will be put to a particular use, and

    (b) that use is one which, if a payment is not made under subsection (3) of section 13AA above, will contravene subsection (2) of that section,

    his supplying the kerosene shall attract a penalty under section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 (civil penalties) and, if he makes the supply with the relevant intent, he shall be guilty of an offence.
    (6) In this section 'the relevant intent' means the intent that the restrictions imposed by section 13AA(2) shall be contravened.
    (7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to a penalty of the statutory maximum, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to a penalty of any amount, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years, or to both.

    (8) Any kerosene falling within subsection (9) or (10) below is liable to forfeiture.
    (9) Kerosene falls within this subsection if it is taken into a fuel supply in contravention of section 13AA(2) above.
    (10) Kerosene falls within this subsection if—

    (a) it has been supplied in circumstances in which there is reason to believe that it will be put to a particular use; and

    (b) that use is one which, if payment is not made under subsection (3) of section 13AA above, will contravene subsection (2) of that section."

    (5) In section 24 (control of use of duty-free and rebated oil)—

    (a) in subsection (1), after "section 13A" there shall be inserted "section 13AA"; and

    1048

    (b) in subsection (2), after "section 12" there shall be inserted "or section 13AA".

    (6) This section shall have effect in relation to cases where kerosene is—

    (a) used as fuel, or

    (b) taken into a fuel supply,
    on or after such day as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.'—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
    Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 11—Mixing of rebated oil.
    Government amendment No. 50.
    4.25 pm
    Ms Dawn Primarolo: I hoped that the Paymaster General would give a little more explanation of new clauses 11 and 12. They are anti-avoidance measures with regard to the mixing of fuels, in particular diesel.
    I would be grateful if the Paymaster General explained when the avoidance was discovered, how much revenue was at risk, what the review procedure is to ensure that the measures work, and how the Treasury will monitor the practice of the mixing of fuels, to ensure that the illegal practice that is identified by the two new clauses is firmly dealt with. In the final paragraph of a letter to me on 20 March, the right hon. Gentleman explained that provisions would be enacted if the illegal practice continued and the penalties were not sufficient. I should therefore be grateful if he could answer those questions.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I am happy to oblige the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo).
    I shall describe new clause 11 first. Its purpose is to allow Customs and Excise to charge duty under the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, when oils of different descriptions are mixed after the normal duty point and the duty liability of the resultant mixture exceeds that originally paid. The action has been made necessary by an increase in deliberate and accidental mixing of a variety of fuels, especially kerosene with diesel road fuel and kerosene with rebated gas oil, sometimes called red diesel.
    That has highlighted the fact that, except in limited circumstances, there is no current provision to recover duty if mixing takes place after the normal duty point. Although that practice is not widespread and therefore—to answer the hon. Lady's question—major avoidance is not taking place, it is wise to anticipate a possible extension of the practice or similar schemes because, if unchecked, they could have a substantial effect on the revenue yield.
    The purpose of new clause 12 is to impose a positive rate of duty on kerosene when it is used, not as heating oil—when it will continue to have, in effect, a zero rate of tax—but as motor fuel in off-road vehicles or in certain other excepted vehicles, such as those used for road construction. The new clause is intended to counter the

    1049
    increasing use of such kerosene as an extender or alternative to gas oil in those vehicles. Some oil distributors, especially in Northern Ireland, have been taking advantage of the fully rebated rate of duty on kerosene and have been adding it at a ratio of about 30 per cent. to gas oil. If that mixture is in such a proportion as to make the resulting liquid, effectively, kerosene, there is currently no charge to duty and recovery is not possible.
    There is also another type of avoidance, whereby neat kerosene is mixed with small quantities of lubricating oil. Such practice is also not widespread and we estimate that the revenue loss is minimal, but unchecked it could become a major drain on the Revenue.
    The reason why I did not volunteer those explanations is that, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South said, I wrote to her. The House will find the new clauses uncontentious and sensible measures to take in anticipation of a misuse, either of mixing fuels after the normal duty point or of kerosene in off-road vehicles and the like.
    4.30 pm
    Sir James Molyneaux: Although I have no wish to detain the House, the Minister's mention of Northern Ireland ought to be amplified a little further. The fact that Northern Ireland is singled out for some of those irregular and sometimes rather dubious practices arises mainly not from the basic dishonesty of the Northern Ireland population generally, but from all sorts of devices and practices that have been going on for years, in what we call the smuggling country on both sides of the land frontier of the UK. The fact that Northern Ireland has the only UK land frontier within its territory causes such malpractice. The Minister will be aware of the smuggling of oil and other commodities that takes place in that band of what is sometimes called, even by natives, bandit country. I know that he and his hon. Friends have in the past been very quick to identify such exploitation and cheating of the Revenue out of its rightful moneys.
    There should not be any reluctance on the part of the sovereign Government on the other side of the kingdom's land frontier to do their best to tighten up their measures and assist the Minister's Customs and Excise officers in that region, because only this week the Irish Agriculture Minister was issuing strong threats to seal the frontier on account of mad cow disease. What can be done for one purpose can surely be done for all others. With that timely observation, I shall conclude.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Although such practices occur not only in Northern Ireland, they are especially prevalent there, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) acknowledged. I am afraid that it is true that, when we shut down one type of smuggling or excise abuse, the same people can exploit other loopholes. The Northern Ireland customs and excise service has generally productive discussions and interchanges with the parallel service in the Republic, where there is a common interest in preventing racketeering or excise abuse. I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that he nevertheless approves of our attempt to close a potential loophole, which might be exploited by paramilitary organisations or the criminal fraternity in general.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 11

    MIXING OF REBATED OIL
    '.—(1) The Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) to (4) below.
    (2) In section 20 (contaminated or accidentally mixed oil), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(4) The power to make a payment to a person under subsection (2) above in relation to oils that have become accidentally mixed does not apply in relation to a mixture in respect of which he is liable to pay duty under section 20AAA below."
    (3) After section 20A there shall be inserted the following sections—

    Mixing of rebated oil
    20AAA.—(1) Where—

    (a) a mixture which is leaded or unleaded petrol is produced in contravention of Part I of Schedule 2A to this Act, and

    (b) the mixture is not produced as a result of approved mixing,
    a duty of excise shall be charged on the mixture.

    (2) Where—

    (a) a mixture of heavy oils is produced in contravention of Part II of Schedule 2A to this Act,

    (b) the mixture is not produced as a result of approved mixing, and

    (c) the mixture is supplied for use as fuel for a road vehicle or an excepted vehicle,
    a duty of excise shall be charged on the mixture.

    (3) The person liable to pay the duty charged under subsection (1) above is the person producing the mixture.
    (4) The person liable to pay the duty charged under subsection (2) above is the person supplying the mixture.
    (5) The Commissioners may exempt a person from liability to pay duty charged under this section in respect of the production or supply of a mixture if they are satisfied—

    (a) that the mixture has been produced or (as the case may be) supplied accidentally; and

    (b) that, having regard to all the circumstances, the person should be exempted from liability to pay the duty.

    (6) Part III of Schedule 2A to this Act makes provision with respect to rates and amounts of duty charged under this section.
    (7) In this section—

    `approved mixing' has the meaning given by section 20A(5) above; and

    `excepted vehicle' means a vehicle which is an excepted vehicle under any provision of Schedule 1 to this Act.

    Mixing of rebated oil: supplementary
    20AAB.—(1) A person who—

    (a) produces a mixture on which duty is charged under section 20AAA(1) above, or

    (b) supplies a mixture on which duty is charged under section 20AAA(2) above,
    must notify the Commissioners that he has done so within the period of seven days beginning with the date on which he produced or (as the case may be) supplied the mixture.

    (2) A person is not required to give a notification under subsection (1) above if, before he produced or (as the case may be) supplied the mixture, he notified the Commissioners that he proposed to do so.
    (3) Notification under subsection (1) or (2) above must be given in such form and in such manner, and must contain such particulars, as the Commissioners may direct.
    (4) Subject to subsection (7) below, where it appears to the Commissioners—

    (a) that a person has produced or supplied a mixture on which duty is charged under section 20AAA above, and

    (b) that he is the person liable to pay the duty,
    they may assess the amount of duty due from him to the best of their judgement and notify that amount to him or his representative.

    (5) An assessment under subsection (4) above shall be treated as if it were an assessment under section 12(1) of the Finance Act 1994.
    (6) The Commissioners may give a direction that a person who is, or expects to be, liable to pay duty charged under section 20AAA above—

    (a) shall account for duty charged under that section by reference to such periods (`accounting periods') as may be determined by or under the direction;

    (b) shall make, in relation to accounting periods, returns in such form and at such times and containing such particulars as may be so determined;

    (c) shall pay duty charged under that section at such times and in such manner as may be so determined.

    (7) The power to make an assessment under subsection (4) above does not apply in relation to a person who is for the time being subject to a direction under subsection (6) above.
    (8) Where any person—

    (a) fails to give a notification which he is required to give under subsection (1) above, or

    (b) fails to comply with a direction under subsection (6) above,
    his failure shall attract a penalty under section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 (civil penalties)."

    (4) After Schedule 2 there shall be inserted the Schedule set out in Schedule (Mixing of rebated oil) to this Act.
    (5) This section and Schedule (Mixing of rebated oil) to this Act shall have effect in relation to—

    (a) the production on or after the appointed day of a mixture which is leaded or unleaded petrol; and

    (b) the supply on or after the appointed day of a mixture of heavy oils;
    and "the appointed day" here means such day as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.'—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5
  MATERIAL REMOVED FROM WATER

    Exemptions
    .—(1) A disposal is not a taxable disposal for the purposes of this Part if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the disposal is of material all of which—

    (a) has been removed (by dredging or otherwise) from water falling within subsection (2) below, and

    (b) formed part of or projected from the bed of the water concerned before its removal.

    (2) Water falls within this subsection if it is—

    (a) a river, canal or watercourse (whether natural artificial), or

    (b) a dock or harbour (whether natural or artificial).

    3) A disposal is not a taxable disposal for the purposes of this Part if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the disposal is of material all of which—

    (a) has been removed (by dredging or otherwise) from water falling within the approaches to a harbour (whether natural or artificial),

    (b) has been removed in the interests of navigation, and

    (c) formed part of or projected from the bed of the water concerned before its removal.

    (4) A disposal is not a taxable disposal for the purposes of this Part if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the disposal is of material all of which—

    (a) consists of naturally occurring mineral material, and

    (b) has been removed (by dredging or otherwise) from the sea in the course of commercial operations carried out to obtain substances such as sand or gravel from the seabed:.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 6—Mining and quarrying.
    Government new clause 7—Pet cemeteries
    Government new clause 8—Exemptions: power to vary.
    Government amendment No. 12.
    Amendment No. 70, in clause 59, page 40, line 34, at end insert—
    '(9) Subsection (1)(b) above shall not apply where the material is deposited in an underground cavity created by the controlled solution mining of salt and the material arises from the processing of naturally occurring minerals to remove their naturally occurring impurities and the deposit of the material in such underground cavity will not give rise to environmental pollution and, due to the natural source of such material, there is no scope to reduce the quantity of such material and there is no more environmentally benign way of dealing with the material.'.
    Government amendment No. 13.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The House will recall from debates at earlier stages of the Bill that we are introducing a landfill tax, which will come into effect on 1 October. It aims to reduce our reliance on landfill, and will promote more sustainable waste disposal practices, especially by encouraging the reuse and recycling of material—and, indeed, waste reduction. It will also ensure that waste disposal costs reflect the full environmental impact of landfill.
    The revenue from the new tax will be used to make a further cut in employers' national insurance contributions, which have already fallen from 13.5 per cent. in 1979 to 10.2 per cent. now. A further cut costing about £0.5 billion will be made in April next year, also funded by revenue from the landfill tax.
    It is worth recalling that the total reduction in national insurance contributions since 1979 is now worth about £7.85 billion a year. That represents a direct relief on employment costs, and it partly explains why our employment record is better than those of most of our European competitors.
    or New clause 5 and its associated amendments and other new clauses arise from discussions that we had in Standing Committee, and with the trade, with other

    1053
    interested potential taxpayers and other groups. Their effect is to exempt dredgings and waste from mining and quarrying operations, and to introduce a power to vary the scope of the exemptions by Treasury order. We specifically intend to use that power to exempt historically contaminated land from the tax.
    I mentioned dredgings, and shall say a little more about that subject, because it interested the House and the Committee in earlier debates. New clause 5 provides that a disposal is not taxable if the material being disposed of consists entirely of material dredged from
    "a river, canal or watercourse",
    a harbour or suchlike. Most dredgings would not fall to be taxed in any case, because the material is often disposed of at sea or on land, rather than in a landfill site. But some material is disposed of in licensed landfill sites, and so would otherwise fall to be taxed.
    We are exempting such material because the waste is naturally occurring, and exists to be dredged only because of the operation of natural forces. Moreover, dredging has a beneficial effect on navigation and in preventing flooding. It produces a relatively easily definable category of waste, and I am therefore happy to confirm the exemption by introducing the new clause to give it practical effect.
    New clause 6 exempts waste from mines and quarries. It was never our intention to tax such waste unless it was disposed of in licensed landfill sites, but it became apparent following discussions with the industry that quite a tonnage of such waste is disposed of in licensed sites and would therefore be taxed. The exemption will apply to all naturally occurring waste arising from mining and quarrying operations. The exemption will not apply where waste arises from a process separate from mining or quarrying operations, or if it arises from a process that permanently alters the waste's chemical characteristics.
    The next major category that I want to mention is contaminated land. Customs and Excise has consulted widely on the matter with the agencies involved in clearing up contaminated land. A consultation exercise took place on a draft clause that tried to define a category of contaminated land, linking it to the necessary planning approval, to provide an objective criterion for the eligibility for exemption. But it became clear that too many clearance projects do not require planning permission, and we have decided instead upon a different approach. The exemption will apply to waste from the clearance of contaminated land where the clearance of all or part of the contamination is necessary to allow the land to be used for the intended purpose when the development is complete. The exemption will apply to waste arising from the reclamation of the land, but current polluters will not be able to benefit from it.
    That will be done by a system of certification by customs, and we want to consult further on the details. That means that the details of the exemption cannot be brought forward by primary legislation. New clause 8 enables the Treasury to make orders to add to, delete or vary the definition of waste exempt from the tax. We intend to use the order-making power because it may be necessary from time to time to alter the exemptions—particularly at the margins—in the light of technical or other developments, or to iron out difficulties that may
    1054
    arise during the operation of the tax. But it will be used specifically to bring in an exemption for historically contaminated land, and a draft of the order to do that will be ready early next month. Subject to the views expressed, we hope to be able to lay the order in June—well before 1 October, the date on which the tax comes into effect.
    Ms Primarolo: I should like the Paymaster General to clarify a number of issues with regard to the new clauses. I am grateful to him for his explanation of the new clauses, which arise from our debates in Committee.
    I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain the use and meaning of the word "watercourse" in new clause 5(2)(a). Chambers dictionary defines a watercourse as
    "a channel through which water flows or has flowed".
    That would seem to exclude lakes, ponds and reservoirs, for instance. Is that the Government's intention? If so, what is their justification for doing so?
    New clause 6 deals with mining and quarrying, but it appears that the problems with salt mining that were raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) are not covered by the new clause. If I am reading the new clause incorrectly, perhaps the Paymaster General can explain how they would be covered.
    4.45 pm
    With regard to the exemption powers in new clause 8 and the development of historically contaminated land, we discussed in Committee contaminated land in inner cities, which might be developed for housing projects—a burden would be placed on the developers prior to the development. I understand the difficulties in refining a definition to deal with that issue, but there are a number of related problems. I shall put them before the House, bearing in mind the fact that the Paymaster General said that there would be further consultation on the details of the way in which the exemptions would work. The powers seem very wide at the moment, but if I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the exemptions could vary at the margins according to the development of technologies. If I misheard him, I apologise.
    The Environmental Industries Commission, in its representations on the new clause—I presume that it has made the same representations to the Paymaster General—made a series of important points that we need to consider. One was that, if we move the contamination from the historically contaminated land into landfill, we shall not be dealing with the contamination, but simply moving it. The EIC points out that companies are emerging in the United Kingdom which offer on-site remediation technologies and that, as was said in the introduction to the new clauses, the point of the landfill tax is to encourage waste reduction and recycling. The tax is supposed to shape the behaviour of others.
    Contaminated land is a substantial problem in Britain, as well as throughout Europe, particularly as most of it is in inner cities and, while it is not dealt with, pressure will continue to be put on green-field sites and sites elsewhere. It is estimated that there are about 50,000 to 100,000 contaminated sites in the United Kingdom alone. I am keen to ensure, as I am convinced that the Paymaster General will be, that we do not undermine the development of the industries that deal with the remediation of contaminated land in what is a very volatile market in the United

    1055
    Kingdom, by giving developers a route to avoid dealing with the contamination on site and simply allowing free tipping on landfill sites.
    Clearly, to encourage those environmental technologies to develop is crucial. Indeed, the Government recognise that, because the Department of the Environment has been encouraging the use of advanced remediation techniques in place of landfill, and Government initiatives, such as the Biotechnology Means Business programme, have been trying to do exactly that. If the House gives too wide a power on exempting historically contaminated land, it will be in danger of running counter to those objectives, and I am sure that that is not the intention.
    The royal commission on environmental pollution and the Office of Science and Technology have recognised that greater emphasis should be placed on the commercial application of environmentally friendly technologies that can deal with contaminated sites. We are discussing historically contaminated sites only. The royal commission's call for urgent action to decontaminate urban sites could be undermined by proposals that are too widely drawn.
    The Government are in danger of sending out conflicting messages. While their policy wishes to assist the development of the environmental technologies, it is in danger of taking away the home market that would help develop them. I ask the Paymaster General during consultation—before the drafting of the orders that will come before the House—to consider the role of the Department of the Environment and the use of advanced land remediation techniques instead of landfill of contaminated land. He should consider the Department of the Environment's sustainable management strategy, which has set targets for reducing the amount going into landfill sites and could be undermined by the inclusion of contaminated land. He should also consider the DTI's Biotechnology Means Business initiative and the LINK programme on the biological treatment of soil and water to deal with contamination, which covers many Government Departments.
    There are numerous environmental arguments for a landfill tax, which we have supported in principle, although we have disagreed with some of the details. On contaminated land, it is important that any short-term arrangements that are made to help out with particular problems of developers do not become medium or long-term solutions that undermine the very industries for whose development the landfill tax was supposed to create the opportunity.
    Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on the way in which he has handled the landfill tax. I fully support the principle of a landfill tax, but it is important that, at the margin, we should get its scope right.
    Concern was expressed in Committee on behalf of several industries that felt that they would be placed at a competitive disadvantage or had other genuine reasons for exemption, and my right hon. Friend tabled the new clauses, especially new clause 8. It is always difficult to decide whether it is right to give the Government more order-making powers, but in this case it is sensible, because we may want to vary the scope of the tax, and contaminated land probably will not be the last example of where that would be necessary.
    1056
    The CBI minerals committee welcomed new clause 6, on mining and quarrying, but asked for some reassurance on two matters. The first is straightforward. It seeks confirmation that the exemption provided by new clause 6 embraces the naturally occurring materials that result from the processing of a mineral as part of the normal mining or quarrying operation. I thought that that was clear. Secondly, it seeks reassurance that new clause 6 covers processes which are an essential part of the operation, but which take place at a different location. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could deal with those two points in his reply.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) mentioned salt. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has tabled amendment No. 70. As she is not here, I should mention it because I am not sure that the new clauses cover it. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could respond on that. The underground cavities in the Cheshire plain where the material is disposed of after processing are in my hon. Friend's constituency—which explains why she has tabled the amendment—and it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could address that issue. I believe that his handling of the matter has been exemplary.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am pleased that, following our discussions in Committee, several new clauses have been introduced on Report. Although the Opposition's preferred option was to spend more time considering the various issues raised by different industries and local authorities, I accept that the new clauses go a long way towards addressing some of their queries.
    I should like to ask the Paymaster General to respond to a few points that I have raised with him in the interim. The first involves the continuing discussion about the problems that certain industries will have defining and accepting the various classifications of waste. The Secondary Metals Association—which is the trade association for the scrap metal industry and is obviously important to steel producers in South Yorkshire—remains concerned about how to address the classification issue. How will scrap metal merchants know whether the materials they receive qualify for the £2 levy or the £7 levy?
    The second point was raised by the Environmental Services Association, and I do not think that the Paymaster General has responded to it. How will waste be weighed at landfill sites so that landfill tax may be levied accurately to ensure that all operators are competing on a level playing field. In its briefing—with which we all agree—the Environmental Services Association says:
    "the aim of the tax is to encourage the movement of waste up the hierarchy by increasing landfill charges".
    It does not aim to subsidise some businesses, which might be able to get around the landfill tax, at the expense of others. The association is concerned—as am I—that, if waste is not weighed on weighbridges in every case, there could be discrepancies and unfairness.
    Thirdly, I have some concerns about new clause 6 regarding mining and quarrying. There will be concern, particularly in former mining areas, that potential developers of opencast sites will see the landfill tax as a means of increasing their opencast operations.
    5 pm
    Many of the arguments about mining and quarrying were reasonable and well founded. I listened carefully to

    1057
    what the Minister said: that waste in mining and quarrying operations would not be exempt—if I understood him correctly—if the operation was separate from the mining operation or if the composition of the waste was altered. I should like some assurances that opencast operators will not have significant gains out of new clause 6. There are huge areas in Yorkshire and the north-east that would be particularly concerned if it was seen as a ghetto for opencast operators.
    My fourth point relates to new clause 8—an open-ended clause that could mean everything, nothing, half, quarter, three quarters and could be said to accommodate most of the concerns that were raised in Committee. It leaves loopholes. We want further clarification about when the loopholes will be closed if new clause 8 is seen to offer too much flexibility to Ministers, to operators or to waste disposal people.
    The Minister will be aware that I raised a number of concerns of the British Iron and Steel Producers Association in Committee because it wanted dispensation to clear and develop its contaminated land for clean uses such as housing. We were supportive of the association's representations. I am happy because its representations have been addressed by new clause 8, but it seems to me that the dispensation could go much wider and that, perhaps, we do not want it to go too much wider.
    It is extremely important—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) said—that the widening of the exemption to include all contaminated land is not jumped on by waste operators as a way of avoiding the pressures that the landfill tax is supposed to put on them to look for ways of recycling waste, cleaning up waste or using waste for new productive purposes through the environmental technologies that have been mentioned by the Environmental Industries Commission.
    I urge the Minister to take seriously the commission's recommendations that, in every case, Ministers and Members of Parliament ought to be assured that the best environmental option that achieves a sustainable waste management strategy is being pursued and that we do not simply respond to pressure from this or that waste disposal operator who is using the term "contaminated land" to avoid landfill tax payments.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: I welcome the landfill tax and regard this as an exciting new era in terms of how we deal with much of the waste that we produce. I intend to refer not to animal cemeteries—unfortunate as that may be—but to mining and quarrying and the exemptions that have been suggested under new clauses 5 and 6. The exemptions are important—we all know that mining and quarrying produce more waste than any other source.
    We have a highly reputable, efficient and competitive waste disposal industry that does a good job on well-administered sites, but there is the other world of cowboy operators—sometimes the small operators—that regulations do not seem to reach. My only concern is that there are certain elements in the exemptions that seem to cater to the fly-by-night cowboy operators. One worries that there will be tax evasion and more inefficient and rather dodgy sites. We do not want a proliferation of fly tipping across the countryside. It is already a real problem and some attention has to be directed to it.
    1058
    I welcome the fact that there is an exemption. All hon. Members have been lobbied by an efficient and welcome lobby—not all lobbies are welcome. A number of waterway and canal societies, including the Huddersfield narrow canal society, have lobbied me. I am glad that the Government have been able to respond with an exemption.
    Some would say that we do not want exemptions for one part of an industry when similar exemptions are not available for another part of it. I refer to the chemical industry and the production of salt. There is concern about competitiveness. That sector of the industry believes that it is being hard done by and that further consideration should be given to its special case. I do not know the pros and cons of the case, only what my postbag looks like and the arguments that have passed across my desk. The issue needs further attention.
    The Government need flexibility to deal with poisoned land. The issue must be dealt with sensitively. Technology is changing quickly in this area—indeed, the tax is producing new technologies. The energy from waste movement is producing new technologies. We already know that operators in the waste world are looking at totally different technologies because they know that the landfill tax is coming in on 1 October. That is all very good, but we must have a system that is sensitive enough to react quickly if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) is right and we experience evasion of the tax and movement towards a less good disposal of polluted land.
    Sir James Molyneaux: I join those who have welcomed the exemptions, because they are a move in the right direction. We pay tribute to the Treasury Ministers and all who served on the Committee for starting to move in the right direction. The exemptions will be of great benefit to small local authorities and we have—with only one exception—small local authorities in Northern Ireland.
    We also welcome the flexibility conferred by new clause 8 and the powers to vary by order. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and others asked whether there would be a general welcome for the powers for central Government to take certain action by order. In Northern Ireland, we can hardly object to the phrase "made by order", because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has no other option. He must govern Northern Ireland "by order" in nearly all respects, so we do not quibble with that one.
    I want to ask the Paymaster General for an assurance that the commissioners will consult district councils meaningfully, because they have two interests in this area. First, they are bound to be affected directly because they will run some of the sites. Secondly, councils are regarded—I think that this is the case throughout the United Kingdom—as the link, even the go-between, between central Government and the average citizen. For that reason, it would be useful if district councils, as the recognised authorities, had effective lines of communication and consultation with the commissioners.
    We must be merciful to councillors, because they are usually blamed—I am sure that the problem is the same on both sides of the water—for the actions and inaction of Governments of whatever complexion. I say that to preserve my neutrality. Some Departments sometimes

    1059
    seem to welcome the fact that the fire is directed at local councillors rather than the Ministers who are answerable to Parliament. I want to pay tribute to councillors in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who has served for a long time on a local authority. He endures all the heat and burden of the day and very often gets little sympathy from those who elect him—and still less sympathy from Governments, again of whatever complexion.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I warmly endorse the closing words of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), not least because my wife has recently been elected to a Scottish local authority.
    Sadly, I am about to develop a substantial constituency interest in the landfill industry since Blue Circle Industries plc has obtained planning permission to use what used to be an enormous quarry close to Dunbar as a large landfill site, which will be available to users in south-east Scotland and north-east England. I fear that the site will provide lots of revenue to the private company, Haul Waste, that has bought it from Blue Circle.
    It is interesting to note that Haul Waste is a subsidiary of the privatised South West Water, so there will be a number of snouts in that trough. All those involved will want to get their cut from the business and, under the landfill tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get £7 a tonne out of the same hole.
    My main anxiety is that, after the privatised water industry gets its profit out of that hole in the ground and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had his take, very little might be left to protect the environment of the neighbourhood. We all know that landfill sites can be very messy locations. The best impression of the east coast of Scotland will not be created if people travelling up the A 1 or the east coast main line go past a colossal hole full of visible, smelly, messy rubbish. It is therefore important that people who operate such sites should be given incentives to do so in an environmentally friendly and responsible manner.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Member will share my concern that Haul Waste is seeking planning permission for a huge—probably the biggest—quarry site in Northern Ireland on the edge of Larne lough. Does he agree that landfill sites must be strictly supervised to ensure that leachate does not flow into rivers and loughs to cause permanent and, in many cases, irreparable damage?
    Mr. Home Robertson: We are in danger of having a general debate about the merits and demerits of landfill sites, but I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.
    I am personally very sad about the development in my constituency because, in my 18 years as Member of Parliament for East Lothian, I have never received a single complaint about the council-operated tip in my local authority. All the rubbish is baled and most of my constituents do not even know where it goes. Under the new set-up, the rubbish will be tipped loose. The wind will blow it around, the gulls will fly and the rodents will run around. I fear that the site will be revolting and I am concerned that—after everybody has had a profit—the environment of the area should be protected.
    1060
    My specific point about the new clauses and amendments in this group arises from something that the Paymaster General said in his introductory speech. He said that the purpose of the landfill tax is to encourage the reuse and recycling of waste material. It does not quite do that.
    Encouragement can involve carrots or sticks, and the tax is a stick that will penalise landfill, but there is nothing in the package to encourage recycling and investment in plant for recycling. That point was clearly made to me by a waste operator in my constituency, East Coast Skips Ltd., which told me that it is enthusiastic about co-operating with Government policy and wants to invest in equipment to recycle timber, paper, glass and anything else.
    Unfortunately, under these provisions, the company's cash flow will suffer because it will have to start paying the £7-a-tonne levy and it will receive no incentive to invest in the equipment for recycling. It would not be unreasonable for at least part of the revenue from this tax to be made available to encourage people in the industry, local authorities and others to invest in the equipment that they require to do what we all want them to do. I hope that the Paymaster General will address that constructive suggestion.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Tim Devlin: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about landfill tax, because it is of great concern in my constituency, which is Britain's largest chemical-producing area. When I recall the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, I am pleased to see in new clauses 5 and 6 that the Government have taken notice of some of the criticisms that were made about the tipping of material dredged from harbours and rivers and about inert material washed from potatoes and resulting from the movement of soil.
    I still have three concerns, which have already been communicated to the Department of the Environment by Teesside development corporation, by contractors in my constituency and by me on behalf of Harcross, the largest producer of chrome in this country and in Europe. Its main competitors are in America, the far east and South Africa, so any burden placed on that company puts it in an unfortunate uncompetitive position against the major competitors that it faces in other parts of the world. I shall be interested to hear what the Paymaster General has to say about my three points.
    The first point is about Harcross. I have read new clause 6 on mining and quarrying and I am uncertain whether a company that takes mined material from another country, separates it into a useful metal and an inert waste and then landfills the waste in a pit on its own land will be liable to pay the full £7 a tonne rate of tax. If it is liable, that will significantly affect its competitive position. I am interested to know whether the steps that the company has taken to reduce the waste that it produces—they have cost a considerable sum—will be offset against the amount of tax that it may have to pay if it is indeed liable to the tax.
    My second concern relates to the activities of the urban development corporations. This point has been pursued with the Department of the Environment by Teesside development corporation. It has to do with contaminated land being excavated to regenerate an area, and whether

    1061
    the scrapings taken up from the surface of the earth and then sent away to landfill will be liable to the £7 a tonne tax. If they are, that will, in effect, be a tax on regeneration. I had understood from the DOE that that would not happen, and that the removals would be classed as inert material and thus be exempt from the tax. The development corporation and I would both be grateful for confirmation of that.
    My third concern is material used for landscaping. I have to admit that I am rather confused by a letter that I have received from a junior Minister at the Department of the Environment, with whom I have corresponded on this matter. Incidentally, he offered to meet me to discuss the problem but has not yet found himself able to do so. The letter, dated 14 March, says:
    "You question whether the landfill tax should also apply to inactive or inert wastes. Inactive or inert waste is waste which does not decompose when it is landfilled to produce methane gas, or have the potential to pollute groundwater. We recognise that the risk of environmental pollution is much smaller for this type of waste, and the lower tax rate of £2 per tonne will apply to inactive wastes to take account of this."
    On the next page, the letter continues:
    "The landfill tax will provide an incentive to use these materials productively rather than disposing of them in landfill sites".
    Further on, the letter continues:
    "The purpose of the tax is to face producers of waste with their actions … Research published by my Department into the recycling of demolition and construction waste does suggest that there is scope for increasing both the total quantity of waste recycled and the proportion which is recycled as quality secondary aggregate."
    The point here is whether construction industry waste—bricks, tiles and pipes—which is then sold by companies to other companies for use as hard core on building sites to fill in soft patches in the ground, and as underlay for carparking areas and farmyards, will be classed as waste. Will it be classified as destined for landfill or as recycled material that is wholly exempt from the tax? That is an important aspect to the chemical industry and to agriculture generally. Hard-core material is often sold to companies such as ICI to build bunds around their plants, so that if there is a chemical leak it can be contained within a specified area. It is then landscaped with topsoil, effectively creating what looks to the eye of the passer-by like a long, low hill. That improves the visual aspect of many a factory and plant, at the same time as adding to safety.
    Many companies sell their hard core for the construction of new roads, farm roads, farmyards, turning areas and parking areas. Is that classified as landfill? If so, will the material be charged at £2 a tonne, or will it be classed as recycled material? That point has been raised by hauliers in my constituency who are anxious for the answers. I look forward to some guidance on how this part of the construction industry will be affected by the proposed landfill tax.
    I must warn the Minister that if people have to pay landfill tax to take their waste to an approved tipping site, we face the prospect of a considerable increase in fly tipping. That concerns me greatly. Will the Minister therefore ensure that local authorities provide at least one place where local residents can take their unwanted bedsteads and domestic refuse and dump it for free? At the main incinerator and waste disposal unit in Teesside
    1062
    we currently have to pay £25 a load. Providing a free dump would be a massive incentive for people on low incomes to dispose of their rubbish properly.
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: I welcomed the landfill tax when it was announced in the Budget and I followed its progress in Standing Committee. I still welcome it, although the more I examine it the more difficult the subject becomes. I am particularly pleased by new clause 6 as it affects the deep coal industry. I had never thought that that industry would be affected by the landfill tax, but I am pleased that the new clause clarifies the matter.
    I should like to pursue the Minister a little further on the consequences of the tax for the coal industry. Will materials brought in for engineering work be exempt from the landfill tax? I offer the Minister two examples. During construction of a colliery slag heap, the base is lined with clay to prevent water from permeating it. That clearly involves bringing waste on to the site, but it is designed to stop other waste from polluting the water.
    Secondly, capping a colliery tipping site with soil needs to be done to enable tree planting to take place. I am keen that that, too, should be exempt from the landfill tax.
    It also seems clear to me that if coal is brought out of the mine and then washed, that is part of the coal mining process, so the resulting waste should not be liable to the landfill tax. Sometimes coal is transported away from the colliery to another site for washing; does it matter whether the process takes place on the same site?
    I may be pushing my luck a little, but it would be helpful to the coal industry to have these answers. It would also help the industry if fly-ash were exempt from the tax. I assume that subsection (5)—
    "a process forming part of those operations and permanently altering the material's chemical composition"—
    excludes fly-ash, but I use it as a device to ask the Minister about what category fly-ash will come under—the higher rate, or the lower rate for inactive and inert waste. The coal industry faces many challenges at the moment, and I know that the Revenue is consulting on this. I, for one, am very anxious that the industry should survive.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the House for the general welcome for the tax. I think that it is seen as an advance in environmental terms, and that it will raise a useful sum that will be applied to relieve the burden of employment taxation.
    On the specific questions, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) asked about dredging and whether material reclaimed or taken out of ponds and lakes will be exempt. The answer is no. The dredging exemption is designed for the removal of material that has entered harbours and waterways through natural forces. It is also designed to keep those harbours and waterways clear for navigation purposes and to prevent flooding. That is not the case for material removed from stagnant ponds and lakes. I remind her that, if such material is disposed of other than to a licensed landfill site, it will not be taxed anyway.
    Ms Primarolo: What about material removed from reservoirs that do not have a throughput of moving water?
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Unless a reservoir is a waterway used for traffic, and therefore might qualify as a type of canal, I do not envisage that it will be exempt.

    1063
    That question illustrates the validity of the new clause, which introduces an order-making power, because it is precisely these marginal issues that may fall to be altered in due course.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I do not think that the Minister quite understands what a reservoir is. A body of water is not a reservoir unless water flows through it. The whole purpose of a reservoir is for water to go in at one end and to be taken out at the other, and if in the process silt gets into the bottom of the reservoir, presumably it is reasonable to allow the operator to remove it without being taxed.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Nor do many canals have water flowing through them. They are not rivers; some canals are virtually stagnant, yet they take traffic and therefore have to be kept clear for navigation purposes. I can envisage, if I stretch the definition to its extreme, a type of reservoir that might also be used to take commercial traffic and might therefore form a type of canal. That might fall to be exempted from the tax. In general terms, I feel that reservoirs will not fall within the exemption and therefore material removed from them will fall to be taxed.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Surely, as we in Yorkshire know, the whole point about reservoirs is that if they are allowed to silt up, the supply and resources can be threatened. That issue has been raised not once but many times by the people of Yorkshire in the past six months, because silting up may have contributed to the problems last year. I should be grateful if the Minister would agree to examine the implications of that.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not want to get into the problems of Yorkshire Water during the debate. The problem there is too little water rather than too much silt. I would rather re-emphasise the point that the order-making power is partly designed to deal with possible future definitional problems, where the House may decide to move the borderline between exempt and non-exempt material, which neatly makes the point for the new clause, which introduces such a provision.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, South wants to ensure that the contaminated waste provision is not abused and that it should not be used in cases where there is a perfectly good alternative. The point is that clearing up historically contaminated land is currently extremely expensive, and it would act as a deterrent if such material were to bear tax at £7 a tonne. It would give every incentive to the development of green-field sites rather than the contaminated brown-field sites, where we wish to see development taking place in some cases.
    Of course, there are other ways to deal with contamination. Soil can be washed. I have even heard that microbes can be employed to chew up the offending contamination, but all this technology is in its infancy and at present is a good deal more expensive than existing methods. If the balance were to shift, we would need to consider whether it would be appropriate to continue to exempt contaminated sites.
    I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) about the way in which we have tried to introduce this tax through listening
    1064
    to representations that have been made. Indeed, we have gone a long way towards meeting some of the objections where they are well founded. He mentioned the salt mining industry. I can confirm that material put back into salt cavities will not be exempt, because it has been altered chemically. In other words, what is taken out of the salt cavities is different from what is being put back in. We have, however, met some of the industry's concerns by bringing within the definition of the lower rate these deposited materials, which will be taxed at £2 a tonne rather than the original £7 a tonne. In addition, we shall make an allowance for the water contained in the brine material that is pumped back into the excavated cavities.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) asked me about the different classifications of waste between the upper and the lower rate. In answer to a written question, I announced the categories that fall within the lower rate, but before that is taken forward into secondary legislation we are open to further representations.
    The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked about weighbridges. It is not our intention to insist that all landfill sites be equipped with a weighbridge. Many of them are, but where there is no such facility for weighing material, for environmental control purposes the quantity of waste has to be assessed. When that is done to the satisfaction of Customs and Excise without a weighbridge, we shall use that as a basis for taxation. It is important when we introduce a new tax that we do not unnecessarily burden small operators with capital expenditure that they might not be in a position to meet. It is not a requirement that there should be a weighbridge at smaller sites.
    The hon. Member for Hillsborough also asked about opencast mining. No special privileges will apply. The planning process must take care of the question whether opencast mining can take place, and spoil and waste from that operation will be exempted in exactly the same way as they are from deep mining. She also made a point about being restrictive about the definition of historically contaminated waste. I have dealt with that point.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield also asked me two questions about mining waste. I can answer both of them positively. Material that is normally processed or separated from quarried or mined material will not be taxed. Similarly, it does not matter whether that process takes place at the quarry or whether it is geographically separate.
    The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) asked about the need for consultation, particularly with district councils. Talking to representatives and officers from local authorities is very much part of our consultation exercise, and we shall continue to engage in such consultation.
    The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) mentioned the burden imposed on local authorities that might have to provide for, or encourage, the recycling to which the tax relates. Between 1990 and 1994, the Government provided some £10 million in grant to assist the development of alternative environmental technology, including recycling technology. More specifically, local authorities were permitted to borrow more than £50 million for capital investment in recycling facilities. All that will be boosted by the introduction of the

    1065
    tax. The hon. Gentleman may call it a stick rather than a carrot; nevertheless, it is a direct incentive for all waste producers, and all who handle waste, to find alternatives to land filling. Recovery of waste, incineration with heat recovery and recycling in all its forms will be given a direct impetus.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I was referring not only to local authorities but to established contractors, large and small. The Government say that such contractors want to begin recycling rather than landfilling. The Government are clearly imposing a substantial extra burden on their cash flow by introducing the £7 a tonne tax, but at the same time the Government want them to invest in recycling equipment. Surely it is reasonable for those contractors to gain an incentive—perhaps a grant scheme—from the tax revenue, so that they can install such equipment.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I have explained, through the normal credit approval procedures the Government have directly encouraged local authorities to install such facilities. Even without the tax, however, many self-sustaining recycling systems exist. For instance, all aluminium cans are taken by Alcan and other companies and turned into new aluminium ingots. A further direct financial incentive will be given; it will be in everyone's interest to remove aluminium from the waste stream in order to recycle it, and to reduce the volume that would otherwise have to be taxed when it went to landfill.
    Mr. Sheerman: I am rather worried about the fact that the Minister has not mentioned trusts. I am thinking of carrots rather than sticks. I would have thought that, under the new clause 5 criteria, the trusts that we expected to benefit from the landfill tax would be able to supply some of the "carrots" that we all eagerly awaited from 1 April. Will those trusts disappear, or will they remain with us? Will they be affected?
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The trusts are very much part of the legislation. I have not mentioned them only because they are not part of the new clauses, and I do not wish to be ruled out of order. We hope that environmental trusts will spring up to develop other ways of dealing with the waste stream, including research into alternatives. They may also clear up some of the so-called orphan sites that would otherwise remain derelict.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) referred to material brought into the country and then separated out as part of an industrial process. He asked whether the resulting material would be taxed. It would, but, without access to further details, I do not know whether it would be taxed at the "inactive" rate of
    £2 a tonne or at the higher rate of £7. My hon. Friend gave the more specific example of what he described as "scrapings" from contaminated land. That would be exempted under the provisions relating to contaminated land.
    My hon. Friend gave other examples from a letter that he had received from the Department of the Environment, and questioned me about material from the construction
    1066
    industry. In particular, he wanted to know whether material that was sold would be taxed in any way. The answer is no. If material has a use and is sold to an end user, it will not be taxed; it will be taxed only if it goes to a licensed landfill site. Ordinary inert waste would be taxed at £2 a tonne. My hon. Friend also mentioned fly tipping. We already have provisions in environmental law to deal with that, and we want them to be rigorously enforced to prevent incentives being given to those who engage in fly tipping rather than responsible disposal.
    Mr. Devlin: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's helpful comments. It seems from what he has said that, if the incinerator that currently stands at the centre of Teesside is removed and the development corporation demolishes and clears the site, that will be treated as an exempt disposal.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the site were shown to be historically contaminated, we would envisage exempting it, but it is dangerous for Ministers to give definitive interpretations of tax liability from the Dispatch Box. If my hon. Friend would like a more authoritative reply, he had better write to me.
    The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) asked me about material brought on to a site. If it is bought by those who are lining, or indeed capping, a site, that would not be a disposal for landfill purposes and would not be taxed. As for coal, the hon. Gentleman gave an example in which water was added. I know that water is often added to pulverised ash from power stations to help transport it. We do not want to tax water that is added in that way; customs will apply a conversion factor so that the actual material is taxed.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about processing that is geographically remote from the original site. That itself would not mean that the material was taxed, provided that it was part of the same basic operation and that the material was not chemically altered—provided, in other words, that it was still part of the original quarry or mining operation. It would not matter where the operation took place.
    Having given those few elaborations, illustrations and reassurances, I commend the new clauses to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 6

    MINING AND QUARRYING
    —(1) A disposal is not a taxable disposal for the purposes of this Part if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the disposal is of material all of which fulfils each of the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (4) below.
    (2) The material must result from commercial mining operations (whether the mining is deep or open-cast) or from commercial quarrying operations.
    (3) The material must be naturally occurring material extracted from the earth in the course of the operations.
    (4) The material must not have been subjected to, or result from, a non-qualifying process carried out at any stage between the extraction and the disposal.
    (5) A non-qualifying process is—

    (a) a process separate from the mining or quarrying operations, or

    1067

    (b) a process forming part of those operations and permanently altering the material's chemical composition.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 7

    PET CEMETERIES
    .—(1) A disposal is not a taxable disposal for the purposes of this Part if—

    (a) the disposal is of material consisting entirely of the remains of dead domestic pets, and

    (b) the landfill site at which the disposal is made fulfils the test set out in subsection (2) below.

    (2) The test is that during the relevant period—

    (a) no landfill disposal was made at the site, or

    (b) the only landfill disposals made at the site were of material consisting entirely of the remains of dead domestic pets.

    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the relevant period—

    (a) begins with 1st October 1996 or (if later) with the coming into force in relation to the site of the licence or resolution mentioned in section 60 below, and

    (b) ends immediately before the disposal mentioned in subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 8

    EXEMPTIONS: POWER TO VARY
    `.—(1) Provision may be made by order to produce the result that—

    (a) a disposal which would otherwise be a taxable disposal (by virtue of this Part as it applies for the time being) is not a taxable disposal;

    (b) a disposal which would otherwise not be a taxable disposal (by virtue of this Part as it applies for the time being) is a taxable disposal.

    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, an order under this section may—

    (a) confer exemption by reference to certificates issued by the Commissioners and to conditions set out in certificates;

    (b) allow the Commissioners to direct requirements to be met before certificates can be issued;

    (c) provide for the review of decisions about certificates and for appeals relating to decisions on review.

    (3) Provision may be made under this section in such way as the Treasury think fit (whether by amending this Part or otherwise).'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 15
    INCIDENTAL BENEFITS FOR THE SPEAKER, FOR HOLDERS OF MINISTERIAL OFFICE AND FOR OPPOSITION LEADERS AND WHIPS
    `.—(1) After section 200 of the Taxes Act 1988 (expenses of Members of Parliament) there shall be inserted the following section—

    Incidental benefits for holders of certain offices etc
    200AA.—(1) A person holding any of the offices mentioned in subsection (2) below shall not be charged to tax under Schedule E in respect of—
    1068

    (a) any transport or subsistence provided or made available by or on behalf of the Crown to the office-holder or any member of his family or household; or

    (b) the payment or re-imbursement by or on behalf of the Crown of any expenses incurred in connection with the provision of transport or subsistence to the office-holder or any member of his family or household.

    (2) Those offices are—

    (a) any office in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and

    (b) any other office which is one of the offices and positions in respect of which salaries are payable under section 1 of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (whether or not the person holding it is a person to whom a salary is paid or payable under the Act).

    (3) Nothing in this section shall prevent a person from being chargeable to tax under Schedule E in respect of the benefit of a mobile telephone (within the meaning of section 159A).
    (4) References in this section to a member of the family or household of an office-holder shall be construed in accordance with section 168(4).
    (5) References in this section to the provision of transport to any person include references to the following—

    (a) the provision or making available to that person of any car (whether with or without a driver);

    (b) the provision of any fuel for a car provided or made available to that person;

    (c) the provision of any other benefit in connection with a car provided or made available to that person.

    (6) In this section—

    `car' means any mechanically propelled road vehicle; and

    `subsistence' includes food and drink and temporary living accommodation."

    (2) This section has effect for the year 1996–97 and subsequent years of assessment.'.—[Mr. Jack.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I apologise to the House for the relatively late tabling of this new clause. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) for the way in which he has responded to that. I hope that the information that I was able to supply to him has helped him to gain a clear understanding of the clause.
    Put simply, our proposal is to maintain the way that travel and subsistence for the Speaker, Ministers and Opposition officeholders have been dealt with for the past 20 years. Some 20 years ago, the then Government included in their Finance Bill new legislation to tax company cars and other benefits in kind. That Finance Bill included an exemption for pool cars. Broadly, those are cars that are used for business, are shared, are not usually taken home overnight by employees and have no more than merely incidental private use.
    At that time, it was expected that Ministers' cars would be pool cars. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said:
    "As I understand it, normally, from what goes on in industry, pool cars are used on a Monday to Friday basis and that is the position with regard to Government pool cars, that there are restrictions on private use, such as the provision that the employee does not normally have a pool car for use on holidays or weekends—and the same position applies to Ministers. From my examination, there is

    1069
    very little to choose between the way in which the Government run their car service and the ordinary pool car arrangements that we see in operation. Because of this, there is no reason to suggest that Ministers receive any benefit more than any other who have a pool car system as a traditional means of providing motor cars."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 June 1976; c. 1188.]
    That was also the view in subsequent years when official cars were treated under successive Governments as pool cars.
    As we moved into the 1990s, Ministers and the Inland Revenue had questions probing the precise application of tax law to official cars from tax practitioners, individual employers and employees, and from some hon. Members. Against that background, the Inland Revenue was asked to review the whole matter. Although nothing has changed since 1976, the Inland Revenue took, as it would in any such review, a fresh look at the interaction of tax law with the way in which official cars are used.
    After taking legal advice, the Inland Revenue concluded that it could no longer guarantee that all official cars are pool cars for tax purposes. That was because it no longer took the view that, in strict tax terms, private use was merely incidental to the business use. Having looked at that again, it concluded from the strict tax standpoint that working on classified papers in a car did not mean that travel between home and work was necessarily merely incidental to the other use of the car. Failing that one test means that the tax exemption is lost even when the car is pooled and is not normally kept at home overnight.
    The Inland Revenue also found in its review that legislation in 1989 had made it clear that security cars were not necessarily exempt from tax. For security reasons, some cars are used in a way that means that they cannot be treated as pool cars. Faced with a similar position, other employees might ask their employer to pay the tax for them so that they are no worse off. That option is not open to us. It was clear at that time that legislation would be needed to maintain the intention of Parliament in 1976 that there should be no tax on official cars which can now, as then, be used only for official travel and for a limited range of what, in strict tax terms, is not business travel.
    The additional travel allows Ministers to make more efficient use of their time for work in the office or at official engagements. It also gives them time to work in their cars and protects them and official papers. Successive Governments have recognised that that is a cost-effective measure and makes good sense. It became apparent that we also needed to look at other things that are provided in connection with official duties, including in some circumstances meals, travel or overnight accommodation for spouses. That raised complex questions that took a long time to resolve.
    We were determined from the outset to resolve the tax treatment fully and openly and wished to make sure that all the issues had been identified. It took some time to check all the possible circumstances in which Departments may incur costs in connection with the official duties of the Speaker, Ministers and Opposition officeholders. The Inland Revenue wished to take legal advice on some of them. In the light of the Inland Revenue advice, we had to consider that meals, travel or overnight accommodation for spouses could be
    1070
    taxable, and all the options open to us were fully and carefully considered. They included the option of presenting to the House legislation to allow Departments to meet any tax on travel as other employers do for their employees. We had to revisit our options in the light of developments along the way, which included the report of the Top Salaries Review Body.
    We are satisfied that the new clause reflects the 1976 intention and that it meets our objective of removing doubt about the tax treatment now and in future. It invites the House to confirm that meals, travel or overnight accommodation that are provided by Departments for the Speaker, Ministers and Opposition office holders should not be taxed in future just as they have not been taxed in the past. That is all that it does.
    The Speaker, Ministers and Opposition officeholders will pay no more and no less tax than they pay now. They will have meals, travel or overnight accommodation only in connection with their official duties. Occasionally, and quite justifiably, that includes meals, travel and overnight accommodation for spouses who are invited to accompany them and assist in their duties.
    I make it clear that checks are in place to ensure that public money is spent only for those purposes and as set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", which states:
    "The expense of a Minister's spouse when accompanying the Minister on the latter's official duties may occasionally be paid from public funds, provided that it is clear in the public interest that he or she should accompany the Minister. In the case of official visits overseas the Prime Minister's prior assent should be obtained on each occasion. For official visits within the United Kingdom, this is at the discretion of the Minister in charge of the Department concerned who, if in any doubt, should consult the Permanent Secretary."
    In summary, the new clause does no more than confirm what everyone expected the position to be when the Administration in 1976 introduced tax legislation on benefits in kind. That position has been subsequently maintained in the way that meals, travel and temporary accommodation for the Speaker, Ministers and Opposition officeholders have been treated in practice by successive Governments since 1976.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I thank the Minister for attempting to answer the 17 questions that we put to him today through my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) who is the shadow Chief Secretary. Unfortunately, that cannot compensate for inadequate time for proper parliamentary consideration of the clause. We regret that, at the last minute, Ministers are trying to insert into the Bill a clause from which they might be perceived personally to benefit. I say, more in sorrow than in anger, that that does nothing for public confidence in the reputation of the House.
    The shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Chief Secretary were told of the clause on the day that it was tabled, and it was tabled on the last possible day on which it would have been in order. The House should not be doing business in that manner if it can be avoided, particularly when some members of the public are already suspicious of hon. Members' motives and might construe a wrong conclusion from the procedure adopted by Ministers.
    We must not only do the right thing to protect the honour and reputation of the House but we must be seen to do the right thing. We must be above the suspicion

    1071
    that hon. Members might seek unfairly to profit personally from their legislative powers. That is why any proposal that benefits hon. Members should have been openly and publicly debated and referred to the Nolan committee or to the office of Sir Gordon Downey before it ever reached the Floor of the House. That is just basic good sense and good practice in the light of the public criticism of the House in the past year. Quietly placing a clause such as this into the Finance Bill at the last possible moment is politically crass. It invites criticism and does nothing to enhance the House's reputation.
    6 pm
    I do not accuse Ministers—or, for that matter, the four Opposition postholders who will be affected—of obtaining new benefits from this clause, but there is an obligation to ensure that the public know that that is the case. Openness and transparency are so important because the issue is perception and reputation, as well as our doubts about the clause's detail.
    Let us refer this clause to Sir Gordon Downey or to the Nolan committee. Let it be seen that the clause will merely replicate the circumstances in which employers pay for transport for employees, as the Government claim in their press release. We should continue the current treatment and refer the question of enshrining this clause in legislation to the independent authority. If the clause is accepted in an independent assessment, after public debate, the Chancellor can propose it in the Budget in the normal way. The Revenue would be aware of the Government's intention to legislate on this matter to cover 1996–97, and it could take that into consideration when making any tax claims.
    Last-minute amendments raise unnecessary suspicions. Unfortunately, last-minute amendments have become a feature of the Government, with their rushed, ill-prepared legislation. We saw that demonstrated in loan relationships, self-assessment, and recently with the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill. I am perhaps less suspicious of last-minute amendments than other people. I am more used to ministerial incompetence and tend to suspect the cock-up rather than the conspiracy theory of late amendments, but I can see tomorrow's press.
    At the weekend, there were stories of the Secretary of State for Social Security having trips to and from his holiday home in France paid for by the taxpayer. The Sunday Telegraph said that he claimed £2,980 for a round-trip flight by private plane. I do not propose to delve further into that matter today—but, on Monday, the new clause was placed before the House. I repeat: it is just crass timing.
    What has changed since the 1976 provisions were introduced? They seemed adequate at that time. What are Ministers doing now that they were not doing then? If any part of the new clause related to security issues—perhaps for protection costs for Ministers—we would be anxious to assist with it. Certainly, no Minister or other parliamentary officeholder should be exposed to tax for carrying out essential duties.
    On the security issue, some senior corporate employees may have legitimate security concerns. To what extent can we justify giving tax exemptions to Ministers and senior parliamentarians that do not extend to other people who may be at some risk when travelling to and from work? Those issues may require consideration before we move to legislation.
    1072
    The Financial Secretary rightly quoted something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said in 1976. My right hon. Friend also said:
    "As I have said before, the position of a Minister is on all fours with the position of a director or higher-paid employee. That I stand by. I should not wish to be present speaking from this position if I were introducing legislation other than that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 June 1976; c. 1029.1
    We now seem to be going beyond that statement.
    The new clause is not just about cars. Clauses such as this should reflect the widest possible consensus between the parties in the House. It may be that we could agree on a clause that is similar to this, but we have not had the time yet to consider fully its implications. We wish to be cautious.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am pressed for time, but I shall give way.
    Mr. Smith: Given the clear assurance that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave on this matter, I am slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman's response. Will the hon. Gentleman now say that, if the clause finds its way into the Finance Act, a future Labour Government would immediately refer it to Nolan or to Sir Gordon Downey?
    Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that we want this matter to be referred now, before we legislate. Why is the wording of the clause so wide ranging? Can he answer that question? According to subsection 1(a) of the proposed new section 200AA of the Taxes Act 1988, tax relief is included not only for the officeholder but for
    "any member of his family or household".
    "Family" I can understand, but does "household" include servants, valets, butlers or Great-uncle Charlie, who happens to live with the Minister?
    A relative who assists at an official function should be covered, but we need to consider with more care how far we extend the exemption. The broad nature of the clause suggests hasty drafting. Some people—not I—might say that it was a hasty response to the stories on Sunday about the Secretary of State for Social Security. Perhaps the terms of rules on taxation of Ministers and others should be better circumscribed. Perhaps we should better protect ourselves in the House in terms of the legislation that we pass.
    Today, we asked a number of questions of the Financial Secretary in writing. I shall ask a few of them now. Why have the Government not allowed a reasonable time for consultation on their proposals? Why did the press release of 25 March say that the new clause covers only expenses incurred in connection with official duties, when there is no such limitation in the text of the new clause? Why was the matter not referred to the Nolan committee? Is there a difference between the rules for Ministers and parliamentary officers and those for employees? If so, precisely what are those differences, and what are the reasons for them? The Government press release is vague on that point.

    1073
    Perhaps we need to protect our reputation with more detailed rules. This is not the right way to go about enacting such provisions. I ask the Minister to withdraw the clause and to refer it for independent assessment by Nolan or by Sir Gordon. The debate over the Nolan report was about transparency and the need for Members of Parliament to be open about what they do. Let the House show in its procedures that it has learnt the lesson.
    Let us reject the new clause and the way in which it has been put forward—at least for today. Let us say that we expect more transparency in such matters, and send a message to the public that the House has cleaned up its act and will be as open as possible in its future dealings. Our constituents have a right to such openness, and they will put up with nothing less. Labour will oppose this clause, with some regret.
    Mr. Devlin: I had not planned to speak to this clause, but the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) was most disgraceful. He is trying to make a most boring little clause about non-taxation of ministerial cars into an Opposition attack on sleaze in government; it is absolutely absurd. He should be ashamed of himself for coming along and—rather feebly—trying to make a rather stupid mountain out of a very small molehill.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wholly understand the basic reasoning behind this amendment—the Minister has had the courtesy to explain its purpose—and, like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), I do not find anything fundamentally objectionable with it. I am, however, a little puzzled about why it had to be tabled at this very late stage.
    The Minister said that apparently there has been, up until now, some type of agreement with the Inland Revenue, but that the agreement has since come to a crunch, and that the Inland Revenue is basically saying that unless the matter is put into law, it will apply taxation—presumably retrospectively—to Ministers. Some Ministers could potentially be faced with very large tax bills, which I appreciate is a real difficulty. I should be grateful, however, if the Financial Secretary could explain the situation a little more.
    The timing puzzles me because, having been alerted to the clause, I asked my office to research its origin. As a result of the research, I was given a cutting from The Guardian of 12 May 1993, which said that this issue was very much under discussion at that time. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked specific questions of the then Financial Secretary, currently the Secretary of State for Health. The then Financial Secretary said that, if he were taxed on his travel-to-work requirements, he would walk to work. I do not know whether he still intends to do that. I am not unsympathetic to the fact that Ministers go home late at night and travel in with boxes. If the argument is that Ministers need to be treated differently, that needs to be made a little clearer.
    What worries me slightly is that there seems to be a contradiction in the argument. It is argued that, in relation to travel to work, Ministers are treated on the same terms as anyone else. It is also argued that Ministers have a special requirement—perhaps involving security—and
    1074
    work requirements that can be carried out in the car taking them to and from their engagements. It should be either one thing or the other. If the Government's argument is that Ministers require cars to and from work for work-efficiency purposes, that they are in a special category and that they should not be taxed for that, I and, I am sure, my party do not have a particular problem. However, the Inland Revenue and the Financial Secretary will have a problem with all the knock-on implications: other people might make similar claims.
    My worry is similar to that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the Labour Front-Bench spokesman. As the matter has been tackled so late, we are left with a few questions that we do not have to time to answer. If it is possible to refer the matter outside without putting Ministers in prejudice, it should be done. After the Inland Revenue has held off this long, I find it difficult to believe that, if such a statement were made today, Ministers would find themselves landed with big tax bills at short notice. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary would deal with those points.
    Mr. Stuart Randall: The Financial Secretary's explanation of the new clause was clear and I thank him for that. His argument, however, hinged on the Inland Revenue's investigation of the matter and on the fact that it was unable to guarantee that Ministers' cars could be regarded as pool cars because of incidental use—personal use—as opposed to official use. I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary would clarify that just a little and tell us what evidence before the Inland Revenue showed that perhaps it was difficult to regard those cars as something other than pool cars.
    I have been abroad and seen Ministers travelling around the world. It is good that spouses should attend engagements with Ministers. That is important, not only because it enables Ministers who look after policy abroad to be with their spouses as often as possible, but because their spouses can perform a useful function for this country, so I welcome that provision. However, I should like to add to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), the Front-Bench spokesman, on the part of the new clause that refers to
    "any member of his family".
    It would not be unreasonable to limit that provision to spouses. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary would comment on that.
    The definitional part of the new clause refers entirely to motor cars. Now that the European Union is becoming more and more integrated, why does the definition not include general aviation'? It is no more expensive and it would be consistent with the current arrangements on the use of general aviation that all Members of Parliament have with the Fees Office: they may do so, provided that it is not more expensive than normal air travel.
    Mr. Jack: I am disappointed that the Opposition have taken the line that they have. They have explained their reasons and have suggested that there is a hidden agenda. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said clearly that we should be transparent in all this, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, there was a nudging-in of matters connected with a sleaze element. That is far from what the

    1075
    new clause is about. It is a technical tax issue and in no way would provide a privilege for people who are the temporary officeholders of the day. Ministers, Leaders of the Opposition, Speakers of the House come and go.
    In 1976, the provision of cars was deemed sensible, as it was in 1951 when Mr. Churchill, as he was then, first introduced such provision for Ministers, to provide that means of transport. In 1976, when its tax treatment was confirmed, people thought that the matter could be straightforwardly dealt with by making the cars pool cars and that there would therefore not be a liability to tax. As I have illustrated in my remarks, the Inland Revenue has been challenged effectively to the point of having to review the matter again.
    6.15 pm
    The party of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was among others in probing that matter. The provision had not been reviewed for about 17 years, so, rightly, the Revenue thought it timely to reconsider it. It came to the view that, of the three-part test that defined the cars that Ministers, office holders and others use as pool cars, the test that dealt with so-called merely incidental travel—home-to-work travel—was unsustainable. We failed therefore on that test and, after careful analysis, the Revenue deemed that a liability of tax could arise for users of a pool car.
    On the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), when the law was originally passed, it was felt that, for example, the act of working on papers in the car was sufficient to make it merely incidental. A further re-examination of the law by the Revenue's legal advisers—particularly bearing in mind the legislation on benefits in kind and the tightening of the law—ultimately made the Revenue say to Ministers, "Look. You have got to do something about this to put beyond doubt the tax treatment of the provision of these cars."
    No one has seriously challenged the provision of the cars. That is open and above board. Ministers of the day, officeholders and the Speaker have access to those vehicles because it makes good common sense for that to be so. The problem is that that common-sense procedure falls foul of a ruling by the Revenue.
    The hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked whether we could postpone the measure. We have considered the matter for some time and examined whether there are other ways of dealing with it, which picks up on his point about the way in which someone in the private sector might be dealt with. The problem is that, in relation to such cases in the private sector, one of two things could happen.
    An individual benefiting in this way from a benefit in kind might make a deal with his company to pay the tax if it provides the benefit or, as is more often the case, the company may gross up the salary, effectively paying the tax for the individual. That facility does not afford itself to officeholders of the day. That is the reason why we seek to make clear, and put beyond peradventure, the tax treatment of the use of pool car arrangements.
    Some questions have been asked on the wider issues of the provision of accommodation, travel and spouses. We have been challenged on whether the new clause is drawn too broadly in relation to those subjects. Before we have
    1076
    use of an official car or have our air fare or accommodation paid, there are gates through which we must pass—the proprietorial grounds. Those are laid down in "Questions of Procedures for Ministers". If any Minister of the day has any doubt about those, his private office will be quick to remind him or her of the correct procedures. There is no question, therefore, but that we must pass through stringent tests before we use such cars. That is the point.
    A Minister whose spouse has died might require the assistance of, for example, another member of the family in undertaking his or her official duties. That is why the new clause is cast fairly widely. Before we benefit from the new clause, we must pass stringent tests. The new clause in no way, shape or form would confer on Ministers any particular additional benefit other than was outlined by Parliament in 1976. All we seek to do is to put beyond doubt the tax treatment.
    In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Gordon, we are not trying to be treated differently. In 1976, Parliament took the view that pool cars should be made available to Ministers. For the reasons that I have given, we wish to sustain the availability of the cars, but put beyond doubt the tax treatment.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said at that time that his objective was to put a Minister on all fours with a director or a high-paid employee?
    Mr. Jack: Exactly as I have described. If a director or high-paid employee receives the benefit in kind paid for by his employer, there are two courses of action. One is that his tax would be paid for him by virtue of his salary being grossed up. That facility is not available to office holders. That is why the tax treatment makes certain that, for the duration of the holding of the office, an individual is not liable for a substantial amount of tax.
    I assure the House that the Inland Revenue has made it very clear that it would have no option but to levy tax charges in the forthcoming tax year if new legislation were not introduced. I am sorry that the official Opposition feel that they must vote against the new clause, which confers no extra benefit at all on Ministers. We look forward to hearing how they will deal with the issue in future. As usual, they have no alternative proposal. All one can say is that we are protecting all officeholders, including their leader, from what could be a very substantial tax bill.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 241.

    Division No. 88]

    [18.21 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Baldry, Tony

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Amess, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bates, Michael

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Ashby, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Bellingham, Henry

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bendall, Vivian

    1077

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Boswell, Tim

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bowis, John

    Gorst, Sir John

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butler, Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butterfill, John

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carttiss, Michael

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hawksley, Warren

    Churchill, Mr

    Hayes, Jerry

    Clappison, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hendry, Charles

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hicks, Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Congdon, David

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Horam, John

    Coombs, Simon

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Couchman, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cran, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jack, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Day, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jessel, Toby

    Devlin, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dicks, Terry

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Key, Robert

    Dover, Den

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knapman, Roger

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Elletson, Harold

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

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evennett, David

    Legg, Barry

    Faber, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lidington, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Lord, Michael

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Luff, Peter

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Maginnis, Ken

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gale, Roger

    Malone, Gerald

    Gallie, Phil

    Mans, Keith

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Marland, Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Marlow, Tony

    1078

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sproat, Iain

    Merchant, Piers

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mills, Iain

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Stephen, Michael

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Stewart, Allan

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Streeter, Gary

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Sumberg, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Sweeney, Walter

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Sykes, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Norris, Steve

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Thomason, Roy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Page, Richard

    Thumham, Peter

    Paice, James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Tracey, Richard

    Pawsey, James

    Tredinnick, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Trimble, David

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Viggers, Peter

    Rathbone, Tim

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Walden, George

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

    Richards, Rod

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Riddick, Graham

    Waller, Gary

    Robathan, Andrew

    Ward, John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Watts, John

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Wells, Bowen

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Whitney, Ray

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Whittingdale, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sackville, Tom

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Willetts, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Sims, Roger

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Mr. Derek Conway and

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mr. Simon Burns.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Allen, Graham

    Berry, Roger

    Alton, David

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Blunkett, David

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Boateng, Paul

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Bradley, Keith

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Austin-Walker, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Barnes, Harry

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

    Battle, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Burden, Richard

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Byers, Stephen

    1079

    Caborn, Richard

    Hood, Jimmy

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

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

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hoyle, Doug

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Hutton, John

    Chidgey, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Ingram, Adam

    Church, Judith

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Clapham, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Jamieson, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Coffey, Ann

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Keen, Alan

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Corbett, Robin

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

    Corston, Jean

    Khabra, Piara S

    Cousins, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Darling, Alistair

    Lewis, Terry

    Davidson, Ian

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Litherland, Robert

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

    Livingstone, Ken

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

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

    Loyden, Eddie

    Denham, John

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dixon, Don

    McAllion, John

    Dobson, Frank

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Donohoe, Brian H

    McCartney, Ian

    Dowd, Jim

    McCartney, Robert

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McFall, John

    Etherington, Bill

    McGrady, Eddie

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McKelvey, William

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McLeish, Henry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Maclennan, Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    McMaster, Gordon

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    McWilliam, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Madden, Max

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Maddock, Diana

    Foulkes, George

    Mahon, Alice

    Fyfe, Maria

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Galloway, George

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Gapes, Mike

    Martlew, Eric

    George, Bruce

    Maxton, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michael, Alun

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Graham, Thomas

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morley, Elliot

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Gunnell, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hain, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Hall, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Harvey, Nick

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Olner, Bill

    Hodge, Margaret

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hoey, Kate

    Pearson, Ian

    Home Robertson, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    1080

    Pike, Peter L

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Pope, Greg

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Stevenson, George

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Stott, Roger

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Straw, Jack

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Timms, Stephen

    Radice, Giles

    Tipping, Paddy

    Randall, Stuart

    Touhig, Don

    Raynsford, Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Rendel, David

    Tyler, Paul

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Vaz, Keith

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Wallace, James

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Walley, Joan

    Rooney, Terry

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rowlands, Ted

    Watson, Mike

    Welsh, Andrew

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Salmond, Alex

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wilson, Brian

    Short, Clare

    Wise, Audrey

    Simpson, Alan

    Worthington, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wray, Jimmy

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Soley, Clive

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spellar, John

    Mr. David Clelland and

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Mr. John Cummings.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The new clause that we have just passed exempts Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition from paying tax on the cars provided for them for the purpose of carrying out their duties. Given that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and his party voted against that new clause, will the right hon. Gentleman now do the honourable thing and pay the tax anyway?
    Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me; it is a point that should have been debated when we were debating the new clause.

  New clause 17

    LIFE ASSURANCE BUSINESS LOSSES
    `. Schedule (Life assurance business losses) to this Act, which makes provision about losses arising to insurance companies in the carrying on of life assurance business, shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Jack.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Jack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 65 to 67.
    Mr. Jack: The new clause and the schedule in amendment No. 65 fulfil an undertaking I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that, if possible, we would introduce our own provision to do what his new clause 38 sought to do.

    1081
    The schedule amends a rule introduced in last year's Finance Act—a very necessary rule, designed to stop the creation of wholly artificial losses in a life insurance company. My hon. Friend and the life insurance industry think that we went too far last year. In particular, it is said that the 1995 rule bore too harshly on companies just starting up, and discouraged new entrants to the life insurance market. We have found a way of allowing start-up life insurance companies to use their losses within a group, as any other company would.
    The new clause and the schedule identify circumstances in which the 1995 rule will continue to apply—where there is a takeover, including one following a demutualisation, and where the business is split by way of reinsurance or transfer of business. It will no longer apply to the start-up company where losses arise through normal patterns of business.
    The measures in the schedule also clarify and amend existing rules preventing double relief for losses. If we relax the 1995 rule to allow more losses to arise than in the past, it is important that we have robust rules to prevent double relief.
    Associated with the new schedule is a purely consequential amendment to schedule 13, and an amendment to the repeals schedule.
    Mr. Tim Smith: As you will have gathered, Madam Speaker, this is effectively a piece of unfinished business from last year's Finance Act. We discussed it in Committee, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for bringing the measure forward.
    Mr. Alistair Darling: I think that there is unanimity that the new clause should be added to the Bill, but I want to make one small point, which follows to some extent from the previous debate. The schedule is extremely complex. I understand why it is complex, and I support what it aims to do, but its complexity raises a point that has been identified again and again during the Bill's passage through the House. That is that Parliament is passing complex legislation without adequate scrutiny. It is not possible on Report to go through a schedule or a new clause in anything like the detail possible in Committee.
    The new clause and the schedule were tabled comparatively recently, and, as far as I know, there is nothing wrong with the drafting, and there are no unintended consequences. But I say "as far as I know", because the fact is that we do not know. The chances are that a further amendment will be necessary if we are debating the measure this time next year. Understandably, the industry complains about the way in which Parliament treats it, as the changes and uncertainty add to the cost and other complications faced by the corporate taxpayer, as well as by the individual taxpayer.
    I repeat my request for the Government to do two things. First—in so far as they can—they should avoid tabling complicated and lengthy pieces of legislation at the eleventh hour. Secondly, they should reflect further on a point raised by a number of hon Members—the desirability of transferring certain aspects of the Finance Act to a taxes management Act, where they can be looked at with greater leisure.
    1082
    There is no political difference between the parties on these points, which are technical to a large extent, and we all agree on the objective. But we are not making good law by dealing with complex matters at the last possible moment. I agree with the measure, and I understand why the Financial Secretary has brought it before the House at this stage. But the Government ought to try harder to avoid getting themselves into such situations in the years to come.
    Mr. Jack: If there is one thing that I have learnt from my first ministerial involvement in the Finance Bill, it is that there is a need for the earliest possible consultation to take place with interested parties on complex matters. I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), and I take his message to heart.
    In fairness, the matters dealt with by the new clause were discussed thoroughly in 1995. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) tabled an amendment in Committee that the Government, while unable to accept it in the letter, certainly accepted in spirit. That is why we worked hard and fast—given that this is a complex matter—to try to meet the request of the life insurance industry.
    Clearly the industry was party to the discussions in the period between the Committee and now, but I accept that others may not have had the chance to scrutinise the precise words. Those directly affected by the measure, however, have studied them, and are grateful and pleased by the moves we have made. I take the hon. Member for Edinburgh Central' s point. It is sensible, and I shall bear it in mind when dealing with future Finance Bills.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 3

    PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES: RETURN OF CONTRIBUTIONS AFTER DEATH OF MEMBER
    `.—(1) In section 633(1) of the Taxes Act 1988 (Board not to approve a personal pension scheme which makes provision for any benefit other than those specified in paragraphs (a) to (e)) in paragraph (e) (payment on or after the death of a member of a lump sum satisfying the conditions in section 637A) for the words following "a lump sum" there shall be substituted "with respect to which the conditions in section 637A (return of contributions) are satisfied".
    (2) For section 637A of that Act (return of contributions on or after death of member) there shall be substituted—

    Return of contributions on or after death of member
    637A.—(1) The lump sum payable under the arrangements in question (or, where two or more lump sums are so payable, those lump sums taken together) must represent no more than the return of contributions together with reasonable interest on contributions or bonuses out of profits, after allowing for—

    (a) any income withdrawals, and

    (b) any purchases of annuities such as are mentioned in section 636.

    To the extent that contributions are invested in units under a unit trust scheme, the lump sum (or lump sums) may represent the sale or redemption price of the units.
    (2) A lump sum must be payable only if, in the case of the arrangements in question,—

    1083

    (a) no such annuity as is mentioned in section 634 has been purchased by the member;

    (b) no such annuity as is mentioned in section 636 has been purchased in respect of the relevant interest; and

    (c) no election in accordance with subsection (5)(a) of section 636 has been made in respect of the relevant interest.

    (3) Where the member's death occurs after the date which is his pension date in relation to the arrangements in question, a lump sum must not be payable more than two years after the death unless, in the case of that lump sum, the person entitled to such an annuity as is mentioned in section 636 in respect of the relevant interest—

    (a) has elected in accordance with section 636A to defer the purchase of an annuity; and

    (b) has died during the period of deferral.

    (4) In this section "the relevant interest" means the interest, under the arrangements in question, of the person to whom or at whose direction the payment in question is made, except where there are two or more such interests, in which case it means that one of them in respect of which the payment is made.
    (5) Where, under the arrangements in question, there is a succession of interests, any reference in subsection (2) or (3) above to the relevant interest includes a reference to any interest (other than that of the member) in relation to which the relevant interest is a successive interest."
    (3) This section—

    (a) has effect in relation to approvals, of schemes or amendments, given under Chapter IV of Part XIV of the Taxes Act 1988 (personal pension schemes) after the passing of this Act; and

    (b) does not affect any approval previously given.'.—[Mrs. Angela Knight.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Where a member of a personal pension scheme dies without purchasing an annuity and the survivor—that is, the spouse or dependant—also dies before purchasing an annuity, the new clause allows a pension fund to pass to the survivor's heir, however long a period has elapsed since the original member's death. This is presently possible within two years of the member's death. In other words, the new clause extends the circumstances in which a personal pension fund may be paid as a lump sum. The new clause has been tabled in response to representations that we have received. It is widely welcomed, and I trust that all hon. Members support it.
    Mr. Darling: The Opposition do indeed support the new clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 16

    CAPITAL ALLOWANCES: ROLL-OVER RELIEF IN RESPECT OF SHIPS
    '. Schedule (Roll—over relief in respect of ships) to this Act (which amends sections 33A to 33F of the Capital Allowances Act 1990) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Jack.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Jack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 63 and 64.
    Mr. Jack: During the Committee's debates on shipping, I said that the Government were not opposed in principle to extending rollover relief for balancing charges arising on ships across groups of companies. We had discussions with the shipping industry, and we made rapid progress. I am pleased to be able to say that we reached agreement on the matter, and I commend new clause 16 to the House.
    Mr. David Hunt: I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and congratulate all those involved on some speedy work. I pressed my hon. Friend to try to ensure that the work was done in time for this Finance Bill, and that has been done. I am sure that the measure will overcome a number of anomalies, and will enable a number of investment decisions to be made that might otherwise not be made, or perhaps might not be so well-timed.
    My hon. Friend will know that I have raised a number of other matters on behalf of the shipping industry, an industry that is vital to the future of this country. I am grateful to him for agreeing that further meetings can take place, so that we can explore a number of other matters further.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Opposition welcome and support the new clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 1

    REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT AND JOB INSECURITY
    `.—Not later than 1st November 1996, the Treasury shall prepare and lay before Parliament a report which assesses the impact of the provisions of this Act and of the Budget measures introduced on 28th November 1995 on employment and job insecurity in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The new clause calls for a report to be made on the effects of the Budget and the Finance Bill on employment and job insecurity. We see this as part of the focus that this country needs on employment generation and tackling job insecurity. We are arguing that the measures in the Budget and the Finance Bill should be assessed for their effects on jobs and on helping people into jobs in a far more comprehensive and purposeful way than happens at present. We believe that the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"—the Red Book—which quite properly devotes substantial space to the effect of the Budget's tax and public spending proposals on revenue yields and costs, borrowing and the public finances, ought also to evaluate the employment implications.

    1085
    That is especially important at present, when Britain has not only 2.2 million unemployed, but 800,000 long-term unemployed and 600,000 young unemployed. Even when unemployment has fallen, there has not been a corresponding increase in employment. Job insecurity has become a more pressing concern for millions of people, and Conservative Members would do well to remember that when they attempt to boast about the Government's record on unemployment.
    If Conservative Members want an explanation why the so-called feel-good factor remains so elusive, they need look no further than the fact that, on top of the Government's betrayal on tax promises and on top of last year's fall in living standards—the sharpest for 14 years—we still have not only high unemployment, but many people in work suffering downward mobility and insecurity, and people riddled with anxiety about how long their job will last and what will happen if they lose it.
    It is true that there are already some contributions on the labour market within the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". For example, in annex B to chapter 3 of last year's Red Book, there are some interesting remarks by the Treasury's panel of independent advisers that some Conservative Members seem to ignore when making claims about unemployment. For example, on page 61 it says:
    "The recovery in the labour market appears to be losing momentum. Employment growth has slowed, and the rate of decline of unemployment has slowed sharply."
    There follows an analysis of the dismal employment record in this recovery compared with previous recoveries, concluding that
    "it is clear that there has been a substantial increase in numbers counted as economically inactive … the peculiar feature of the recovery … is that participation has not picked up."
    Although it is helpful to have that evaluation of the labour market from the panel, the new clause argues that we should go beyond that and focus attention much more closely on the employment implications of the Budget measures themselves. For example, it would be useful to have a broad report on the composition of the labour market, categorised by tenure in terms of part-time, full-time, temporary and self-employed employment. Each category could be analysed in terms of qualification for employment rights and turnover within the category.
    At present, those in full-time work qualify for full rights after two years of service, and that requirement rises to five years for those in part-time work. It would therefore be important to include an analysis of turnover within each category and between categories, so that the extent of job insecurity can be properly ascertained.
    As well as analysis of the labour market broken down into those categories, it would be useful to assess the direct effects of the Budget on new jobs. Employment creation should be broken down in the same way as the fuller picture of the labour market to keep track of any headway being made on countering job insecurity and encouraging quality employment.
    On a more specific basis, the impact of Budget changes in tax, expenditure or national insurance could be more directly assessed in terms of jobs and employment. For example, in this year's Red Book, the revenue implications for the extension of the rebate on employers' national
    1086
    insurance contributions for the long-term unemployed are listed on page 107. They are costed at £5 million in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and £10 million in 1998–99, but there is no mention of the corresponding impact on alleviating long-term unemployment within the Red Book—the very purpose that is argued for the measure.
    In future years, that could with benefit be factored in for specific taxation and expenditure measures. In addition, the much broader impact on employment of Government policies on taxation, national insurance contributions and employment rights in the tenure and distribution of the labour market, both for existing jobs and for those newly created, could be included. We want that information not merely for the better analysis of what is happening, but to focus attention on the need for action if unemployment and job insecurity are to be tackled with real effect.
    Since the publication of the Red Book last November, the picture has worsened further. Unemployment rose last month for the first time in two years, to reach more than 2.2 million. Not only is mass unemployment a symptom of Tory Britain, but, under the present Government, the 1990s have become a decade of mass downward mobility and insecurity. Many of those who have jobs are insecure in them and overshadowed by the threat of redundancy. Many are having to move into lower-paid jobs, with less secure contracts and conditions.
    What is more, whatever the convenience and attraction of part-time work for many employees, which we recognise, according to the March labour force survey, nearly half the men in part-time work say that they work part-time because they cannot get a full-time job. The facts speak for themselves. Our analysis has revealed that more than 8 million people have had at least one spell of unemployment since the last general election. This year, more than 2 million new people are likely to experience a spell of unemployment, and, since the Prime Minister took office in 1990, no fewer than 10 million people have experienced one or more spells of unemployment. That is one in four of the working population.
    Mr. Nigel Forman: So that we get the figures in context, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the average length of the period of unemployment that those 8 million people experienced?
    Mr. Smith: I do not have the figure to hand, but any period of unemployment is too long for those who suffer it. The aim of public policy in the area—the role of the state in assisting the individual—should be to help to equip them with the skills to ensure that they can get back into quality employment as quickly as possible. In that sense, the true measure of the success of policies to counter unemployment is not merely, where appropriate, to attenuate the rate at which people are losing jobs, but to ensure that, when they do lose them, they are in a position to get back into jobs.
    The tragedy at the moment is that 2.2 million people are unemployed, another 2 million are likely to experience a spell of unemployment this year, and there are 800,000 long-term unemployed, who have been out of work for more than a year, and 600,000 young unemployed, for whom I hope the whole House would agree there is a case for priority action.
    In practice, the Government's record on these matters matches neither their claims nor the needs of the country. We hear many comparisons with the rest of the European

    1087
    Union from Conservative Members, yet the United Kingdom's record on job generation since 1979 has been the worst among the major European countries. To take a wider comparison—these figures are based on a parliamentary answer—employment in the United States has grown 21 times faster than that in the United Kingdom since 1979, and in Japan it has grown 18 times faster.
    As we know, unemployment has more than doubled under this Government. Since the last general election, there has been no increase in full-time or permanent employment.
    Mr. Forman: Taking up the comparison with the United States, does the hon. Gentleman concede that most experts agree that one of the main reasons why the United States has generated more jobs than this country in that period, and far more than our partners on the continent is that it has a more deregulated labour market, with a more flexible attitude—more akin to our attitude than that of countries on the continent?
    Mr. Smith: I would not equate the words "flexible labour market" with a deregulated labour market in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman does, and there are many people in the United States who would not do so either. For example, to draw on the analysis of the operation of minimum wage legislation there, studies demonstrate that, where that wage has been increased—contrary to the arguments that many Conservative Members put forward—it has not led to a rise in unemployment. On the contrary, in the industries covered, it has led to a rise in employment. It is a mistake, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman to equate a flexible labour market, or an acceptably flexible market, with blanket deregulation.
    In a modern labour market, of course we want flexibility, but we also want civilised conditions for the work force and proper support from the Government to equip people for success and to help them to meet the challenges that confront us all in a rapidly changing world. Judged by their record throughout their time in office, Conservative Members and their Government fail that test.
    As we have pointed out a number of times since the Prime Minister took office, there are 1 million fewer people in jobs. Male unemployment in the United Kingdom is higher than the European average. On the Government's own figures, the financial cost of unemployment is more than £20 billion a year to the taxpayer, and that is before one counts the human cost of the misery and insecurity attached to unemployment, which has rocketed under this Government.
    The truth is also that, under this Government, more people are suffering insecurity and downward mobility. Just as Britain has fallen from 13th to 18th down the world prosperity league, so millions of people are sliding down the personal prosperity league. That downward mobility is a scar across the face of Britain in the 1990s. That is why we have argued for measures to help people from welfare into work and off benefit into jobs.
    The public will not be persuaded by the Government's credentials when they do not take up our proposals to help the young and the long-term unemployed into work. Instead, the Prime Minister threatens to withdraw employment rights from millions of workers in small businesses thereby exacerbating the crisis of insecurity
    1088
    that he should be seeking to solve. The Government have taken no action on the measures that we have suggested to help people off welfare into work. Instead, they are cutting the training budget and have abolished the community action programme, which only a year earlier they boasted was providing 40,000 quality, paid places for the some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
    7 pm
    The Finance Bill has failed to address the disastrous unemployment and job insecurity in Britain. Our proposals for welfare-to-work, investment, skills and public-private partnership have made clear our commitment to act where the Government have failed to act. Our policy statements make it clear that our commitment to a medium-term objective of raising the trend rate of growth, with low inflation, will be accompanied by an annual statement of the implications for employment of our policies and the ways in which they can be increased.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman fleetingly mentioned his target for growth. I would be most interested if he could tell us what it would be in numerical terms.
    Mr. Smith: I said that we would have a medium-term strategy to raise the trend rate of growth, which under the Conservative Government since 1979, has been 1.9 per cent. including oil and 1.7 per cent. excluding it—one of the worst records of any industrialised country. Britain can and must do better and with Labour, it will. It is in that spirit that we bring new clause 1 before Parliament tonight. If the Government were serious about tackling the crisis of unemployment and job insecurity, a sensible first move would be to support new clause 1, publish the report that we call for and to act on it to ensure that each and every Budget measure generates work and eases the chronic problem of job insecurity that afflicts so many millions of people.
    Mr. Forman: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling me in this crowded debate. I wish to comment on new clause 1 and on the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I am sure that he really knows—he is more sensible than he appears—that Government strategies do not create new jobs, but that enterprising firms and individuals do. To answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary by saying that the Labour party does not have a target for growth but has a strategy, as if that were a guarantee of job prospects for people without jobs, is a grievous error that would mislead our people, if ever they were unfortunate enough to have a Labour Government. The Labour party is wise not to have a target, because such things usually end in tears, as happened with the national plan and George Brown in 1965.
    There is no need for the sort of report that new clause 1 demands. The debate gives the Labour party an opportunity to indulge its normal habit of scaremongering on the important and sensitive question of job insecurity. I do not deny that there is much job insecurity. That is evident to all hon. Members from our surgeries and from what we read and learn about. The question is how best to deal with that psychological and real problem and how best to address the concerns of people who feel insecure.
    Insecurity matters most for those who are out of work and finding it difficult to get back into work. I am glad that the Government are bringing forward a range of

    1089
    measures, both in this Budget and in other aspects of policy, which are designed to create jobs and make people feel more confident about their lives. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Oxford, East to the measures that are summarised right at the beginning of the Red Book under the heading, "Encouraging enterprise and helping business". For example, there is the reduction of the small companies rate of corporation tax to 24p rather than 25p.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Does not it make my point that jobs, unemployment and work insecurity are not mentioned in that list of Budget measures?
    Mr. Forman: The benefit to people who have those problems derives from concrete measures, in the Budget and elsewhere, and not necessarily from more paragraphs that recognise the problem. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Mais lecture some time ago, made it clear that this is an important problem that the Government are addressing. I was trying to convey that the Government have taken practical measures. There is more help for businesses facing higher rate bills following last year's revaluation. We have mentioned already that employers' national insurance contributions are to be cut by £500 million from April 1997.
    More importantly, the Finance Bill, and the Budget from which it flows, created the macro-economic and market conditions in which it has been possible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor further to cut interest rates. A prudent Budget and the effects of reduced interest rates, which are lower than they were at the time of the Budget, help to create new jobs and underpin the strength of the economic recovery, which mercifully, has been carried forward on a largely non-inflationary basis.
    First, the Finance Bill contains useful measures that are designed to address the problems in the labour market. Secondly, the Budget has facilitated, through its fiscal prudence, a cut in interest rates. Thirdly, the background to the labour market is not as bleak or unsatisfactory as the hon. Member for Oxford, East implied. Paragraph 3.44 of the Red Book shows that although there was a period when the number of economically active people in Britain fell by more than 110,000, between the winters of 1992–93 and 1994–95, it has since risen by more than 140,000. Indeed, it is rising again partly because more people are being attracted into the labour force by the better job prospects to which I have already referred. Having gone through something of a trough, the labour market is manifestly improving. As it improves, so people will feel more secure about their employment prospects.
    The hon. Member for Oxford, East talked about part-time work, but he must know that the majority of people in part-time work do it because it suits them, especially women with young children of school age, who want jobs with hours that fit in with their parental responsibilities. However, that is not confined to that group. That preference is increasingly true of the older worker, the professional or other worker in what Charles Handy calls the third age. People of my age, aged over 45 or 50, often find that their needs are well met by what Charles Handy calls a portfolio of employment activity, some of it self-employed, some of it employed.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that I acknowledged that part-time work was convenient and attractive for many workers? That is not a reason to deny part-time workers full employment rights in the way in which Conservative Members are inclined to. Equally, I pointed out—and this is in the March labour force survey—that more than half the men working part time do so because they cannot find full-time jobs.
    Mr. Forman: I am sure that we shall have to assist people to retrain and to reskill as a result of the technological changes that are taking place. That is a social priority that the Government are keen to address.
    The hon. Member for Oxford, East prayed in aid the American experience and he contrasted it favourably with that of this country in terms of job creation. However, I said by way of intervention that the United States has been able to create more jobs more consistently over a longer period because it has a flexible labour market. The American Government recognised the fact that the unemployed would rather have even a relatively low-paid job than no job at all. One of the phenomena of the labour market—it is the real tragedy of the 800,000 long-term unemployed in this country—is that the longer one is unemployed, the less employable one becomes.
    It is vital that people should be registered as unemployed for only a short time. The efforts of the Government and of the private and public agencies should be directed at getting people back to work as quickly as possible. Mercifully, the figures suggest that most people are unemployed for only a short duration. It might be helpful if my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in winding up this brief debate, could inform the House and the hon. Gentleman about the average duration of unemployment in this country. I believe that the figure is about three months. I am not saying that those three months are not an awkward time for those who are unemployed, but that is to be expected in a flexible labour market where there is a considerable turnover of jobs and much activity. That was the situation under previous Governments and it is likely to continue into the future.
    The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Oxford, East could be regarded as scaremongering, and I do not believe that new clause 1 would serve any constructive purpose.
    Mr. Tipping: New clause 1 is important because it provides an opportunity to check the theory against the practice and to measure the rhetoric against the reality. The new clause seeks to measure the Budget and to assess its impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) talked about the national perspective and about job insecurity. I shall refer to job insecurity on a smaller scale as it affects the coalfield communities.
    It is slightly more than three years since the then President of the Board of Trade announced the closure of the coal industry as we knew it around the country. It is important to examine the consequences of that decision and the insecurity felt by those who lost their jobs as a result of the rundown of the industry and by their families.
    In 1980, there were 40,000 miners in Nottinghamshire: today there are about 3,000. Much work has been done within coalfield communities to discover the plight of those who lost their jobs. Their situation is extremely insecure—the figures speak for

    1091
    themselves. Several research studies have been conducted in that area—I recall the work done by the Coalfield Communities Campaign and by Derbyshire county council. They have shown that 50 per cent. of former miners have not found jobs since October 1992.
    The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) referred to the length of time that people are unemployed. Some ex-miners have been unemployed for more than three years, and the jobs that they find are not nearly as secure as their former occupations. Former miners typically earn 50 per cent. of the salaries that they received while working in the industry.
    We must introduce measures to create jobs. I agree entirely that we must support firms and new industry, as they are the job creators. The simple fact is that that is not happening. New clause 1 will question the Government's good intentions: it is a means of testing budgetary measures to see whether they will achieve their purpose.
    7.15 pm
    Unemployment has fallen by 17 per cent. nationally since October 1992. However, in the Mansfield travel-towork area, unemployment has fallen by only 7.5 per cent. and in the Worksop travel-to-work area—another coalfield community—unemployment has not decreased at all. The gap between affluent areas and those of disadvantage and deprivation is widening. The Government aspire to change all that, and the Budget aims to foster a climate for creating jobs. I do not wish to be pessimistic, but I share the sense of desolation that permeates coalfield communities: they believe that in November this year, the unemployment figures will not be any better.
    We must find job-creating measures. I am extremely disappointed that the community action programme has been scrapped. It is a young programme that gives people the opportunity to come off welfare and into work. As well as denying those opportunities, its abolition leaves a big gap in the work of voluntary organisations.
    At the time of the Budget announcement, I said that in some parts it could be better and that in other parts it was a green Budget. We could revamp the community action programme and give people the opportunity to do environmental work. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know about the dereliction that has occurred in coalfield communities: a revamped community action programme could benefit the environment and lift the landscape.
    One budgetary measure aims to reduce the money that is spent on the home energy efficiency scheme. We should look at the consequences of that decision for employment—for example, we know from answers to parliamentary questions that 200,000 fewer homes will be insulated. If the community action programme were thought out properly and geared towards conservation measures, it could create many hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people. It is important to introduce new programmes and to measure their achievements.
    Job creation is not simply a matter for the Government: it will be achieved through partnership, and we must explore what budgetary measures will make that partnership work. I view the new clause as both a signpost and a milestone. It shows the way forward for the objectives that the Budget wants to achieve and it
    1092
    measures them at a later date. Therefore, I have no hesitation in welcoming the new clause, because I know that if we were to change rhetoric into reality in that way, we could create jobs in coalfield communities and across the country.
    Mr. Jack: This is a welcome opportunity for the Government to reply in the context of the Budget and to put on record some of the benefits that will flow from it into the labour market. It was somewhat rich to hear the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) propose his new clause, particularly when his party subscribes to the minimum wage and the social chapter—both of which, by universal claim by all analysts, would have a depreciating effect on creating jobs in this country.
    One of the things that I have noticed during the passage of the Finance Bill is that the Labour party, if it is in doubt as to what its policies are, asks the Government to produce a report on some aspect of the subject of its concern—we have had that on shipping, on housing investment trusts and on one or two other issues. The Government are now asked to produce a report on the employment impact of the Budget.
    If Labour Members had asked for a report on what we had done about boosting confidence and job security in my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget, I might well have been inclined to say, "Yes, I can produce a report and I can give it to you here and now"—it would have been a copy of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech. Sadly, those are not the terms of the new clause.
    I refer to the minimum wage. This week a MORI poll showed that approximately one third of employers would expect to lay off people if the minimum wage was around £4—that is a devastating indictment of the Labour party's policies. This week I happened to watch "Newsnight", and I listened very carefully to what the shadow Chancellor had to say about the problem.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: And he was very good.
    Mr. Jack: If he was very good, I am sure that he was chastened by what Mr. Michael Swift—who is currently being assisted by the Department for Education and Employment in his search for a job—said when he came to London to hear what the shadow Chancellor had to say. After hearing those ideas, Mr. Swift—who was formerly with Anglian Water—said:
    "At present I cannot see anything radical in today's announcement from the new Labour party at all."
    Mr. David Urp—another gentleman who was working hard; a former export consultant—said:
    "I see it as a very positive point, but I do not see there being a full package here."
    That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the employment policies put forward by the hon. Member for Oxford, East, in support of the analysis that he asks us to do. In any Budget, it is the sum total of its effects on the totality of the labour market that matters—there are complex interactions. He has asked us to produce a piece of exacting analysis, but that misses the way in which the real world works.
    I shall give the hon. Gentleman the headlines of the report that I should like to write. I pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and

    1093
    Wallington (Mr. Forman) raised, when he reminded hon. Members that the landfill tax had given us the flexibility to reduce employers' national insurance charges by 0.2 of 1 per cent.—putting something like £500 million back in the hands of employers, which will no doubt assist them.
    I refer to the income tax changes that we made in relation to the rate and the allowances. They have given a real boost to the incentive to work. I refer to the small companies corporation tax rate, which improves the profitability and the return of small companies. Clause 137 of the Finance Bill extends tax relief on vocational training for people over the age of 30. That is another contribution in the Budget to boost prospects and job security.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised some interesting points. He talked about the speed of turnover in the labour market, to which I shall refer in a moment. In response to his specific questions, one in four people are unemployed for less than one month, one in two people are unemployed for less than three months, and two in three people are unemployed for less than six months. That shows that there is fairly rapid turnover in the labour market. The hon. Member for Oxford, East said that up to 8 million people had been touched by unemployment.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: It is 8.7 million people.
    Mr. Jack: Yes, 8.7 million people. The figures show that while people may have been touched by unemployment—we all have sympathy for those who lose their jobs; we want to see them back in work quickly—the policies that the Government have put forward, particularly their many forms of assistance for the unemployed through the work of jobcentres, get them back to work quickly.
    The nature of that work has been raised in the debate. It is interesting to note that, in the European Union, 10.9 per cent. of the work force is on temporary contracts and in this country only 6.3 per cent. of the work force is on such contracts. The United States was mentioned. The average job tenure in the United Kingdom is significantly above that in the United States. Characteristics of our labour force are beneficial. I refer to the proportion of the population that has claimed for benefits in the past five years. It has remained remarkably stable compared with the late 1980s. While job insecurity is a proper subject to discuss, when one compares the facts, one sees that it may have been somewhat distorted.
    I think that I ought to send the hon. Member for Oxford, East a copy of a booklet that I have in my hand—in fact, I shall send him a copy; he deserves it after asking for a report from the Government. Perhaps I am cheating slightly, because a report has already been produced. It comes out every month, and is a remarkable little booklet called, "The U.K. at work: Key facts". I commend it to the hon. Gentleman, and I make no apology for quoting one or two facts from it. The booklet states:
    "U.K. has had the strongest recovery since 1993 of any major European economy."
    It reminds us of the effects of that—more than 600,000 have come off the unemployment register during that time. The booklet states further:
    1094
    "Each year about 6 million jobs become vacant. On any one day there are 300,000 vacancies available."
    If hon. Members are looking at the structure of the labour market, they should let the booklet speak for itself. It states:
    "Workforce in employment has increased by 2.0 million since March 1983.
    1.3 million more self-employed than in 1979."
    If that is not a testament to the good economic policies being followed by the Government in their Budget, I do not know what is.
    Youth unemployment was mentioned. Sadly, it is 15.7 per cent.—it must be lower, and we are working hard to achieve that. However, the European Community average is 20.8 per cent., and youth unemployment in the United Kingdom is lower than in Spain, Italy, Ireland, France and Belgium. We can be duly proud of that record.
    The community action programme has been raised, and I shall pick up on that point. It has been cut back because unemployment is reducing. I refer to training for work, 1–2–1, job interview guarantee, work trial and job plan—I could go on. We have funded a whole range of policies through the Budget, and through the spending proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which have enabled us to support people so that they can get back into work in the way that I have identified.
    The booklet "The U.K. at work: Key facts" gives the lie to anyone who attacks the Government on the subject of employment prospects. At the back of the booklet are some excellent examples of things such as inward investment and new job-creating activities throughout the length and breadth of the country. Indeed, the constituency of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has benefited from our being No. 1 for inward investment, which is helping to create jobs. That would not have happened if we had not had a Budget and a financial policy that attracted inward investment.
    The right hon. Member for Sedgefield is gaining 300 jobs with Black and Decker. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has Lex mark International coming in, with an average investment of £31.5 million and 500 new jobs. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is hiding his light under a bushel on unemployment—2,000 new jobs are coming in. I could go on. If it were not for the Government's policies, which are a report in themselves of our success in employment, I could not attest to such achievements.
    It is a remarkable situation. The hon. Member for Oxford, East chastised us in terms. Sadly, in one month unemployment went up, but—since the December 1992 peak—unemployment in total has declined by 764,900. The work force in employment rose by 68,000 in one quarter in 1995 compared with a year earlier. Manufacturing employment was up in January by 6,000 on a year earlier. The labour market does change. It has to be flexible in a modern economy, but I hope that the House will see that all that we have done has boosted job opportunities.
    On job insecurity, I shall conclude with one fact, because there is little hard evidence that jobs have become less secure, despite some people's perceptions. The 1994 labour force survey showed that almost two thirds of men aged between 30 and 49 had held their present jobs for more than five years, and that figure was little changed

    1095
    from 10 years before. We understand the problem of unemployment and we are working hard to deal with it. The record that I have put before the House attests to that.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Andrew Smith: It is a tragedy that the Financial Secretary and the Government did not respond with the seriousness that our proposal warranted, just as they have not tackled the unemployment and job insecurity crisis that the country faces with the seriousness that it deserves. It was clear from the Financial Secretary's speech that, if he were to produce a report on the employment consequences of the Budget, it would be a short document indeed. In fact, in his presentation, he could not get beyond the headlines and even then he barely mentioned actual job generation.
    The Financial Secretary made some European comparisons and some reference to the social chapter and the minimum wage. It is interesting that, of the 17 countries that are higher than Britain in the world prosperity league—the league in which we have fallen from 17th to 18th under the Government—all the eight European Union countries that are higher than us have signed the social chapter. Of the 17 countries above us, no fewer than 15 operate a minimum wage policy. That shows the fallacy of the Financial Secretary's arguments on those points.
    We welcome inward investment and we want to encourage it and the jobs that it brings. But why do not the Government look at the total picture on investment? Has Britain's share of total European. Union investment gone up since 1979? No, it has gone down since 1979. The share of total European investment is lower on the most recent figures than it was in 1979—so much for the Financial Secretary's claims and so much for the Government's record.
    The Conservatives have failed on unemployment and on job insecurity because they have failed on investment, training and skills and on building up the country's economic and social fabric. It is time that they made way for a Government who would bring forward the reports that we have proposed, who would act on them, and who would start to tackle the devastating crisis of unemployment and job insecurity that afflicts so many millions in this country.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 294.

    Division No. 89]

    [7.33 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Benton, Joe

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Allen, Graham

    Berry, Roger

    Alton, David

    Betts, Clive

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Blunkett, David

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Boateng, Paul

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Bradley, Keith

    Austin-Walker, John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

    Barnes, Harry

    Burden, Richard

    Battle, John

    Caborn, Richard

    Bayley, Hugh

    Callaghan, Jim

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bell, Stuart

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    1096

    Canavan, Dennis

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cann, Jamie

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Church, Judith

    Jamieson, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Janner, Greville

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Clelland, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jowell, Tessa

    Coffey, Ann

    Keen, Alan

    Cohen, Harry

    Khabra, Piara S

    Connarty, Michael

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Lewis, Terry

    Corbett, Robin

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Corston, Jean

    Litherland, Robert

    Cousins, Jim

    Livingstone, Ken

    Cummings, John

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dalyell, Tam

    McAllion, John

    Darling, Alistair

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Davidson, Ian

    McCartney, Ian

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    McCartney, Robert

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McFall, John

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

    McKelvey, William

    Denham, John

    McLeish, Henry

    Dixon, Don

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dobson, Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dowd, Jim

    MacShane, Denis

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McWilliam, John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Madden, Max

    Etherington, Bill

    Mahon, Alice

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Marek, Dr John

    Evang, Mrs Margaret

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Flynn, Paul

    Martlew, Eric

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Maxton, John

    Foulkes, George

    Meale, Alan

    Fyfe, Maria

    Michael, Alun

    Galbraith, Sam

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Gapes, Mike

    Milburn, Alan

    George, Bruce

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Godsiff, Roger

    Morley, Elliot

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Graham, Thomas

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Mudie, George

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mullin, Chris

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Murphy, Paul

    Gunnell, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hain, Peter

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Hall, Mike

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hanson, David

    Olner, Bill

    Henderson, Doug

    Pearson, Ian

    Heppell, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Pike, Peter L

    Hinchliffe, David

    Pope, Greg

    Hodge, Margaret

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hoey, Kate

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Home Robertson, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hood, Jimmy

    Purchase, Ken

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Quin, Ms Joyce

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

    Radice, Giles

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Randall, Stuart

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hoyle, Doug

    Reid, Dr John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Hutton, John

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Illsley, Eric

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Ingram, Adam

    Rooney, Terry

    1097

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Touhig, Don

    Ruddock, Joan

    Trickett, Jon

    Salmond, Alex

    Turner, Dennis

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Vaz, Keith

    Sheerman, Barry

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Walley, Joan

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Short, Clare

    Wareing, Robert N

    Simpson, Alan

    Watson, Mike

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Andrew

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wilson, Brian

    Spellar, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Stevenson, George

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Stott, Roger

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy and

    Timms, Stephen

    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Alexander, Richard

    Coe, Sebastian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Colvin, Michael

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Congdon, David

    Amess, David

    Conway, Derek

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Ashby, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Couchman, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cran, James

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

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

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Day, Stephen

    Bates, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Batiste, Spencer

    Devlin, Tim

    Beggs, Roy

    Dicks, Terry

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bendall, Vivian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dover, Den

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dunn, Bob

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Boswell, Tim

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowis, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evennett, David

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Faber, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Burns, Simon

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Burt, Alistair

    Forman, Nigel

    Butler, Peter

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Butterfill, John

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Forth, Eric

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Carrington, Matthew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Cash, William

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    French, Douglas

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Churchill, Mr

    Gale, Roger

    Clappison, James

    Gallie, Phil

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    1098

    Garnier, Edward

    Marlow, Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gorst, Sir John

    Merchant, Piers

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Mills, Iain

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hannam, Sir John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Harris, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Norris, Steve

    Hawksley, Warren

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hayes, Jerry

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heald, Oliver

    Ottaway, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Page, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Paice, James

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hicks, Robert

    Pawsey, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pickles, Eric

    Horam, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Richards, Rod

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jessel, Toby

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Key, Robert

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sackville, Tom

    Knapman, Roger

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

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

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Legg, Barry

    Sims, Roger

    Leigh, Edward

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Lidington, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Lord, Michael

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Luff, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Sproat, Iain

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Steen, Anthony

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    Maginnis, Ken

    Stewart, Allan

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Streeter, Gary

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Sumberg, David

    Malone, Gerald

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mans, Keith

    Sykes, John

    Marland, Paul

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    1099

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    Waller, Gary

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Ward, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Waterson, Nigel

    Thomason, Roy

    Watts, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wells, Bowen

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Whitney, Ray

    Thumham, Peter

    Whittingdale, John

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Tracey, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Tredinnick, David

    Willetts, David

    Trend, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Trimble, David

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Trotter, Neville

    Wolfson, Mark

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Yeo, Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Viggers, Peter

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walden, George

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New clause 2

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TAXES AND DUTIES
    `.—In each year Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before Parliament not later than 30th June a report stating for the previous financial year the environmental impact of the provisions of the previous Finance Act and of the taxes and duties levied during that year.'.—[Ms Primarolo.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.45 pm
    Ms Primarolo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The new clause concerns the environmental impact of the Finance Bill. We depend on the integrity of the environment for our survival and for that of generations to come. As Herman Daly of the World bank puts it:
    "There is something fundamentally wrong with treating the earth as if it were a business in liquidation".
    We are continuing to pollute our seas and rivers. The Sea Empress is the most recent tragedy to hit the headlines. The oil spill has damaged miles of coastline and smothered hundreds of birds in oil. What is less well known is that large incidents—spills of more than 100 gallons—number almost 100 a year.
    Industrial and commercial development and modern farming continue to have a profound impact on our countryside and wildlife. We accept the Brundtland commission's definition of environmentally sustainable development:
    "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
    We seek initiatives that promote economic efficiency, social justice and environmental protection—all together. The Government need to ensure that we look more closely at the environmental impact of our policies, just as many progressive companies do. We must also ensure that environmental considerations are properly integrated.
    The Government now publish indicators of more and more services—from schools, to the citizens charter, to water leaks. It is right to introduce new indicators of environmental factors too. The Government's new report is welcome in that respect.
    1100
    The relationship between environmental concerns and those of social justice is not always straightforward. The environment will never be protected unless people are convinced that their livelihoods are protected as well. In many cases, environmental sustainability and a thriving economy go together. The key to the relationship between the economy and the environment is the concept of environmental productivity. Protecting the environment means increasing the economy's environmental productivity. It means using resources more efficiently and producing less pollution per unit of output. That is the key to sustainable development.
    Evidence from Germany, Japan, the United States and Sweden suggests that domestic regulation provides firms with a "first-mover" advantage in environmental industries, as finns are stimulated to innovate and create new, cleaner processes and attract greener products. We need to see improving environmental standards as an economic opportunity. The world is adopting higher environmental standards, and it is crucial that British industry is ready to lead the way.
    There are tremendous opportunities for job creation in the new environmental technologies. The environmental sector is now very large. The global market was thought to have been worth $200 billion in 1990. It is growing by more than 5 per cent. a year and will be worth $300 billion by 2000. A survey by the German Government showed that 50 per cent. of the market is currently shared by only three countries—Germany, the United States and Japan. Britain should be leading the way in environmental management techniques, but it is not.
    A recent Department of the Environment report, "Indicators of Sustainable Development for the UK", published in March this year, laid out clearly the Government's failure to respond to their objectives. Having set out report after report, they continue to fail in putting those objectives into action. Their own figures show that road traffic is likely to grow by between 58 and 92 per cent. by 2025 compared to what it was in 1994. Since 1970, car travel per head of population has nearly doubled. At the same time, travel on buses and coaches has dropped by a quarter.
    On page 34 of the report, the Government state that they have recognised that they have a role to play in influencing people's travel behaviour and the choices that they make. One way to do that is through price. Having acknowledged that pricing is important in influencing behaviour, the report says:
    "Since 1974, the real increase in bus fares has been 55 per cent. and in rail fares, 71 per cent., both higher than the 51 per cent. real increase in disposable income. Meanwhile the cost of motoring, which includes all costs like insurance, servicing and repairs, road tax as well as fuel and oil, has fallen by nearly 2 per cent. The real price of fuel and oil only—which is the perceived 'marginal' cost for an individual journey once someone owns and runs a car, and is therefore more important to decisions about individual journeys—has fallen by nearly 8 per cent … This demonstrates that the real cost of motoring, particularly the marginal cost of petrol, is very much more affordable, in relation to the real increase in personal disposable income, than it was 20 years ago."
    That is obviously true, but I would add that that demonstrates the Government's total lack of commitment to public transport. How can they possibly hope to encourage more people to use public transport in our congested cities if they make the car cheaper?

    1101
    The report also refers to energy use, and says:
    "Fuel use for road passenger transport has nearly doubled since 1970 and has increased by over 60 per cent. for freight. The volume of traffic, measured in terms of passenger-miles and freight tonne-miles has increased by about the same amount, showing that there is little change in efficiency of fuel use, in marked contrast to the industrial and commercial sectors. For passenger traffic, vehicle engines are more fuel efficient than they used to be, but the advent of unleaded petrol, catalytic converters, higher safety standards, higher specifications and performance have all tended to counter the fuel efficiency gains from improved engine design."
    There are more vehicles on the road and fewer people use public transport. The Government's report shows that clearly. Even the most minimal targets are not being met.
    The second report of the British Government panel on sustainable development was published in January 1996. Its first recommendation, in paragraph 12, says:
    "the Panel recommends that the Government should give higher priority to the definition of its environmental objectives and targets, and how it intends to meet them."
    Paragraph 13 reads:
    "The Panel … recommends that the Government enter into discussion with industry to draw up proposals in key sectors for pilot projects involving economic instruments."
    On the progress on last year's recommendations, paragraph 8 on page 8 says:
    "Commitment to setting targets has so far been patchy. The Panel believes that more should be done to define environmental objectives. It recommends that priority should be given to setting targets for agriculture and transport over the coming year."
    The most important recommendations in that report, which tie in with European recommendations, are on environmental accounting. New clause 2 attempts to start that slow and difficult process in moving towards environmental accounting.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): How would the hon. Lady answer the accusation made by Friends of the Earth, that in refusing to support an increase in VAT on fuel, the Labour party had turned its back entirely on the very principle that she mentioned—increasing the cost for overuse of energy? This is not a party political point, of course.
    Ms Primarolo: Of course it is not a party political point, and I am happy to take a few minutes out of my speech to inform the Secretary of State of the correct position—
    Mr. Andrew Smith: It is VAT on fuel.
    Ms Primarolo: Yes, I know.
    The statement is linked to the belief that Friends of the Earth supported at that time the idea that VAT should be raised to prevent people from consuming too much fuel. We take the view that that creates fuel poverty, which means that the poor cannot afford to keep warm. Therefore, we need an energy efficiency programme to ensure that people are able to keep warm but consume less energy. Had the Government not cut the neighbourhood energy scheme by £30 million in this year's Budget, we would be in a better position to help families who are suffering fuel poverty.
    Mr. Gummer: Surely the hon. Lady remembers that the £30 million was to ensure that people were not energy poor
    1102
    but recompensed for the additional VAT against which her party voted—a vote that meant that the £30 million was no longer necessary. The hon. Lady has not answered the question. She is not prepared to adopt unpopular measures to defend the environment, but she will always attack the Government for adopting them and leading Europe in that regard.
    Ms Primarolo: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government still want to raise VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent? Having imposed such a massive tax increase on the population, would the Government be prepared to restore that £30 million to the energy conservation budget?
    8 pm
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady was asked how she had replied to Friends of the Earth. She told that organisation that the Labour party did not care about the environment, and could not answer the challenge issued to her.
    Ms Primarolo: It is very unusual for a Cabinet Minister to intervene so many times on such a junior Opposition spokesperson, but I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to correct a misunderstanding by the Secretary of State. I am not the one who is on the run; I am clear. Labour's commitment is to energy efficiency and energy saving—and when we deal with VAT on energy-saving materials later this evening, I expect the Secretary of State to join us in the Division Lobby.
    The right hon. Gentleman is still not prepared to answer the question that we have raised. Are not the Government still committed to raising VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent? The British electorate may want to hear a different message, but let them be clear about this: a tax-raising Government are attacking the poor. They would not deny that.
    I would be happy to continue to discuss the merits of reducing VAT on fuel to 8 per cent.—a cut achieved by the Opposition against the Government's wishes—but I am sure that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had assumed that the Government would accept new clause 2, as they claim to be committed to the environment. According to paragraph 34.1 of their White Paper "Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy", published in 1994,
    "For development to be sustainable, environmental considerations must become a central part of the decision-making process within government and industry. For this to happen, better information is needed on the way in which economic development impacts on the environment. The ultimate goal would be the integration of environmental and economic accounting in national accounts".
    Our new clause would start that process. We understand that it is a difficult process, that definitions will be difficult to achieve and that any system that is established must be credible and accepted if it is to be a useful tool in management; but we also believe that the Government's progress in developing new forms of accounting has been slow, and of little use so far. If we leave it to the Government, they will continue to drag their feet. It is time that, having preached to industry, the Government put their own house in order and began the process of economic assessment and environmental protection.
    We had intended to press the new clause to a vote, but we have decided not to do so, in order to save time. We support amendments Nos. 25 to 31, which deal with a reduction of

    1103
    VAT on energy-saving materials. Those amendments give the House a chance to force the Government to practise what they constantly preach, and I hope that every hon. Member will support them.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: I have little to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), but I want to make some general points.
    I am sure that, before too many years have passed, the requirement in the new clause will be written into the environmental policy that Parliament expects. I understand why the new clause is not to be pressed to a vote, however: in a sense, that is appropriate. We have made our point, we have presented our arguments and we look forward to the day when our proposal is supported throughout the House.
    As we all know, if we are to make progress we must increase environmental awareness. As the Secretary of State might have pointed out, the Department publishes—in a nice green cover—an annual report of its expenditure and activities. The Department may think that that is sufficient, but it is weak on two fronts. That is why the new clause is necessary. The report does not sufficiently assess the impact of the Department's expenditure proposals, and it fails to mention the environmental impact of any other Department.
    We have heard that every Government team has its environment Minister. In Committee, we heard about the environmental responsibility of the Paymaster General, but we also heard—or surmised—that there was little communication between the "green" Ministers. Certainly, there is no requirement to include in the Department of the Environment's annual report the detailed environmental implications of the legislation and regulations that are pushed through by any other Department.
    We would start at the heart of the Government—in the Finance Bill. It is through financial measures that we affect every area of policy, and every area of policy should be aimed at improving the environment. In Committee, we discussed air pollution and the possible impact of vehicle excise duties on the quality of air in our towns and cities. The new clause would enable that impact to be reported each year: we would be able to see whether our measures relating to unleaded or super-unleaded petrol, for instance, had had the right effect.
    In Committee, we discussed some of the potential effects of the environmental tax on water. The new clause would enable us each year to look more constructively at proposals for the following year's Finance Bill. For example, we could ensure that the management of water resources, leakage and pollution were properly dealt with in the ensuing year.
    The new clause would also give us an opportunity to consider the impact of each Finance Bill on local government expenditure. We could decide whether the legislation would have a positive or a negative impact, depending on the cuts in discretionary expenditure from which local authorities suffer, which have affected litter and parks and the general environment. Because of financial constraints, many cities do not now have the pleasant environment they once had, but the new clause would enable Parliament to examine those systematically every year. I could add to the list. We could debate the Bill's impact on housing and on the work environment in terms of health and safety expenditure.
    1104
    I hope that the new clause will command support. Parliament should look at our position in Europe and at the contribution that Europe makes to establishing high environmental standards. In that context, we should criticise neither our contributions and gains from environmental issues nor the financial requirements that they place on European Union Governments. Such topics could be debated annually in Parliament to discover whether Europe's environmental influence on EU Governments was positive or negative. Such debates would have a significant effect on our policies in Europe in the ensuing year.
    We have a chance to boost jobs and to put Britain at the head not just of the European environmental debate but of the world debate on that subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said, boosting the technologies of industries that are trying to benefit the environment would result in a major boost for jobs in the years ahead. As we said in Committee, we are ahead of the field at the moment. We need to stay ahead, and the new clause would show all industries that Parliament and the Government mean business on the environment.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agreed with the first few paragraphs of the speech made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) about the importance of the environment and about the need to improve environmental standards. There is no difference between the parties on that: we have shared aims in that respect. Economic growth can be fully compatible with protecting the environment, and economic failure and decline can bring their own environmental problems.
    Some environmentalists used to think that zero growth was required to protect the environment. I have visited a zero growth economy. I went to Poland under the communists and saw signs of environmental dereliction that were brought on by a stagnant economy and by command and control political methods that were clearly inappropriate to the well-being of the people and to the environmental well-being of the country.
    I believe in strong economic growth sustained in a way that protects the future of the environment, but I do not think that we need another bureaucratic and unnecessary report, or series of reports, as would be required by the new clause. The new clause overlooks the enormous quantity of information that is routinely published by the Government. I refer in particular, because it is topical, to the latest in a series of White Papers on the environment. "This Common Inheritance" was first published in 1989 and the series has continued annually since then. It sets out the Government's targets and shows progress in meeting them.
    The latest White Paper in the series was published only yesterday and, to answer the query made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), it includes the environmental targets that have been discussed and agreed on a European basis. It fully integrates European environmental aims and achievements with our national ones. An example concerns carbon dioxide emissions, which are central to the debate about global warming. The White Paper makes it clear that we are now expected comfortably to meet the aim to which we signed up of returning carbon dioxide emissions to below the 1990 level by 2000.

    1105
    Of course the achievement of that target is affected by taxation, especially by fuel duties, but it is not affected only by taxation. There is a range of regulatory, expenditure and taxation mechanisms to achieve environmental targets. The hon. Member for Bristol, South seemed to suggest that motor taxation was too low, but she stopped short of telling us exactly what her party thinks the true rate should be.
    Ms Primarolo: The Prime Minister referred to the targets that have been set by the Government for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. Why did the Government panel on sustainable development say in January that, to meet the targets, the Government would have to use all appropriate means to achieve greater energy efficiency and energy saving by domestic users, industry and transport? Will he confirm that he will support amendments Nos. 25 to 31 as the beginning of that process?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We shall debate that subject when we get to it. The point that I made, and which the hon. Lady does not dispute, is that we have signed up to a target reduction of CO2 emissions by 2000, and it is clear that we shall achieve it. We use a range of mechanisms to do that, and they include vehicle taxation.
    The hon. Lady evidently believes that vehicles are undertaxed. I had half hoped that, in her intervention, she would state Labour's thinking on the subject rather more clearly. The intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment drew from the hon. Lady the fact that she altogether failed to support a move effectively to increase the price of fuel and power—a move that would have helped to achieve these targets. For purely opportunistic party reasons, she and her party did not support the Government and environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth when we urged putting VAT at the standard rate on fuel and power, which is done in practically every other country with a VAT system. No one can take either Labour or Liberal Democratic environmental policies seriously because those parties drew back from supporting an environmental measure simply for opportunistic reasons.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, South spoke about fuel poverty, but she overlooked the fact that, even with the addition of VAT, gas and electricity prices to consumers are now lower than they were two years ago. I have not even mentioned the impact of schemes such as the home energy efficiency scheme, which deliberately caters for those who live in houses that are or have been inadequately energy-efficient.
    The report for which the hon. Lady is calling is not only unnecessary and bureaucratic, but conflicts with a superior method to improve the environment—the setting of targets and the use of a range of measures, not only those in the Budget, to achieve them. We in the Conservative party believe that economic instruments have an important part to play. That is why the switch from leaded to unleaded petrol was, in part, achieved by creating a duty differential. We have also established the landfill tax to reduce the quantity of waste going to landfill. That environmental achievement is gained from an economic instrument.
    1106
    We are also committed to increasing fuel duties by, on average, 5 per cent. a year in real terms. We have also reduced the duty on liquified petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. We are also increasing the duty on super unleaded petrol in case increased usage of that fuel were to increase the emissions of benzene and other harmful aromatic compounds. We do not shrink from using economic mechanisms as part of the overall picture. They were all carefully laid out in the White Paper, and are reported on at the time of the Budget.
    The hon. Lady may have overlooked the fact that, at the time of the Budget, we drew together the measures used to reduce vehicle emissions. They specify the increases and, in some cases, decreases in fuel taxes that were introduced to achieve our environmental aims.
    Possibly the best example I can give of where we drew on published information to put forward a specific environmental policy was the preparation of the landfill tax. Officials and Ministers drew on a study by Coopers and Lybrand, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, to design and legislate for the structure of that tax. Officials also drew on the report by Professor David Pearce on externalities of landfill and incineration. All that information is publicly available. We do not need another report to bring before the House and the public information that is already freely available.
    The conclusion that I must reach at the end of this short debate is that the Opposition are, characteristically, more interested in reports than in delivering on published targets. I end with the simple assertion that, whereas the Opposition talk about the environment, we deliver on it.
    Ms Primarolo: We intend to deliver on the environment later this evening and to defeat the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 9

    DOMICILE FOR TAX PURPOSES OF OVERSEAS ELECTORS
    '.—(1) In determining—

    (a) for the purposes of inheritance tax, income tax or capital gains tax where a person is domiciled at any time on or after 6th April 1996, or

    (b) for the purposes of section 267(1)(a) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (deemed UK domicile for three years after ceasing to be so domiciled) where a person was domiciled at any time on or after 6th April 1993,
    there shall be disregarded any relevant action taken by that person (whether before, on or after that date) in connection with electoral rights.

    (2) Relevant action is taken by a person in connection with electoral rights where—

    (a) he does anything with a view to, or in connection with, being registered as an overseas elector; or

    (b) when registered as an overseas elector, he votes in any election at which he is entitled to vote by virtue of being so registered.

    (3) For the purposes of this section, a person is registered as an overseas elector if he is—

    (a) registered in any register mentioned in section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (right to be registered of persons entitled to vote at parliamentary elections) on account of any entitlement to vote

    1107
    conferred on him by section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (extension of parliamentary franchise to certain non-resident British citizens); or

    (b) registered under section 3 of that Act of 1985 (certain non-resident peers entitled to vote at European Parliamentary elections).

    (4) Nothing in subsection (1) above prevents regard being had, in determining the domicile of a person at any time, to any relevant action taken by him in connection with electoral rights if—

    (a) his domicile at that time falls to be determined for the purpose of ascertaining his or any other person's liability to any of the taxes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above; and

    (b) the person whose liability is being ascertained wishes regard to be had to that action;
    and a person's domicile determined in accordance with any such wishes shall be taken to have been so determined for the purpose only of ascertaining the liability in question.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. David Hunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for taking such an interest in this matter and for helping to ensure that the new clause is technically workable.
    The history of this matter is that legislation on overseas electors has always had all-party support. I believe that all parties have run up against a difficulty, however, because there is some uncertainty about whether registering to vote and then voting might have an effect on an individual's tax position. A person's domicile is relevant in establishing certain tax liabilities—for example, inheritance tax in the case of non-residence. I feel strongly that there must be no unnecessary disincentives to people exercising their democratic right wherever in the world they may live. There should also be no uncertainty about any possible financial consequences of registering to vote and then voting.
    My new clause would, of course, apply to all voters. I believe that it is non-partisan and I hope that the Government and the Opposition will accept it. The United States has a comparable rule. When a United States citizen who lives abroad registers to vote in federal elections, it is clearly stated in the law of the United States that that in no way affects that individual's residence or domicile status for federal, state or local tax purposes.
    Finally, I am encouraged in my belief that the new clause will be accepted by the Government and the Opposition by the news that, last month, the Opposition launched their campaign to win overseas voter registration. I pay tribute to the fact that there are a number of individuals in the Labour party who have gone out to win over support abroad. I understand that the Opposition's launch mentioned that Los Angeles is one of their most active centres. Well, good luck to them. Perhaps it is appropriate that the film star world should be in the lead in what we believe to be a rather cosmetic new Labour party.
    The initiative was launched by the deputy leader of the Labour party and one of its foreign affairs spokesmen under the title, "Wish you were here". The main centres of Labour activity will be Spain, Australia, Hong Kong, Brussels, Rome, New York and Washington DC. I therefore hope that my new clause will gain support from the Opposition and the
    1108
    Government. It is important that everyone considering whether he should vote and whether he should register to be entitled to vote should not be subject to any uncertainty. People should certainly not fear that that democratic act might have a detrimental effect on their tax liabilities.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Whereas the American colonies in 1774 cried, "No taxation without representation," it seems that certain rich Tory overseas voters are now demanding representation without taxation.
    I hate to say it, but new clause 9, proposed by the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who is held in some respect in the House, has all the hallmarks of a cynical amendment motivated by the self-interest of the Tory party. It seeks to reduce the evidential weight attached to registering to vote in determining whether a person is domiciled in this country.
    Does citizenship not carry with it any responsibilities for Tories any more? Does patriotism and duty to others mean nothing? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that seeking to vote—to influence the future of the country—and being represented in Parliament does not carry with it any duty to that country and its other citizens? No one says that people must pay taxes to vote, nor do we want unnecessary barriers to voting, but the rich should not get special tax privileges to encourage them to vote.
    With opportunities to vote come responsibilities of caring about one's country and fellow citizens. Accepting that registration to vote shows a commitment to one's country. It can be evidence of domicile. In each case, that evidence will have a different weight, depending on the other circumstances of the individual, but it is right that registration should have some weight and show some degree of commitment to one's country.
    Seeking representation in Parliament, although seeking to avoid making a proper contribution to taxation, is not the way in which to show patriotism. Let people who vote accept our laws. Let them not seek the special privileges that the new clause would confer. With the benefit of the vote comes the burden of citizenship. With the right to a voice in Parliament comes a responsibility of commitment to one's fellow citizens.
    Some of the people who would benefit from the new clause are extremely wealthy tax exiles. Some of them may be Tories, perhaps even making contributions to the Tory party. I know that the Tories have been desperately trying to fill their coffers with overseas donations. Now it seems that some seek to give people who seek to evade their responsibilities on tax the right to do so and still vote. Registration to vote should be evidence of domicile and possible liability to tax.
    8.30 pm
    Cynical as, in many ways, the new clause is, I doubt whether the Tory party will benefit all that it imagines from it. Many voters of all sorts, including those overseas, are now turning to new Labour, so I suspect that, in terms of votes, the right hon. Gentleman may be hoist with his own petard.
    Let no one say that we tried to stop people from voting. We will not force a Division, although others may decide to, but nor can we, in all conscience,

    1109
    support this change in the law. There is a certain tackiness in the new clause that ill befits the right hon. Member for Wirral, West, who, as I said, has had a high reputation in the House. I regret that he has proposed it. I suspect that he did so out of party loyalty, which has its place. I therefore cast no slight on the respected right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will withdraw the new clause. If the Minister decides to support it, the people will judge the Government's criteria for law-making. They will know the Government's standards. That is why they will vote against them at the next general election.
    Mr. Jack: I am tempted to ask, "Has the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) finished?" because that was the most amazing outburst on a modest proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), whose face shows the reaction that must be abroad in the House.
    The hon. Member for North Warwickshire told us, first, that the Opposition will not vote against the new clause, so I suppose that that will be an abstention against democracy, as they have put it. He then asked my right hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause. It sounds like the Opposition want a good each-way bet.
    I suspect that my right hon. Friend starts from the same position as me in this. When I came into my job as Financial Secretary, I received letters from people asking what their position was. We in the Treasury have done our best to write to people who want to exercise their democratic rights, conferred on them by the House, but, clearly, letters of advice showing that, effectively, registering to vote would not corrupt their tax position in relation to domicile was not enough for them.
    Therefore, my right hon. Friend is right to introduce the new clause. He has put the matter beyond doubt, because domicile is not a tax concept, but one of general law that is used for many other purposes—for example, the validity of a marriage and the effect of a marriage on property rights and legitimacy.
    Broadly, a person is domiciled in the country where they have their permanent home. Those are the types of test that, effectively, influence matters when tax considerations must be considered. The new clause says simply that registering to vote does not change anything in relation to domicile. I hope that, by reading out that brief paragraph, I have put on record some of the factors that must be taken into account in adjudging, as I said, the context of general law.
    I was delighted that my right hon. Friend referred to an extract, which I presume was from a newspaper, showing that hon. Members on both sides of the House are attempting to woo our respective supporters if they are outside the United Kingdom. There may be doubts in the minds of some of the supporters of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on this matter. Given his testimony to democracy, it would have been a sensible and simple move to put this matter beyond doubt in the clear and unequivocal terms that my right hon. Friend proposed.
    Which way people vote, wherever in the world they exercise that vote, is a matter for influence in the normal course of electioneering. The new clause has been tabled on a non-partisan basis to enable all people who wish to
    1110
    exercise the democratic rights conferred on them by the House to do so without doubt in relation domicile and tax. I commend my right hon. Friend's new clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 14

    EXPENDITURE ON IN-TOWN COMMERCIAL PREMISES
    `The following section shall be inserted after section 70 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990—
    "70A (1) If person carrying on a trade incurs expenditure on the construction of or alterations or refurbishment to a qualifying building occupied by him for the purposes of that trade then, if an allowance or deduction in respect of the expenditure could not, apart from this section, be made in taxing the trade or computing the profits or gains from it, this part shall apply as if the expenditure were capital expenditure incurred on the provision of machinery or plant for the purposes of the trade, and as if the machinery or plant had, in consequence of his incurring the expenditure, belonged to him, and as if the disposal value of the machinery or plant were nil.
    (2) If a person has incurred expenditure on the construction of or alterations or refurbishment to a qualifying building let by him otherwise than in the course of a trade then, if an allowance or deduction in respect of the expenditure could not, apart from this section, be made in taxing the letting or computing the profits or gains from it, this part shall apply as if the expenditure were capital expenditure incurred in providing machinery or plant first let by that person, otherwise than in the course of a trade, at the time when the expenditure was incurred and as if the property comprised in the lease of the qualifying building had as from that time included the machinery or plant, and as if the disposal value of the machinery or plant were nil.
    (3) In this section 'qualifying building' means any building or structure in a retail enterprise zone.
    (4) In this section, 'retail enterprise zone' means an area designed as such by an order made by the Secretary of State under power in that behalf conferred by Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 or, in Northern Ireland, by an order made by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland under Article 7 of Enterprise Zones (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
    (5) The writing down allowances within section 24 which are made to a person by reason of this section are not to exceed £50,000 in aggregate for a chargeable period.
    (6) This section applies to expenditure incurred on or after 28th November 1995.".'.[Mr. Pearson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The aim of new clause 14 is to give help to high streets, which have suffered as a result of out-of-town retail development. In the past 15 years, there has been a major growth in out-of-town shopping centres. The Metro centre in Gateshead, Meadowhall near Sheffield and the Merry Hill centre in my constituency are just three well-known examples. Although those developments have undoubtedly proved popular, they have created major problems for town and local centres, in some cases threatening their future survival as shoppers go elsewhere, retailers move out, premises are boarded up and prone to violent vandalism and high streets go into a spiral of decline.
    Belatedly, the Government have recognised the damage that their lax attitude to planning matters has done to our high streets. In July 1993, they produced planning policy

    1111
    guidance 6 and, in July 1995, even tougher guidance in draft form, which is yet to be implemented, but which clearly states that future proposals must take into consideration the vitality and viability of town and local centres. Turning off the tap now, however, will not stop the flow of the many developments in the pipeline or do anything to right the wrongs and to repair the damage that the Government's policies have heaped on many high streets already.
    It is perhaps stating the obvious to say that building the second biggest retail complex in Europe less than three miles from Dudley and Stourbridge town centres and right next to Brierley Hill was bound to affect local trade. The Merry Hill impact study conducted for the Department of the Environment provides hard evidence of that. It shows graphically the 70 per cent. decline in comparison goods shopping in Dudley town centre and a 43 per cent. decline in Stourbridge.
    We cannot turn back the clock. Nor would I want to with 1.8 million sq ft of retail space and two and a half miles of malls attracting 23 million visitors a year. Merry Hill is a major success story. It has created significant transport problems, clogging up roads for major parts of the day, creating pollution, annoying local residents and having dramatic consequences for long-established town centres.
    I do not want to talk down Dudley or Stourbridge town centres. In the past five years, retailers and business people who are trying to make a living there have suffered enough, but I acknowledge that, recently, there have been some improvements as the market has adjusted to new patterns of shopping. Warm words from the Government and a stricter use of planning controls are simply not good enough.
    The Daily Telegraph, commenting on the new draft guidance, said that it
    "leaves the Environment Secretary in the uncomfortable and somewhat ridiculous position of ordering back the tide of Britain's modern car-borne shoppers."
    We should not be trying to do that. We have to live in the now. What we can do is support town centres and the people in them who are trying to develop new visions and strategies for their future. There have been some exciting recent developments in the science of town centre management and in action in partnership to revitalise and regenerate towns and local centres. The new clause would boost that process of developing new strategies and plans so that towns and local centres could offer a vibrant future. The new clause would give writing-down allowances on costs of construction, alteration or refurbishment of premises in a retail enterprise zone. It is not designed to be massively expensive. It gives the Secretary of State the power to control the number and size of retail enterprise zones. There are limits of £50,000 in any one chargeable accounting period for which business men can claim writing-down allowances.
    The new clause would go some way to repairing some of the damage that has been done to Dudley town centre and other similarly affected centres. It would not solve all the problems, but it would make significant improvements, and I would welcome the Government's favourable response to it.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The debate initiated by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) has become something of an annual event, which always produces an interesting speech and a response from the Government which sympathises with a great deal of what he says. He will understand if I do not refer in detail to Merry Hill because I understand that a planning application has been submitted to extend that great site, and obviously I must not say anything that might be taken wrongly and prejudice the decision. The experience that the Member for Dudley, West has had in Dudley is obviously interesting and important.
    I want to offer one or two new arguments to show why I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's approach, with which in principle the Government are sympathetic, is right. We are sympathetic because he is trying to use market forces, by offering incentives to get things moving, rather than the dirigisme of planning. In some senses, that fits in very well with Conservative philosophy. However, one or two points lead us—I am sure that it does not surprise the hon. Gentleman—to reject his new clause.
    I also come from an inner-city constituency, where there have been some extremely controversial planning applications over the past two or three years. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have campaigned against some applications for big retail centres within the city, but on green space within it, which had widespread opposition from my constituents and others on the grounds of loss of green space and also because they would divert shopping from existing shopping areas and streets in the city of Bristol. There has also been rapid development outside Bristol in the north fringe of some classical out-of-town centers—not as big as those in Dudley but of the kind with which the hon. Gentleman is probably familiar.
    If we had designated areas of the city to try to counteract the pull of the north fringe, we might have found ourselves facing the paradoxical outcome of encouraging some of those very big inner-city developments, which—it would have been argued—would not have been very satisfactory. We might still have ended up with a new conflict and encouraged big inner-city shopping developments, which, arguably, would also have damaged the more traditional high streets in the city.
    That seems to show that, although the hon. Gentleman's motivation is very sensible, such an approach is rather a blunt instrument, and that, with all its faults—such an argument is probably more often heard on his side of the House than mine—the finer grain and more exact targeting through the proper use of the planning system is a better way in which to deal with the problem.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Andrew Smith: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as I am sure are all hon. Members, with some interest. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) is that in some respects at least there is not a genuinely level playing field, in fiscal terms, between new out-of-town, or indeed new inner-town, developments, such as the Chief Secretary has described, and more conventional and traditional developments, especially in inner-city

    1113
    shopping areas. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept my hon. Friend's argument as a means of addressing that situation, does he at least accept that there is a case for examining with great care the fiscal effects of the present legislation on new and green-field development in comparison to its effects on more conventional city centres to see whether there are not ways in which to give incentives to, particularly, the smaller shopkeepers in more traditional centres, as my hon. Friend is trying to do?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The point made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West is valid. There is certainly a perception that a new green-field site has a range of advantages over the redevelopment of an existing site. In Bristol, if I may refer to it again—the hon. Member for Dudley, West spoke of Dudley—we have the great Broadmead centre, which was built after bombing in the war and which is not very satisfactory in many respects. It is a classic late 1950s or 1960s development. There has been much good investment in it over recent years by Ladbrokes and others and some major steps have been taken, but it was probably more expensive than, as the hon. Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and for Dudley, West are arguing, it would have been on a wholly green-field site. None the less, the advantages do not seem fiscal. They derive not from any oddity in the tax regime, but from an inherent greater ease of developing on green-field sites, except for possible strains on the road system.
    Therefore, a better way to right the balance is through direct control of the planning system. Although I understand the argument of the hon. Members for Dudley, West and for Oxford, East, with which we experimented in the early 1980s through enterprise zones, and which is still one weapon in the armoury, such a weapon has turned out to be a fairly blunt instrument, which creates curious boundary problems and a deadweight problem. It finances developments that might have happened anyway. Although I am glad to hear that the centre of Dudley is coming back to life, to some extent under its own steam as the hon. Member for Dudley, West was arguing, one ends up helping to finance developments that would have happened anyway.
    We have mechanisms to address the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West that have been established and used on a bipartisan basis or by other parties separately over many years through the Town and Country Planning Acts, and the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to say that in recent years we have been steering the system that way. The turnaround was begun by the present governor of Hong Kong, and was carried through by his two successors as Secretary of State for the Environment. I am told that the current draft is quite restrictive. The balance is difficult to maintain because cities are dynamic. I know that many of the shops that are threatened—allegedly—by new developments in Bristol are where they are today only because they had to be moved out of the centre of Bristol because of the bombing in the war. They were not there before the war.
    Things cannot be set in aspic. The traditional British urban centre is usually around a railhead, which was a result of ruthless free-enterprise competition 150 years ago. The only question is whether touching the tiller,
    1114
    which is legitimate for Governments to do, is better done through the fiscal system or the planning system. We argue for the planning system. As usual, the hon. Member for Dudley, West has stimulated an interesting debate and chivvied us along a little in remembering that the balance must be got right.
    Mr. Pearson: I thank the Minister for his careful and considered reply, and for his acknowledgement that I am making a real point. His preference for the direct control mechanism of the planning system is all very fine for future developments, but it does nothing to redress the problems caused to my constituents and their businesses in the Dudley borough.
    I must also point out that Merry Hill—uniquely, I think—is not a green-field out-of-town development but a brown-field development in an enterprise zone, which was not subject to any planning approvals whatever. Under that regime, there were 100 per cent. industrial building allowances and a 10-year rate-free period, so it is clear that the tax system offered significant incentives.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I must not prolong the debate simply because it is interesting; that would get us into trouble with the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman is pointing to one of the inherent problems of the enterprise zone—the boundary problem. We may find that we have simply moved things from one place to another, and the argument revolves around righting the fiscal balance again. We could extend the zone, but then the inherent problems that we have been trying to solve might spread somewhere else. That was probably the right move to deal with the acute problem of Merry Hill, but every time we spread the boundary, perhaps we undermine the principle of the enterprise zone.
    Mr. Pearson: I understand. We could have an interesting debate about boundary problems and creating special local economic initiatives by using the tax system. Arguably, those problems could equally apply to a whole range of other economic development initiatives such as single regeneration budgets, city challenge, and the old task force areas. I do not want to pursue that line, other than to repeat that I think that there is a special case for justice for Dudley, because it is the only area in which something of that size—Merry Hill is the second biggest retail complex in Europe—was built in an enterprise zone. As a result, it had massive tax advantages, and that persuaded virtually all the major retailers to move into it, not only for the capital benefits but for the revenue benefits of the rate-free period.
    The example of the borough of Dudley makes a clear case for justice for our town centres. In view of the Government's reluctance to support my new clause, I shall seek other avenues by which to pursue that case, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 4

    RATES OF DUTY AND REBATE
    Mr. Roger Gale: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 22, leave out '£0.2817' and insert `£0.10'.

    1115
    I begin by congratulating the Government on the fact that the provision already in the Bill proposes a 15 per cent. cut in excise duty on gas used as a road fuel. That is an important, indeed a vital, step—a step towards sustainability and towards protecting the health of adults and children in all our towns and cities.
    It is accepted that vehicles using gas fuel pollute much less than their petrol and diesel counterparts. To someone standing on any traffic-filled high street, the case for gas-fuelled vehicles is self-evident. If one stays there long enough, one does not need to read recent Government reports to know that vehicle emissions are far too high.
    In local and national newspapers, the subject of air quality is now discussed. As an asthma sufferer myself, I have a heightened awareness of the effects of polluted air. Regrettably, local government activities sometimes make that worse. I happen to favour traffic calming measures, but the fact remains that, as we introduce them, especially road humps, we cause petrol and diesel vehicles to pollute more.
    The extra acceleration and deceleration caused by traffic calming substantially increases vehicle emissions into our city streets. That is all the more serious because vehicle emissions rise geometrically rather than arithmetically, so the increases in pollution are sixfold, eightfold or even tenfold. More gas vehicles will undo such damage, and help to stop one form of protection for our children—slower speeds—exacerbating another—emission pollution.
    Recently, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London announced the publication of a report by the energy technology support unit highlighting the benefits of gas as a road fuel. Furthermore, gas is transported by pipeline, thus avoiding the need to use road-based oil tankers, so it offers additional quality-of-life benefits. Those of us who travel on Kent's roads recognise only too clearly the need to reduce the heavy traffic that uses them, including the rural roads, as rat runs.
    I wholeheartedly endorse the existing clause that compensates for the extra costs of delivering compressed natural gas to vehicles. The 15 per cent. cut will allow gas fuel to be sold at the same price as petrol and diesel, and that sends the right fiscal message to the marketplace. Unfortunately, the signal is neither strong enough nor clear enough, which is a great shame, because it is the right signal. If we are to develop a large and growing gas fleet, with all its attendant air quality benefits, clearly we need to do more. We need not only to equalise the fuel costs but to allow for the additional costs of gas vehicles themselves.
    Whether they are new or converted, gas vehicles are currently more expensive. That is not inevitable. In time, once the industry has begun mass production, gas vehicles need be no more expensive than existing petrol or diesel vehicles. But for the moment, and probably for some time to come, they are bound to cost more, because they lack the economy of scale of their rivals.
    The Government's existing provision already accepts the benefits of gas fuel, but I suggest that, without greater incentives, especially for fleet operators, the environmental benefits of compressed natural gas usage will not be delivered. My amendment addresses that problem. It would create a differential of 16p a litre between petrol and diesel, on the one hand, and gas on the other.
    1116
    My amendment would also lower the duty rate to the European Union minimum. Our current duty on natural gas is 340 per cent. of that minimum, while our duty on diesel is only 160 per cent., and on petrol only 140 per cent. We have a tremendous opportunity to give the market an unequivocal message by reducing our gas duty to the minimum permitted under EU rules.
    The figure that I have selected is not random, for another reason. It has been carefully selected, because it would give gas vehicles life-cycle costs similar to those of petrol and diesel vehicles.
    It is believed that the natural gas vehicle industry is ready to take off. Its specific early targets are buses, taxis and mid-range trucks—for example, the refuse trucks found in every town and city. These are all largely urban vehicles, and are obvious polluters in the eyes of the public. Research that I have seen suggests that all that is holding fleet managers back is the significant price differential. By making gas fuel substantially cheaper than petrol and diesel, we can compensate them for the extra capital costs of the vehicles and allow the industry to take off. That is what the amendment will do.
    I should emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General that I see the enhanced reduction as a temporary measure, lasting only until the economies of scale to which I have referred take effect. Once the industry achieves 20 per cent. of the share in any market, the economies of scale will begin to take hold, and unit costs will fall. The markets will then move to become more environmentally friendly, and the need for such a large differential—I accept that I am suggesting a large differential—will disappear.
    In year one, the revenue impact of what I am suggesting would be minimal, as the actual number of vehicles that could conceivably take advantage of any cut this year is 5,000 at the very most. The potential net cash loss to the Treasury would therefore be relatively small—about £7 million at most. Clearly, the extra reduction could cost more in the longer term.
    Were 200,000 vehicles to convert to natural gas, the Treasury would lose about £200 million a year, but even this would be more than offset by the estimated environmental and social benefits of reduced pollution. It is estimated that 200,000 gas vehicles could save about £240 million a year, and recent reports laying greater emphasis on the health problems caused by particulates suggest that even that may be an underestimate.
    The precedent and example for a lower rate for environmentally better fuels lies with our treatment of unleaded petrol. We all know that the first—minor—cut in the rate led to a small increase in the number of people using the fuel, and it required a second larger cut before the policy affected public behaviour. My amendment avoids a repetition of that mistake with gas as a road fuel.
    The Government have shown in the Bill that they are committed to their approach to the subject. My amendment offers the added benefit of sending a clear and unequivocal signal to the market. The current clause is highly desirable, but I do not believe that it will be sufficient to convert expressions of interest into firm orders. My amendment will be to the benefit of all who live in, work in and visit all our towns and cities. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend's reply, and I hope that he will treat my proposal sympathetically.
    9 pm
    Mr. David Jamieson: In rising to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I should first declare an interest. I have given advice to the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, but have no financial contract with it.
    The amendment—which essentially proposes to use a fiscal measure to promote the use of compressed gas vehicles—gives the Government the opportunity to do three things: first, to create a cleaner environment, particularly in terms of air quality; secondly, to develop new technology at which we could be at the leading edge; thirdly, to greatly assist our balance of payments. I shall address a few comments to each of those matters.
    First, the environmental case for moving from diesel and petrol motor vehicles to compressed natural gas is overwhelming. The emissions from natural gas vehicles are substantially lower in almost every category than from diesel and petrol vehicles. Evidence shows that diesel in particular is giving out particulates that are carcinogenic, and much of the evidence from America shows that cancers are developing early in young people as a result of their breathing in diesel fumes. In particular, slow-moving vehicles such as buses, taxis, refuse collection vehicles and other vehicles seen in our city centres give out high levels of pollution. The environmental case is so strong that there is no need to say any more on it.
    Secondly, this country has for many years been at the leading edge of vehicle production—in particular, car production. We should be developing the new technology in this country, but it is instead being developed in other parts of Europe, Japan, America and Canada. We could be losing out by not providing new technology that could be sold right across the world if we could grasp our home market and develop it as we should.
    I have named some countries, but Argentina and Italy, for example, are also ahead of us in this area. Italy has a third of a million gas vehicles on its roads, while we have only a few hundred. The industry needs the critical mass of filling stations to give it a kick start, and that can only be done by the fiscal measures proposed in the amendment.
    Finally, we could substantially help our balance of payments by not importing the oil that presently fuels our vehicles. Some 60 per cent. of oil for our vehicles is imported from other countries—mainly the middle east. Natural gas would come almost in its entirety from the gasfields around the United Kingdom.
    A topical argument is that oil comes to this country across the sea in tankers and is then taken in tankers along our roads, which is, as recent experience in south Wales has shown, an environmental hazard and a hazard to safety and life on our roads; whereas gas is delivered through pipes, which is much safer.
    Clearly, there is cross-party support on such an important matter. The amendment is an opportunity for the Government to reduce the excise duty, which would encourage the use of much cleaner fuels in vehicles on our roads.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for missing the start of my hon. Friend's brief remarks on the amendment,
    1118
    particularly since I added my name to the list of those supporting the amendment. I will speak but briefly, knowing largely what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) have said.
    When I was Minister of State for the Environment Countryside, the hon. Member for Devonport and I slid) ed a platform, and we talked about this very issue. I pleased to do so, because it is an important issue.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong on one point, however: the technology is being developed in my constituency at the Leyland technical center—the former Leyland Trucks site, where a lot of work is being done in the field and on designing buses and trucks which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet rightly said, are being used in other parts of the world. We already have a lead that we can build on and on which Britain can score a few runs, from both the environmental and industrial points of view.
    I am therefore delighted to be associated with the amendment. Allowing for the fact that it has revenue implications that might not be wholly acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, I ask him to realise the strength of feeling that is beginning to build up among—to put it politely—three hon. Members who would consider themselves involved in the issue and who I would hope the House would realise have a genuine and abiding interest. I hope that he will be sympathetic in his response tonight and in the way in which he treats this matter, which has ramifications for health, the environment and pollution control, and would also allow us to make a product that we can sell to the world.
    Mr. Alan Simpson rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Does the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) want to speak on this amendment?
    Mr. Simpson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The case for the use of natural gas, or liquefied petroleum gas, has been well made during this short debate. I listened with care to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) in support of the amendment. I detect that it is chiefly a probing amendment, but that it nevertheless has a serious intent.
    The Government well understand the advantage that natural gas and LPG can have, particularly in reducing urban pollution. The use of such fuel reduces most of the main pollutants—one cannot escape the production of carbon dioxide, but, for example, sulphur emissions are considerably lower than when such vehicles burn diesel.
    In recognition of those advantages, the duty on road fuel gas was frozen in the November 1994 Budget. It was made clear at the time that further research was necessary, and that further consideration would be given to a possible cut. That was indeed done in the 1995 Budget, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after examining the environmental and other cases, concluded that a 15 per cent. reduction was appropriate. That was designed approximately to equalise the running costs of vehicles using gas with those using diesel or petrol. Now there is no disincentive to the use

    1119
    of road fuel gases, and it is up to consumers and the market to decide whether to convert or purchase vehicles using those fuels.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble said, some vehicles are already using the fuel. There is at least an embryo industry using them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North urged a dramatic cut in duty because of the problems of conversion. A reduction in the cost of the fuel would tend to encourage high-mileage users rather than the lower-mileage urban use that all hon. Members who spoke thought to be the more achievable use for such vehicles. It may therefore be better to examine whether the cost of conversion could be encouraged through more capital-directed assistance, possibly through changes to vehicle excise duty. I at least offer him the prospect of that being considered.
    We intend to consider carefully using VED as a means to encourage low-emission vehicles. If there was evidence to support that, it could be possible to use it as the incentive to undertake conversion work. That might be a better targeted measure than a simple further cut in the cost of the fuel. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the studies, and I do not wish to give my hon. Friend too certain a steer, but I can undertake that it will be closely considered.
    As to future research, the energy technology support unit is about to produce a report on alternative fuels right across the board. In addition, it has a programme of research into gases and other fuels that will be published next year. I hope that I have said enough to show those interested in the subject that I am at least sympathetic to their points. I can offer no immediate relief but I understand the point about the cost conversion, in addition to the help that we have already given by cutting by 15 per cent. the taxes in the current Budget.
    Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, especially for recognising in his closing remarks the burden of the additional cost of conversion. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) for their support.
    This issue is not going to go away, but, equally, I know that my right hon. Friend has not come to write out the cheque for the relatively modest sum that we ask to stimulate the industry. I am also conscious that the House wants to move on to an important debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 28

    REFUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION AND CONVERSION
    Mr. Simpson: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 17, line 21, at end add
    `provided that any refund made pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection (1D) below may, unless the Treasury decides otherwise, only be a refund of a least nine and one half per cent. on the VAT chargeable'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 26, in page 17, line 24, after 'they', insert `(a)'.
    1120
    No. 27, in page 17, line 26, leave out `(a)' and insert `(i)'.
    No. 28, in page 17, line 27, leave out `(b)' and insert `(ii).
    No. 29, in page 17, line 29, leave out `(c)' and insert(iii)
    No. 30, in page 17, line 31, at end insert 'or
    (b) involve the conversion of a dwelling by the installation into or on the dwelling of energy saving materials as defined under subsection (1F) below.'.
    No. 31, in page 17, line 35, at end insert—
    '(1F) For the purposes of subsection (1D)(b) above energy saving materials shall be such materials or products as are by Order designated by the Secretary of State and the materials or products so designated

    (a) shall include all such materials or products which in his opinion are used solely for the purpose of improving the energy efficiency of buildings; and

    (b) may include any material or product of which in his opinion, the primary purpose is the improvement in the energy efficiency of buildings.

    (1G) The Secretary of State

    (a) shall within one year of the passing of this Act make the Order referred to in subsection (IF) above; and

    (b) may make further Orders designating other materials or products if in his opinion it is expedient to do so; and
    any such Orders shall be subject to approval by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.'.

    Mr. Simpson: I am sorry if I misled the House a few moments ago with my enthusiasm to get on to this debate. This is not a probing amendment, but a genuine one. It aims to address an important energy conservation issue that I have attempted to raise in the House before.
    The amendment is not the channel through which those of us who tabled it would have preferred to go. We were compelled to go through it to get an amendment on the Order Paper which was not ultra vires. During our proceedings, I have discovered that the other options—to propose a reduction in VAT or VAT relief—were not open to me as a Back Bencher to move.
    I reflected on the fact that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are neighbours, there are important differences between us. He is Chancellor and I am a Back Bencher. I also understand that, in troubled times such as these, he often has cause to envy the security of my position. Although his occupation of the Chancellorship may be temporary, he has the opportunity to introduce proposals relating to VAT reduction and relief. Those opportunities were not available to those who have tabled these amendments. However, the issues and the principles at stake are the same. The principle underpinning the amendments is that it is quite wrong in tax law to pursue a policy of taxing energy conservation more heavily than energy consumption.
    9.15 pm
    I am not the first—and I suppose that I shall not be the last—to make that point. I always try to give credit where it is due, so I pay particular tribute to a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). In his Budget speech on 16 March 1993, he said:
    "For the first time, the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power will be the same as that charged on goods like loft insulation material, which improve energy efficiency. This will bring to an end

    1121
    the current anomaly, which makes nonsense of any attempt to use the tax system to improve the environment".—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 183.]
    In its infinite wisdom, the House decided to retain VAT on domestic fuel bills at 8 per cent., but it did not then address the anomaly to which the Chancellor had drawn our attention. So that anomaly—the "nonsense" to which the former Chancellor referred—remains. This group of amendments seeks to remove that anomaly and to restore a level tax field to environmental policies.
    As the Treasury would not do that via VAT reduction or relief, we were forced to explore the possibility of VAT rebates. I am grateful to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for introducing the administrative framework of a rebate system into the Finance Bill. The amendments slot quite comfortably into that system. It is not simply the administrative system that matters: I shall remind the House of the extent of public support for that sort of proposal.
    I should not be coy, but attribute praise to all those who deserve it. In a way, they are not my amendments, as they were formulated on the basis of wide, cross-party support. In a matter of days, 201 right hon. and hon. Members put their names to the group of amendments. Over a slightly longer period last year, 343 right hon. and hon Members put their names to an early-day motion that said substantially the same thing. A majority of hon. Members have backed the principle that we should tax energy conservation no more heavily than energy consumption.
    I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) who have worked to ensure that the amendments before the House are of an all-party nature. It is also important to pay tribute to the 350 local authorities around the country that have given their support to the proposal. The Confederation of British Industry energy policy committee, the Builders Merchants Federation, local chambers of commerce, pensioners' rights organisations and Friends of the Earth support the measure. A national survey commissioned by the Association for the Conservation of Energy found that Conservative councillors around the country support the proposal by a ratio of six to one. That is the scale of public support for the measure around the country on a cross-party basis.
    I have attended a number of public meetings up and down the country, and I have not met anyone who opposes the proposal. However, there is one exception: Her Majesty's Treasury. The Treasury has advanced four reasons why it objects to the amendments.
    First, it says that they are too bureaucratic. I shall answer that charge in three parts. The amendments would not create any new bureaucracy, as they would slot into the rebate scheme as set out in clause 28 of the Bill. It is not cumbersome in relation to generating an unsupportable level of demand on a civil service, because the terms of the amendment are targeted to the trade.
    Clause 28(1C) makes it clear that the measure is aimed at contractors, and it makes it administratively simple for that to take place. If the Government's objection is that it is not wide-ranging enough, it would be open to them to come up with a proposal that widened the basis of that uptake—they could introduce it on the basis of an across-the-counter refund system. New clause 19 gives an
    1122
    indication of how the Government might do this, if that were their preferred path. It is not beyond the wit of the House to extend it in simple, non-bureaucratic ways if that is what the Treasury wants to do.
    The second objection is the problem of definition. How will people define what is or what is not an energy-saving material? The Treasury has said that it is not competent to define that list. The truth is that we would not be asking the Treasury to define that list; it is written into the amendment that we would be asking the Secretary of State for the Environment to draw up that list over the next year.
    The list would be divided into two groups: products that are solely for the purpose of energy saving, and products that are primarily for the purpose of energy saving. The Secretary of State would come to the House with that list, and he would have a year to draw it up. The Government would have a year in which they would be free to come back with a better method of delivering that reduction in VAT. I am sure that that would be ample time and would be welcomed.
    The third objection I have heard is precedent—that, if we were to go down this path, a whole series of good causes would come and say, "You have done it for one, so you ought to do it for us." They are not the conditions within which the amendment is being moved. We have an unprecedented position, in which energy saving is actually tax penalised. We are not asking for tax favouring; we are asking for the removal of a tax penalty that favours the wasteful use of energy rather than the safe and responsible use of energy—we are creating a level playing field, not tax favouring.
    The fourth objection that I have heard is that, if we go down this path, we will upset Europe—the objection is probably couched around it being in breach of the sixth VAT directive. I know that there are other countries in Europe—Belgium and Greece, in particular—that already use different rates of VAT to tax-favour energy conservation. If it is sauce for Belgium, it is sauce for Britain. That is not a sense in which we would be in breach—the practices are already being carried out elsewhere in Europe.
    Secondly, I have managed to get a letter from one of the European Commissioners that says that, in relation to the sixth VAT directive,
    "Certain Member States do tax the construction, renovation or alteration of social housing at the reduced rate. In such cases it may be that the contract to construct, renovate or alter the house in question might include the incorporation of energy saving materials".
    We are told that that is a possibility open to us. The Commissioner pointed out that it would not be an option on an individual basis, which reinforces the argument about targeting it on the trade.
    My final comment in relation to this uncertainty about European rules and directives is this: what if we were challenged? If the European Commission told the House that its actions were VAT-illegal, surely that would be precisely the sort of ground on which Her Majesty's Government would want to challenge a European ruling. If European rules and directives prevent a country from tax-favouring energy conservation rather than the wasting of energy, surely that is the absurdity.
    In the words of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is "the nonsense" that the House has a

    1123
    responsibility to tackle. If the nonsense resides at European level, it should be challenged there rather than consented to by the House. We hear much about subsidiarity, but if subsidiarity does not mean that a country has the ability to fend for its fuel-poor, it means nothing at all. The issue is as stark as that.
    Against the detractors, I wish to focus on the positive points in the core of amendment No. 25, which represents a virtuous circle with four-way winners. One group of winners would be those who live in cold homes. The industry estimates that there would be a 10 per cent. increase in demand for home insulation products if we supported the amendment. It would be a real boost to the mileage of moneys left in the home energy insulation budget, which, as the House will remember, was cut by 30 per cent. despite assurances to the contrary, and it would target that greater mileage specifically on those who are suffering greatest hardship from fuel poverty.
    The second beneficiary would be the environment. It has been estimated that the amendment would save 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 290 tonnes of nitrous oxide and 530 tonnes of sulphur dioxide by the year 2000.
    The third group of beneficiaries would be the unemployed. Industry has estimated that the increase in demand, simply from passing the amendment, would be the equivalent of 10,000 job-years in jobs created and jobs sustained. Finally, the industry itself would benefit. The industry is desperate for the 10 per cent. increase in demand that it estimates would come from the amendment.
    The House should hear some of the comments that I have received from sections of the industry. The chief executive of Owens Corning Building Products has said:
    "Market demand is very disappointing with no sign of improvement".
    More or less the same comment was made by Sheffield Insulations and Schlegel (UK) Engineering Ltd. The director of British Gypsum has said:
    "Builders report that the past six months have been extremely difficult. We expect worse to come".
    Pilkington Glass Ltd. has said:
    "The first six months of the year were very flat and we forecast a decline from here on".
    Dow Construction Products has said:
    "Business is flat or even declining. The future looks bleak".
    Similar comments have come from Vencel Resil Ltd. and the directors of Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. Those are some of the major home insulation contractors working in Britain and they back the amendment. They have urged us to support it tonight.
    The one question with which the Treasury should concern itself is the cost. The estimate for the worst case scenario for costs is £10 million. In Treasury terms, that is no more than a cup of tea between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England. The figure assumes that there would be no increase in revenue to the Treasury from the increase in demand for products in the home insulation industry. It assumes that no savings would accrue from the retention and development of jobs in the industry. The best case scenario suggests that the Chancellor would come out financially better off from the process. Even the worst case basis shows a minute price to pay for making serious inroads into the 50,000 avoidable deaths
    1124
    of people in the United Kingdom every winter through fuel poverty. That is the real bottom line of the costs borne by this country.
    The reason why the Treasury does not support amendment No. 25, and why it has not come up with any amendments that would achieve the same end, is very simple. The Treasury does not want this because it does not want it. It will not come up with a simpler proposal because it does not want one—but the public do.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Has the hon. Gentleman been able to assess how much it would cost the Treasury to administer this scheme? Will he not concede that it will be quite complicated, and that it would be much simpler if we could vote in a straightforward way to reduce the rate of VAT?
    Mr. Simpson: I said at the outset that there are simpler ways, but I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I am not in a position to introduce them. I do know, however, that the Treasury has massively exaggerated the administrative costs involved in this process. The necessary bureaucracy is being set up by the Chancellor in clause 28 of this very Bill. The new processes would simply slot into that, and the bureaucratic costs would be minimal.
    Outside this place, there is massive support for the measure. Inside this House, I believe that there is massive support for the amendments too. I also know that the country will not understand if tonight we turn our backs on the simple principle that energy conservation should not be taxed more heavily than energy consumption. If we turn our backs on that idea, we shall be neither understood nor forgiven for spurning this opportunity. That is why I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments, to restore an equitable system in which sanity and environmental responsibility become the cornerstones of our tax policy.
    9.30 pm
    Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) rather spoiled his case by asking us to follow the examples of Greece and Belgium, which are both in a financial shambles, but every responsible person is aware that energy saving is important. We levy a tax of 8 per cent. on fuel, and it would seem only common sense to say that there should be no VAT at all on energy saving. The tragedy is—Opposition Members well know this because of their obsession with Europe—that under European rules, our Parliament is not permitted to abolish VAT on energy saving. As the Liberal Democrats will appreciate, even if every Member of this House, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, voted to abolish VAT on energy saving, we would not be allowed to.
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, South is proposing something very clever—not because he is particularly clever, but because he has noticed that, in clause 28, the Government have discovered a clever way round the problem. Instead of reducing the rate of VAT, it can be done by means of refunds.
    The amendment is worth supporting if for no other reason than to find out whether that is possible. I therefore hope that every Member of this House who cares about

    1125
    democracy, about the elderly and about preserving fuel will agree that it is worth finding out whether such a system will work.
    Some people, especially the Euro-enthusiasts in the Government, claim that the sixth directive already permits what we want. But I have studied it and it is far from clear. It states that the Government could reduce—not abolish—VAT in the case of housing built as part of a social policy, referring to
    "renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of a social policy."
    My hon. Friends and I would certainly like to take advantage of that if it would reduce VAT, but I very much doubt, for instance, whether my house was built as part of a social policy. But there is still just a possibility that it might work, so let us try—that is, if we care about saving energy.
    I hope that the excellent Paymaster General is a sensible Minister who will let us know shortly whether he has today telephoned the European Commission to ask, "Look lads, are we allowed to do this? Could we reduce the rate of VAT to 8 per cent.?" If by any chance he has not done so—I know he is a busy man—I hope that Liberal Democrats, Labour Members and Conservative Members will form a popular front—a united British Parliament—and will tell the European Commission, once we have agreed the amendment, that we want permission to reduce VAT on energy saving to 8 per cent. Would not all the parties fighting for the restoration of just a little democracy be a fine picture?
    We could do it, so let us try. Why should we bother trying? Because even Government Whips would accept that it is ridiculous to have a higher rate of tax on energy saving than on energy. We should encourage, not discourage, people to save energy. One has to be very careful in supporting unusual amendments, particularly when testing ourselves against the all-powerful European Commission.
    Would the change involve massive bureaucracy? I was talking to a Minister the other day, who said, "If you pass this, it will mean that everyone who goes to a do-it-yourself store will be able to ask for a refund on the VAT. It will involve hundreds of civil servants and lots of paper, and we don't want to waste paper, just as we don't want to waste fuel." Happily, I am able to reassure my hon. Friends, because I have checked up on the amendment, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, with the help of the Government, has constructed so carefully. It relates to new subsection (1C), which applies only to jobs done by contractors. Even if the Government wanted to try to stretch this to cover DIY stores, they cannot. The amendment is absolutely clear and precise, so we do not need to worry about bureaucracy. If there is any bureaucracy, it is in clause 28.
    The second thing that worried me—I am sure that it would worry all Conservatives—is that we should not do anything to undermine or upset the Government's brilliant economic strategy. We know that we are so fortunate to have such a splendid Chancellor of the Exchequer and such a fine Government, and when they have added up the figures carefully and put on the taxes, one is always terrified that one might upset them, but the amendment is brilliant, because we do not have to do this tomorrow. In fact, all we have to do is say to the Treasury, "We don't want you to cut
    1126
    the taxes now. All we are saying is, please go away for a year and think carefully about what should be exempt." That means that we do not need to do anything until the next Budget—in fact, the Budget after next.
    I am absolutely confident that the Conservatives will get an even greater majority at the next election, but who knows, there might be—if people are silly—a change of Government, in which case this would have to be done by a Labour Government, or even a Liberal Democrat Government, supported, perhaps, by the Scottish nationalists. It would be they who would have to go to the European Commission to say, "Please, sir, can we do this?" I hope that if there were such a Labour Government, which I would deplore, of course, they would have the support of the Conservatives in the all-popular front.
    But then again, it might not cost anything. I know that, because of the need to try to save money, which the Government are so good at—apart from in their dealings with the EC—we have had to reduce slightly the very expensive and nice little scheme to help to install energy-saving features in people's houses. Whereas we used to help pensioners, we now help only pensioners who are on income support. That means that hard-working pensioners, such as my mother, who worked so hard to save money, are not eligible. That is very sad.
    I do not want to bring personalities into it—otherwise, I should have to declare an interest in the Register of Members' Interests—but pensioners who cannot get income support are cut out. That means that contractors will not be able to work on those pensioners' houses, and will have to ask, "Which of you has an income support book?" If we were able to do this, it would help jobs, and that might save money. There might be an increase in demand, which would also provide jobs and so on. The Government might even find, because they are so clever in these things, that they would make money, not lose it. If there is a prospect of making money, it should appeal to the Conservative party.
    Thirdly, one thing that we must not do is upset the Conservative party. It is terribly important, whether we support something or not, that on no account must we upset the Conservative party. That is one of the rules that we should all obey. Unlike myself, my hon. Friends work so hard that they sometimes do not have time to keep in touch with everybody. I have found out—I hope that my hon. Friends are aware of this—that we have done a survey of all the Conservative councillors. I draw the attention of the House to that most wonderful Conservative council which has more Conservative councillors than any other—Westminster. All the members of that brilliant Conservative council replied that they were in favour. That is the view not only of the vast majority of Conservative councillors, but of Westminster councillors. We should certainly take that into account.
    We should support the amendment. What will be lost if the Government accept it? First, I believe that people will be glad that we are moving away from the nonsense created by the EC, whereby we must charge more for energy saving than for energy. So many aspects of EC policy are mad; let us try to sort one of them out. Secondly, acceptance would unite us; we could all go together to the EC and say, "We want to change this. Please have the courage to let us do it."

    1127
    We have very good Commissioners. We have one who is represented by the Conservative party, and one represented by Labour. The trouble with the EC is that it sometimes does illegal things that it is not entitled to do, such as banning exports of cattle all over the world. It does those things for funny reasons: in that instance, it is taking action not because it wants its action to work, but to deprive us of our subsidies.
    The Commission is all-powerful, and I therefore hope that we can unite on a popular front. Let us help jobs; let us help pensioners who are not on income support; let us help democracy; and let us help to introduce a bit of common sense in the EC. I understand that more than 70 Conservative Members—they do not include me, of course—have put down their names in support of the proposal. Conservatives' word is their bond: I signed the pledge against alcohol when I was six years old, and, like all Conservatives, I have kept my promise. I know that Conservatives keep their promises, and I hope that they will support the amendment. It will be good for Britain, good for pensioners, good for jobs, good for the Government and, I believe, good for the whole nation.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As a sponsor of the amendment, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on tabling it.
    The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who spoke at length, said that the amendment contained flaws. He and I, and other members of the all-party parliamentary warm homes group, trawled through the Bill to try to find other ways of addressing the issues of energy conservation and fuel poverty, and this is the best method that we could come up with. Although it is not perfect, at least it is a step in the right direction, and, if accepted, it would send the country the message that we are trying to deal with such matters in Parliament.
    Let me touch briefly on two principles. First, there is the question of the health and safety of the most vulnerable members of society. I thought it despicable that the Budget massively cut the home energy efficiency scheme, given the impact that that will have on the poorest members of society, who are often living in the worst housing. The safety aspect relates to the health issue that has already been mentioned. Many people are now taken into hospital during the winter, which costs the national health service a vast amount. If those people could heat their homes to a reasonable extent, that would not happen. I do not think that the Treasury has considered the saving that could be made.
    Before the Budget, we made a substantial submission. We said that we did not want money simply to be thrown at the problem; the Treasury could benefit from some of the positive ideas that had emerged from the all-party group and, indeed, from many voluntary and statutory organisations throughout the United Kingdom. The Treasury should bang a few heads together, get its civil servants to do their sums and realise that our proposals will benefit not only the health of the most vulnerable in society, but—perhaps—the Treasury.
    The second aspect is energy conservation and employment creation. When the Government introduced the concept of VAT on domestic fuel, they said that it was part and parcel of the Rio agreement. That seemed to paint a bright picture for the Government, but in reality they were looking for money and not adhering to the agreement at all.
    1128
    Hon. Members who care about the environment should vote with us on the amendment because it is about the green issue of energy conservation and employment creation. From whichever part of the House he comes, no hon. Member should sit on his hands—he should join us in the Lobby. Employment creation is important and there are many opportunities to renovate the housing stock, which would take people out of unemployment and social security benefits and enable them to earn money and pay taxes.
    9.45 pm
    I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). We all talk about the rights of an elective democracy. We are sent here to represent people, and the amendment would remove some power from the Executive, not just in Brussels, but in Whitehall, and would give members of every party in the House the right to say, "We will take the decisions affecting vulnerable sections of society." This is not just an argument about Europe: it is about the Executive and the rights of elected representatives. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment.
    Sir John Hannam: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made a powerful speech in promoting the amendment. I shall be brief, because the case in principle for removal of the VAT anomaly in energy conservation matters is irrefutable. Obviously, the problem is to try to find a method of achieving that objective, whereby customers would pay the same 8 per cent. rate on energy-saving materials as on the fuels that they consumed.
    As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, new clause 10 was reasonably clear cut, in that it would have established relief from VAT for a designated list of energy-saving products. However, the new clause was ruled to be outside the resolution of the Bill, so instead we are debating a group of amendments that would enable refunds to be claimed by contractors carrying out energy conservation installations.
    Over the years, like other hon. Members no doubt, I have engaged in many debates with Treasury officials and Ministers in an endeavour to obtain VAT refunds for charities and charitable operations. I am fully aware of the strong reservations of Customs and Excise and Treasury officials about giving VAT relief for specified products and services. I am sure that, as usual, Treasury Ministers will produce solid evidence against refund proposals, as well as showing them to be counter-productive.
    Even if the refund system is not the answer to the VAT anomaly, I implore the Minister to recognise our case for a more positive approach to energy saving. It cannot be right that people have to pay more tax to save fuel than to use it. That is not how our tax system should operate. Many of my hon. Friends have shown their support for that principle by signing early-day motion 383.
    If new clause 10 had been the subject of this debate, I have no doubt that it would have been supported by a substantial number of my hon. Friends. The refund amendments do not command the same enthusiasm. If the Minister has alternative proposals for the restoration of confidence in our energy-saving programme, which

    1129
    took a sudden battering in November from the 31 per cent. reduction in the home energy efficiency scheme, we shall be happy to go along with the Government.
    Like many other hon. Members, in November, I took part in the home energy efficiency scheme week. I was mortified when, on the very day I was assisting an elderly couple with draught-proofing in their home, the news broke of the 31 per cent. cut in that scheme. Unfortunately, it was broken to me by the local press. That reduction in financial support will result in 200,000 fewer grants; with a national waiting list of 210,000 households, that was not good news.
    A refund of VAT on energy-saving material costs would represent only modest help to the home energy efficiency scheme, so I would prefer to see a restoration of the lost funding in the next Budget. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will be able to reassure my hon. Friends and me that the Government are determined to strengthen our energy conservation policies and that they will look at the issue again if they are unable to accept the amendment. My right hon. Friend's reply to the debate will be crucial in determining my attitude in any Division that may be called later, and I am sure that that applies to other hon. Friends as well.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The answer to the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) is that there is one simple alternative to the amendment before us: the Government could accept the original measure promoted by so many hon. Members. If the Minister so wished, he could choose to do that. It is clear that, sadly, the Government are not prepared to do so. Just one conclusion can be drawn by all those who signed the early-day motion, including many Conservative Members. If they believe in what they said they believed in by signing that early-day motion, they will vote in favour of the amendment.
    If the Government pursue their current line, the Paymaster General will put his own colleagues in an extremely difficult position. He is asking them to choose between standing by what they said they believed in publicly by signing the early-day motion, and supporting their party. I understand that difficulty, but if the Government pursue that line, they will be defeated tonight. I certainly hope so, because that would be the only creditable position for the House to adopt, given the widespread support for the early-day motion.
    The amendment deserves support, quite apart from the fundamental principle involved. It offers good news for the industry, which has been hit by the cuts in the home energy efficiency scheme grants, which were so unexpectedly announced in November, as the hon. Member for Exeter said. It would be good news for jobs and for the environment. It would also be good news for those currently living in damp, cold homes that they cannot afford to heat properly. Those arguments have been put very well already, and I do not intend to dwell on them.
    It is nonsense for the House to be in the current position of supporting a regime whereby those who seek to save energy are penalised by the tax system, whereas those who use it wastefully are supported by it. That cannot be maintained. The Finance Bill already contains a refund system for certain building works, and all the amendment seeks to do is to add an extra category of goods for refund.
    1130
    Although hon. Members would prefer a different system from that advocated in the amendment, that system works and the necessary bureaucracy has already been created. That is not at issue here. That system would offer the benefits to which I referred and, above all, it reflects the concern that so many hon. Members have already expressed by supporting the early-day motion. If they are honourable men and women, they will support the amendment.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: I do not intend to reiterate the points that have already been made in the debate, most of which I agree with, but I have a couple of pleas to make to my right hon. Friend before he answers the debate. If he is unable to accept the amendment—and it will not be a great surprise to me if he is unable to do so, because I am sure he could find plenty of good technical arguments objecting to it—I hope that he will say something about his view of the principles involved. Both inside and outside the House, there is overwhelming support for what the amendment is designed to achieve: to produce the same VAT rate for energy use and energy saving.
    Energy efficiency is one of those rare subjects where economic, environmental and job creation aims coincide. In that respect, it is a happy and unusual subject. That makes the principle that the amendment would establish genuinely difficult to fault. If in answering the debate my right hon. Friend deals only with deficiencies in the amendment and does not deal with the principles, the issue is bound to return. I hope, therefore, that, if he does not accept the amendment, for whatever reason, he will at least assure the House that the issue will be examined with a view to finding, between now and the next Budget, a satisfactory method of achieving the principle and the amendment's aim.
    Reducing the VAT rate on energy-saving materials to the same rate as on fuel can be achieved in a variety of ways. I would be happy if my right hon. Friend said that he will perhaps introduce measures in the Budget, provided that—I recognise that the Treasury may be concerned about administrative costs and the cost of the concession—in the next eight months, he can be satisfied in relation to the total cost of the concession and the bureaucratic difficulties that some people suggest may arise. If he told the House that, subject to that, he would accept the principle, that would be a huge step forward.
    My right hon. Friend's task has not been made easier by the change to the funding of the home energy efficiency scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) referred to the change, which was announced just before Christmas. If there are to be alternative solutions, many hon. Members would be happy for that reduction in funding to be restored. That would be another way of dealing with the issue and of demonstrating the Government's commitment.
    There are other ways of doing that. If the Government were able to give energy efficiency a higher profile—for example, if they could emphasise the importance of publishing energy ratings for every property, especially at the time when a property or tenancy changes hands—that would be a step in the right direction. Energy efficiency remains an unglamorous subject. If people understood it more clearly, they would find that the benefits that can be achieved from energy efficiency and energy saving are so great that they would have every motivation to take the necessary steps in relation to their property.

    1131
    I should like to make one final suggestion to my right hon. Friend. If he offered even a temporary cut in VAT, for a year or two, that would be helpful. It would provide an incentive, boost the building industry at a time when jobs are still needed and give a higher profile to the subject. My right hon. Friend was once responsible for energy efficiency issues. I know of his interest in the subject and I look forward to his response, when I hope that he will demonstrate his commitment to the principle.
    Ms Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on his creativity in drafting these complex amendments, which aim, by way of a refund, to reduce the VAT rate on energy-saving materials to 8 per cent., putting it in line with that on fuel. He acknowledged, as other hon. Members have, that there are some drafting problems in that the Budget resolution is drawn so tightly that it is the only way in which the House can express its view on a proposal to reduce the VAT on energy-saving materials.
    As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) rightly pointed out, there are easier, less complex ways to achieve the same objective, but that is prevented by way of the Budget resolution. The House is left with this rather complicated method of expressing a view.
    The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) called for the formation of a popular front—one-nation Members of Parliament acting in unison to defend those who, through their poverty, are cast out by the Government by the prevention of reasonably priced energy-efficient materials.
    Instead of giving us bureaucratic and technical excuses, the Government should be agreeing to take the proposals forward in the 12-month period provided by the amendments, and should come back next year with clear proposals on how the will of the House can be enacted. We disagree with the Government. We do not believe that the proposals would be ruled out by the sixth directive, but we are prepared—as the hon. Member for Southend, East rightly challenged us to be—to put it to the test.
    We shall support the amendments, not because they are the best way in which to achieve our ends but because they are the only way that is offered to us. The Minister must explain whether he is against the principle that VAT on energy-saving materials should be the same as VAT on fuel, or whether he is telling us that Brussels prevents us from making them the same. If Brussels is preventing us, he should clearly explain why. We believe that he has no reasons to offer and we shall vote against the Government.
    I want to make it clear that, despite the fact that the director of Friends of the Earth on "Today" this morning seemed to know by telepathy what the Front-Bench team of Her Majesty's Opposition were going to do, he was wrong. We shall be voting against the Government, we intended to vote against the Government, and I ask all hon. Members in the name of justice, jobs, democracy and energy efficiency to vote with us.
    10 pm
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is clear from this debate and other debates that the House is strongly committed to the cause of energy efficiency. No one who heard the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) can doubt his commitment to that aim, which is shared by me
    1132
    personally and by the Government as a whole. We give considerable help, practical advice and grant assistance to improve the way in which the country uses energy. We can all unite behind the amendment's motive, even if we disagree on the mechanism.
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, South pointed out that he—as well as perhaps other hon. Members—has previously raised the issue of cutting the rate of VAT for energy-efficient material. I must make the point, however, that that request must take its place alongside many others that I receive for favourable and reduced rates of VAT on a range of other goods and services. Many right and hon. Members who are present have written to me—often on behalf of constituents—urging lower rates of VAT for hotel and tourist accommodation, for example. There has been a strong campaign for that recently. Requests have also been made about repairs to buildings, particularly historical buildings and churches. People have also asked for lower rates on sanitary products for women—that is strongly urged on the Government from time to time—and for more favourable VAT treatment for the disabled and for charities in general. All those cases—
    Mr. Simpson: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister's winding-up speech, but does he understand that what I was asking for was no more than what was requested by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer—a level playing field, so that we do not tax energy saving more heavily than energy consuming?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, but other people urging other cuts use precisely the same argument. For instance, we apply VAT at the full 17.5 per cent. to repairs to listed buildings, whereas alterations to listed buildings are zero-rated. So people writing to me make the same point: why not have a level system, with zero rating applying to both?
    I promise the hon. Gentleman that he is not unique in drawing our attention to perceived anomalies in the VAT system. As a Minister, I have inherited a system containing within it anomalies that doubtless we would like to correct in various ways—but to choose between the well-argued and plausible cases put to us would be highly invidious.
    The other examples that I gave are all well argued and heartfelt, yet to concede on all of them would seriously erode the VAT tax base, and would mean that taxes had to go up elsewhere. I also urge another reason on the House. Our long-standing policy is to favour a simple VAT system with a single positive rate operating with our zero rates.
    The single exception to that, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South pointed out, is VAT on fuel and power. We originally wished that rate to increase to the standard rate. Indeed, all other countries with VAT systems have a standard rate for fuel and power. But here, Parliament decided that the rate should stay at 8 per cent., so 8 per cent. is where it will remain. In administrative terms, that is not a serious erosion of the principle of simplicity, because fuel and power are easy to define and there are comparatively few suppliers, so it creates no undue complexity either for taxpayers or for Customs and Excise.
    However, I contrast that starkly with the case before us. Building materials are in an entirely different category. We are dealing with an enormous range and quantity of

    1133
    products, some of which are, and some of which are claimed to be, energy-efficient. To draw up a definitive list of energy-saving materials and services that would receive favourable tax treatment would be extremely difficult.
    Some products and services are used solely to improve energy efficiency, but there are many others whose energy-efficient qualities are secondary to their main purpose, or even incidental. For example, gas-fired condensing boilers are more expensive than ordinary boilers, but also markedly more fuel-efficient.
    I am sure that the purpose of the amendments is to encourage the installation of such boilers by giving them favourable VAT treatment. But it is not clear that the primary purpose of such a boiler, or of any boiler, is energy-efficiency. The primary purpose of a condensing boiler is to produce hot water. It would not fall within the definition drawn up by the supporters of the amendment.
    A more general objection that applies to any scheme to reduce VAT for this diverse range of products is that someone would have to decide when a boiler was sufficiently energy-efficient to qualify for the reduced rate of VAT. Who would decide? Who would draw up the list? When would a new switch on a boiler sufficiently improve its energy efficiency to qualify for the tax privilege?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to my right hon. Friend's explanation, but will he stop reading from the brief prepared by either Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue and give a guarantee to Conservative Members that he will look seriously at ways of exempting energy efficiency from the higher rate of VAT? If he fails to do so, he will fail to get the full support of Conservative Members.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not reading from a brief prepared by Customs and Excise. I am referring to my notes made for the purpose of resisting the clause. I confidently expect to see my hon. Friend in the Division Lobby with me, because he has been a proponent of deregulation and the simplification of the tax system.
    The proposed scheme and the proposed reduced rate for the complex range of energy-efficient materials would be a recipe for doubts and litigation that would make nonsense of our pledge to simplify the tax system and deregulate burdens on business—particularly small businesses. My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of small businesses and the need to remove burdens from them. The amendment would add to their burdens, because small businesses would have to make sense of the secondary legislation and the complex borders and dividing lines between what is and what is not energy-efficient material.
    The points that I have made about the complexities are emphasised by looking at the amendment, as the House is being asked to approve a repayment scheme. The clause is aimed to help DIY converters—for example, someone who is converting a barn into a house. The clause as it stands allows that person to reclaim VAT on the construction and conversion of that dwelling. The amendment would bolt on to that clause a measure, the result of which will be that the person will not receive a
    1134
    refund for a large building project as was intended under the clause. Hundreds of thousands of energy-efficient conversions would be added to the measure, creating a regulatory paper chase.
    The problem is that there are 23 million households in this country, a high proportion of whom in any one year undertake additions to their houses involving energy-efficient goods. Under the provisions of the amendment, all of them would have to have the work done by a VAT-registered contractor who would have to be familiar with the complex secondary legislation and be able to make sense of it. The contractor would then have to submit a VAT invoice to the householder, who would then have to go along to Customs and Excise to receive back the VAT. That is a regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare.
    Mr. Simpson: Has the right hon. Gentleman received similar representations to those that I have received from small builders' associations, saying that they do not regard the proposals as too complex to administer or undesirable? They are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals in the amendment.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have received representations from many people wanting a reduced rate, but it is my duty as a Minister to point out the practical effects of passing such an amendment and the regulatory consequences.
    In Standing Committee, I was pressed, as were my right and hon. Friends, to simplify the tax system. Indeed, the Labour party voted on its own new clause to the Bill to insist on further simplification of the indirect tax system. I do not understand, therefore, how in the same sentence Labour Members can claim that they are in favour of simplification and deregulation of the tax system and urge on the country a system of bureaucratic regulation such as the one that I outlined.
    I must deal with one further point—that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I do not know whether the proposals conflict with European Community law. because of the very complexity of the method used to achieve the refund of VAT, it may well be that a way has been found of complying with the requirements of EC legislation—I certainly do not want to inflame my hon. Friend by denying that that is possible—but that has been achieved only by putting before the House a proposal that is complex, regulatory and bureaucratic. To repeat the point, it conflicts with everything that I know my hon. Friend believes about shrinking the size of the state, getting complexities and regulations off the back of business and making our tax system comprehensible to the public.
    Finally, to return to the argument with which I started, I take energy efficiency seriously. We believe in working to improve the way in which the country uses energy. I have listened carefully, particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter and for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), both of whom have a long and honourable record of promoting energy efficiency. During the coming public expenditure round, we will look with more than the usual care to find out what needs to be done to improve energy efficiency. If we can find a way to achieve by other means, what the amendments seek to achieve, I will certainly endeavour to meet the points raised in the debate.
    question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 280.

    Division No. 90]

    [10.17 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

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

    Allen, Graham

    Denham, John

    Alton, David

    Dixon, Don

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dobson, Frank

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dowd, Jim

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashton, Joe

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Austin-Walker, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Battle, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bayley, Hugh

    Faulds, Andrew

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Beggs, Roy

    Fisher, Mark

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Flynn, Paul

    Bell, Stuart

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Benton, Joe

    Foulkes, George

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fyfe, Maria

    Berry, Roger

    Galbraith, Sam

    Betts, Clive

    Galloway, George

    Blunkett, David

    Gapes, Mike

    Boateng, Paul

    George, Bruce

    Bradley, Keith

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Godsiff, Roger

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

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Burden, Richard

    Graham, Thomas

    Byers, Stephen

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Caborn, Richard

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hall, Mike

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hanson, David

    Cann, Jamie

    Harvey, Nick

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Chidgey, David

    Henderson, Doug

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Heppell, John

    Church, Judith

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Coffey, Ann

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

    Cohen, Harry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Connarty, Michael

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Ingram, Adam

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Janner, Greville

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

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    1136

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Radice, Giles

    Jowell, Tessa

    Randall, Stuart

    Keen, Alan

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Reid, Dr John

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

    Rendel, David

    Khabra, Piara S

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooney, Terry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Litherland, Robert

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Salmond, Alex

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Sheerman, Barry

    McAllion, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McCartney, Ian

    Short, Clare

    McCartney, Robert

    Simpson, Alan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Skinner, Dennis

    McFall, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McKelvey, William

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

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    McMaster, Gordon

    Snape, Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Soley, Clive

    MacShane, Denis

    Spearing, Nigel

    McWilliam, John

    Spellar, John

    Madden, Max

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Maddock, Diana

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Maginnis, Ken

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mahon, Alice

    Stevenson, George

    Mandelson, Peter

    Marek, Dr John

    Stott, Roger

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Straw, Jack

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Martlew, Eric

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Maxton, John

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    Meacher, Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Meale, Alan

    Thurnham, Peter

    Michael, Alun

    Timms, Stephen

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Touhig, Don

    Milburn, Alan

    Trickett, Jon

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Trimble, David

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Turner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tyler, Paul

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Vaz, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Wallace, James

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Walley, Joan

    Mudie, George

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mullin, Chris

    Wareing, Robert N

    Murphy, Paul

    Watson, Mike

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wicks, Malcolm

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Olner, Bill

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wise, Audrey

    Pearson, Ian

    Worthington, Tony

    Pendry, Tom

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Pike, Peter L

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Pope, Greg

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Mr. John Cummings.

    1137

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Dykes, Hugh

    Alexander, Richard

    Elletson, Harold

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Amess, David

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Evennett, David

    Ashby, David

    Faber, David

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Fabricant, Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baldry, Tony

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Forth, Eric

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bates, Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    French, Douglas

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gallie, Phil

    Boswell, Tim

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Garnier, Edward

    Bowis, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brazier, Julian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gorst, Sir John

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Burns, Simon

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butcher, John

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Butler, Peter

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butterfill, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carrington, Matthew

    Harris, David

    Cartfes, Michael

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Cash, William

    Hawkins, Nick

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hawksley, Warren

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hayes, Jerry

    Churchill, Mr

    Heald, Oliver

    Clappison, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hendry, Charles

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Horam, John

    Congdon, David

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Conway, Derek

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre 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)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Couchman, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cran, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

    Jack, Michael

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jessel, Toby

    Day, Stephen

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Devlin, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dicks, Terry

    Key, Robert

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knapman, Roger

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Dunn, Bob

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

    1138

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Sackville, Tom

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Legg, Barry

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Leigh, Edward

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lidington, David

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Sims, Roger

    Lord, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Luff, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Soames, Nicholas

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Sproat, Iain

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Malone, Gerald

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mans, Keith

    Steen, Anthony

    Marland, Paul

    Stephen, Michael

    Marlow, Tony

    Stewart, Allan

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Streeter, Gary

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Sumberg, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Sykes, John

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Thomason, Roy

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tracey, Richard

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Trend, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Trotter, Neville

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Norris, Steve

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Viggers, Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Ottaway, Richard

    Walden, George

    Page, Richard

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Paice, James

    Wailer, Gary

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Ward, John

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Pawsey, James

    Waterson, Nigel

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Watts, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Wells, Bowen

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Whitney, Ray

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Whittingdale, John

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Willetts, David

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Richards, Rod

    Wolfson, Mark

    Riddick, Graham

    Yeo, Tim

    Robathan, Andrew

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Mr. Tim Wood and

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 4, in page 17, line 22, leave out from '(1D)' to 'to' in line 23 and insert
    'For the purpose of this section works constitute a residential conversion'.
    No. 5, in page 17, leave out lines 32 to 35.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Clause 29

    GROUPS: ANTI-AVOIDANCE
    Amendments made: No. 42, in page 18, line 19, leave out from `83(wa),' to 'in' in line 24 and insert
    `the cases in which the tribunal shall allow the appeal shall include (in addition to the case where the conditions for the making of the direction were not fulfilled) the case where the tribunal are satisfied,'.
    No. 43, in page 18, line 32, leave out from 'of to end of line 34 and insert 'Schedule 9A.".'.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Schedule 3

    VALUE ADDED TAX: ANTI-AVOIDANCE PROVISIONS
    Amendments made: No. 44, in page 172, line 55, leave out 'it appears to them'.
    No. 45, in page 172, line 56, leave out 'that'. No. 46, in page 173, line 1, leave out 'that'.
    No. 47, in page 173, line 2, leave out first 'that'.
    No. 48, in page 173, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert
    `the transaction in question is not a supply which is the only supply by reference to which the case falls within paragraphs (a) to (c) above.'.
    No. 49, in page 175, line 47, leave out
    `appears to the Commissioners to have'.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you can help the
    1140
    House. On Monday, a document was introduced into the House that purported to be a draft of an order that was supposed to have been introduced by the Labour party in 1978 on treating cattle food. The Labour Front Benchers said then that that document would be available to the House, but there has been nothing on the record to identify that document. I have tried to get a copy and I wonder whether you can help the House by explaining that such documents, when introduced, should be identified in Hansard.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

  PETITION

    Poverty (North-east England)
    10.35 pm
    Ms Joyce Quin: I wish to present a petition organised by the North East Child Poverty Action Group and signed by some 300 people, including many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends who represent Newcastle-upon-Tyne and adjacent areas. The petition expresses great concern about the growing incidence of poverty, the great harm that it is causing in our society and the difficulties that confront people who are forced to live on low incomes and on inadequate benefits in north-east England.
    The petition concludes:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House ensures that no further cuts in social security benefits are made.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Ex-service Men (Asbestos Exposure)
    10.36 pm
    Sir Peter Lloyd: My purpose this evening is to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces the situation of service men who have developed asbestosis-related conditions as a result of exposure to that material in course of their duties before 1987.
    The significance of the year is that it is when the Government invited and backed the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) to repeal section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The Government deserve full praise for taking that initiative, which enabled service men for the first time to secure damages for injuries sustained in service which were the result not of hostilities, but of error or negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence or its agents. The ensuing Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 put service men on the same footing as civilians employed by the MOD, and was intended to remove for the future a potent source of unfairness.
    Naturally, like other legislation, the Act had no retrospective effect, and no service man who had sustained injury before 1987 could benefit from it. It simply drew the line under everything that had gone before. I well understand why that principle is followed by successive Governments of every political complexion when they legislate, especially on employment conditions, rights and obligations. Any other approach would nearly always produce too many difficult time-consuming cases, in which the evidence was no longer available or which produced unfairness and anomalies.
    However, such common-sense rough justice, which ensures that everyone knows exactly where he stands, may be right for the generality of cases, but it does not serve for the very special circumstances of service men suffering from asbestos-induced disease and disability. The great difference when asbestos is involved is that the effects of exposure do not become apparent until many years later. So it is only recently, well after 1987, that service men are being disabled as a result of exposure in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, with asbestos, no final line can really have been drawn in 1987. In fact, it is drawn again and again in practice, whenever the symptoms develop and an asbestos-related disability takes hold, and another service man or former service man finds his health. his job and eventually his life taken painfully away.
    The unfairness to the former service man newly afflicted with the symptoms of asbestosis is not just in being told that he cannot apply for compensation because his condition is not really new, as it was the result of exposure before 1987; the unfairness lies also in the knowledge that a civilian MOD employee who has just developed the same symptoms, possibly from exposure while working in the same job at the same time all those years ago. can seek and get substantial compensation.
    Mr. David Martin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this growing injustice before the House. As he can see from the number of our hon. Friends who are attending the debate, it is a matter that takes up the time of, and causes anxiety to, quite a few of us. I hope that his debate will lead to early action by the Government.
    Sir Peter Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right.
    For the service man developing an asbestos-related condition in 1996, there is still only a war pension, while for the civilian MOD employee with exactly the same condition, there is industrial disability benefit and compensation. In a number of respects, the war pension is considerably more generous than IDB, although they both produce fairly similar sums weekly. Where disability is 100 per cent., that is about £90 to £100 a week.
    It is in the availability of compensation, where the civilian victim can be awarded £150,000 to £200,000 in the severest cases, that the inequality lies. Compensation means a lump sum which can make the last months or years of a sufferer's life more comfortable, and can take away a great deal of worry about how his dependants will fare after his premature death.
    The injustice is compounded by the cruelty of the condition. It can take many forms: from the deadly tumour of mesothelioma, to asbestos-induced lung cancer, to cancer of the larynx, asbestosis, pleural thickening and pleural plaques, in rough descending order of malignancy. Most are disabling and life shortening; all are a source of worry, discomfort and reduced activity.
    This well-founded sense of injustice is further exacerbated by the knowledge that the MOD, like many other public and private employers, was culpably slow to act on the evidence, plentifully available in the 1960s and 1970s, that asbestos is a killer.
    There is no doubt that the MOD failed to show the foresight and to exercise the proper care that it should have done. The fact that it has awarded compensation to almost 1,500 civilian employees since 1985 proves that point. I do not know how many service men have also developed one of these conditions. No doubt the information is present in the details of war pensions awarded. I was told in answer to a parliamentary question, however, that it would cost too much to sift out this information.
    So what proportion of the 297,000 war pensions granted since 1985 are for asbestosis-related conditions is not known. It would not, I suppose, be unreasonable to assume that they are running at a level similar to that for civilian cases.
    I know that I do not have to persuade the Minister of the pain and distress that these conditions bring to service men and their families. I know that he is aware of that. I know I do not have to win his sympathy for their plight. Nor do I have to convince him of the inequity of their treatment compared with their civilian colleagues, who were exposed at the same time and with the same horrific, though long-delayed, consequences. But I do realise that, as a Minister, he comes here tonight bound by the law and practice as they stand, and that he cannot offer the House a remedy off the cuff. I am not asking him for one.
    I am, however, asking my hon. Friend to accept that this is a problem which simply will not go away. As the number of victims grows as a result of the after-effects of the intensive use of asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s, so will public disquiet and the sense of injustice, which cannot permanently be ignored. For it will not be until well into the next century that the number of new cases each year will begin to reduce.

    1143
    The fact that, unlike most Adjournment debates, I am not speaking to an empty House, but that my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), and the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on the Opposition Benches have stayed to express their interest and support is an early sign of the strong and determined feeling that this subject will increasingly evoke.
    I understand that my hon. Friend can promise no remedy now, but I make a particular request of him. Will he undertake with his colleagues in the Department of Social Security to study the problem, establish the facts, and make them available to the House? It is unsatisfactory, to say the least, to be told that the number of war pensioners with asbestosis remains uncounted. I believe that the House should know how many there are and at what rate new applications are coming in; what the accurate comparisons between the financial circumstances of Ministry of Defence civilians and service suffers are, taking into account pensions benefits and compensation; and what is the nature and extent of the unprotected exposure of service men and MOD civilians to asbestos, and when it ceased.
    If the outcome of my hon. Friend's study confirms, as I fear it will, a sharp inequity of treatment between service men and civilians, I am sure that he and his colleagues will need to give serious thought to how it might be ameliorated. I do not believe that retrospective legislation is the right answer. Instead, I wonder whether the expedient of the Secretary of State simply refraining from certifying asbestos exposure cases under section 10(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 would serve. I suspect that it might not, as he may have a duty to sign when a case meets the criteria. Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect and let me know, if not this evening, in due course by letter.
    I should imagine that the best way forward is by way of ex gratia payments designed to put the former service men suffering from asbestosis into a similar financial situation as the civilian. Again, there may be some difficulty, because, with the large number of cases that I fear there are, such payments may not be a legitimate source of discretion, which are designed to cover only special cases and not a whole category. Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know what the legal considerations are here, too.
    I urge my hon. Friend not to delay, not only because any extra help is needed by those service men and their families now but because I am sure that he would wish to forestall a case going to the European Court of Human Rights. The Portsmouth Evening News, which has been publicising the plight of these former service men, has opened a public fund to finance a legal opinion and initial test case. I shall not seek to lay out the grounds on which such a case might be based, as my hon. Friend has legal experts who can advise him more thoroughly than I—although I know that the Government have not always won judgments that they felt that they should have won from that court.
    That apart, I believe that it would be a shaming end to this unhappy story if the Government, after more delay, were finally obliged to do the right thing for their
    1144
    asbestos-disabled service men only by the intervention of a bench of foreign judges. We should resolve this matter ourselves, willingly, justly and without delay.
    10.48 pm
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) on securing this very important Adjournment debate. I acknowledge, as he did, the presence of other hon. Friends tonight, and that of the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on the Opposition Benches. I am glad that this should be such a well-attended Adjournment debate. It induces a warm feeling in a Minister who is so used to speaking to an entirely empty House bar one other hon. Member—except yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    My right hon. Friend has been an extremely assiduous campaigner on this issue, and I applaud his concern and, I understand, that of a number of his constituents, to see that ex-service personnel are not left without help or assistance, should they need it, after they have served their country well. I hope, however, that I can reassure him tonight that that is not the case. If I cannot deal with any of his points in my speech, I shall write to him. I assure him that we shall pay the closest attention to all that he has said.
    Before I tackle the points that my right hon. Friend raised in his well-informed speech, I hope that he and others will forgive me if I set out a little of the history of asbestos usage. Asbestos is a natural, not an artificial, substance. Its widespread use dates from around 1890, and its common forms were used widely in industry for purposes such as insulation and fire prevention. Indeed, used in that way it certainly saved lives that would otherwise have been lost.
    The hidden penalty was, of course, the long-delayed incidence of asbestos-related diseases resulting from the inhalation of airborne asbestos dust or fibres. Those diseases include certain extremely disagreeable types of cancer, and also the crippling lung disease asbestosis. They can take from 15 to over 40 years to develop.
    One of the chief industrial uses of asbestos was in ships' boilers and engine rooms, including those of Royal Navy warships. Regrettably, people engaged in maintenance and repair work in such areas up to about the late 1960s could have been exposed to significant quantities of airborne asbestos dust and fibres. Thereafter, more comprehensive legislation was thankfully introduced to deal with the hazards of asbestos.
    Much more stringent controls are in place today, and the use of asbestos has been discontinued in all applications for which there is a suitable alternative. All asbestos products require the approval of the Health and Safety Executive. Wherever possible, the Ministry of Defence employs specialist contractors, licensed by the HSE, to deal with asbestos.
    Where MOD employees, service or civilian, have to work with asbestos, the same regulations now apply. The HSE must be notified, and the work is subject to scrutiny by the enforcement agency in just the same way as work in the civil and private sectors. We have also introduced procedures to record any exposure to asbestos dust above statutory action levels, and to provide appropriate medical surveillance.

    1145
    As my right hon. Friend knows, however—along, no doubt, with all other hon. Members who are present—the sad fact remains that, in the 1950s and 1960s, general controls on the use of asbestos were entirely inadequate. Royal Navy personnel and civilian workers engaged in ship maintenance and repair in boiler rooms and the like were allowed to breathe air containing much more asbestos dust and fibres than was safe, or than would now be permitted.
    For that reason, there are likely to be a number of ex-service personnel, as well as civilian defence workers, among those from British industry generally who are now suffering and, sadly, dying from asbestos-related diseases. I fully acknowledge that, and we do not seek to avoid the issue in any way.
    My right hon. Friend pointed out that ex-service victims of asbestos, unlike their civilian counterparts, have been debarred from suing for compensation by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The law was changed in 1987. Before then, there had been some tragic cases of service men seriously injured by accidents on duty. If they had been civilians, they would have been able to seek compensation from their employer, when accidents resulted from negligence for which the employer was responsible.
    Although the law was changed, so that service personnel now have exactly the same compensation rights against the MOD as their civilian counterparts have against their employers, Parliament accepted that repeal would not be retrospective, and that no ex gratia compensation would be paid for events that occurred before the repeal was announced in December 1986. That lack of retrospection was the subject of careful and detailed consideration at the time. Even for those tragic cases which had largely prompted the decision to repeal, compensation would not be paid.
    In the light of recent representations from my right hon. Friend and others, we have looked carefully again at the asbestos issue. We all have the utmost sympathy with those who have suffered as a result of serving their country, whether the suffering began at the time or whether it set in later. However, to make payments now, on some sort of ex-gratia basis, to asbestos victims who are debarred by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, would be entirely and wholly inconsistent with Parliament's decision in 1987.
    How could we possibly justify compensating someone disabled now because of asbestos exposure pre-1987, and not compensating somebody disabled by a negligent accident pre-1987? At the same time, all the arguments against retrospection, which were accepted in 1987, apply even more so nearly 10 years later. It saddens me greatly to say it, but the fact is that we cannot reopen every page of these tragic histories and rewrite them with the aid of a blank cheque—which is what it would be.
    Mr. David Jamieson: congratulate the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) on securing the debate. He will appreciate that this is a cross-party issue. My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) have a great interest in the matter, and I represent many service men and service women.
    1146
    Would the Minister at least give an assurance? We do not ask for a blank cheque. I have two simple requests for the Minister. First, will he make an assessment of how many service men receive war pensions due to exposure to asbestos? Secondly, will he make an estimate of what it would cost to compensate them at the same rate as civilian workers? If we got that from the debate, without an assurance from the Minister that an unquantifiable sum would be available, it would satisfy many hon. Members that at least the Government were moving along the right road.
    Mr. Soames: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue with my speech. I hope to deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate.
    My right hon. Friend has said that, with asbestos, unlike with accidents, the effect may have occurred after 1987, even though the cause was long before. This is correct, but it is still not a reason for treating asbestos victims differently. It has long been obvious, certainly since well before 1987, that cases of asbestos-related disease would continue to arise as a result of long-past exposure, for well into the future. As my right hon. Friend rightly said, they will continue into the next century.
    I turn now to the comparison between former service men and former civilian workers. It is true that, where section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act applies, ex-service men are not eligible for compensation, where their civilian counterparts are. On the other hand, ex-service men and their widows can apply to the War Pensions Agency of the Department of Social Services when disability or death has resulted from service in the armed forces, in war or peace. This includes those suffering from asbestos-related disease. The level of pension depends on the degree of disablement, but it can be, and often is, substantial.
    I take as an example someone with 50 per cent. disablement through reduced lung function. That means being able to walk only for 200 or 300 yards on the flat. The basic rate of his war pension is over £50 per week. Someone with a more severe reduction in lung function who gets short of breath just from talking or dressing could be assessed as 100 per cent. disabled, and his basic rate of war pension would be over £100 per week. On top of this, he would qualify for extra supplements and allowances for attendance needs, inability to work, clothing, and so on. These could raise his war pension to anything up to about £370 per week. These sums are tax-free and index-linked. The rate for war widows in the age groups relevant here is from about £140 per week upwards, depending on allowances.
    As my right hon. Friend knows, I am not able tonight to discuss individual cases. The pensions in question are not even matters for my Department. But let us imagine someone in his 50s or 60s, whose disability is moderate for a few years, then severe for further years. He then sadly dies from asbestos-related disease, leaving a widow who lives on for some years thereafter. War pension payments to the man and his widow could total many tens of thousands of pounds.
    Of course, civilians with asbestos-related disease might qualify for help from the DSS. But given the level of benefits available for ex-service personnel under the war pension scheme, service men cannot be regarded as

    1147
    seriously disadvantaged through lack of compensation from the MOD for asbestos disease. The average compensation paid by my Department to former civilian workers with asbestos-related disease is under £20,000. Amounts vary greatly, of course, according to particular circumstances.
    For example, someone who dies relatively young, thus losing career earnings, and also leaving dependants, would clearly be liable to get a higher rate of compensation. Compensation claimants can, of course, take the matter to court if they dispute the amount offered by the employer's insurance company. But the average pay-out to civilian asbestos claimants since 1987 for illness caused by asbestos when working for the MOD in previous decades is under £20,000.
    Broadly speaking, I do not think that ex-service asbestos victims can be said to be disadvantaged compared with their civilian counterparts. They are disadvantaged compared with the position they would be in if they had been exposed to dangerous amounts of asbestos in the services since 1987, when the law was changed to allow service men to sue the Crown for compensation, in addition to war pensions. One hopes that no one has been so exposed in the services since 1987, but in any event that is a very different comparison.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that the Ministry of Defence truly has the utmost sympathy for those who find themselves afflicted by those horrible
    1148
    diseases, and that the service personnel in question are most definitely not placed in a worse position than their civilian comrades.
    My right hon. Friend is welcome to write to me, and to come to see me, if he knows of ex-service asbestos cases for which overall Government provision appears inadequate. I would ask him, however, to take each person's war pension into account. Anyone seriously disabled with asbestos-related disease through service in the armed forces can get a substantial tax-free income from the War Pensions Agency of the DSS.
    My Department will study with great care the points raised by my right hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). I will write to my right hon. Friend to deal with any issues that I have not dealt with tonight in detail. I give him an assurance that the MOD wishes to continue to study the problem.
    I am aware of the campaign that is being run and the legal appeal fund that has been set up in right hon. Friend's constituency. We will continue to keep the matter to the forefront of our mind. I share my right hon. Friend's anxieties, and I warmly applaud the steps that he has taken so far to lobby and to raise the matter on the Adjournment. We will continue to study the issue, and I will be pleased to see my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  HGV Drivers (Eyesight Tests)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates he received letters from officials of the Transport and General Workers Union requesting meetings to discuss the European driving licence directive, 91/439/EEC; what was his response; and if he will make a statement. [23066]

  Mr. Norris
  The national secretary of the road transport (commercial) division of the Transport and General Workers Union wrote to me on 22 January commenting on the new eyesight standards for drivers of large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles and requesting a meeting to discuss this; I received a further letter on 22 February again requesting a meeting. I replied fully to the first letter on 6 March setting out the considerations underlying the new requirements and did not therefore consider that a meeting could usefully take matters forward. I confirmed this in a letter of 13 March. I replied to a further letter, dated 11 March, on 18 March.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated concerning the number of (i) fatal and (ii) other accidents, concerning the drivers of heavy goods vehicles in each of the last five years; and in respect of how many such accidents the cause was attributed to the heavy goods vehicles' drivers wearing glasses, contact lenses, or having below standard eyesight. [23076]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies that I gave to earlier questions covering the same issue, recorded in the Official Report dated 6 February, column 302 and 8 February, columns 157–58.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 6 March,Official Report, column 306, if he will name the 95 bodies consulted; and which bodies were in favour and which opposed to the continuation of grandfather rights. [22891]

  Mr. Norris
  Those consulted are as listed.BUSINESS

  1. Trade Associations

  (I) General Business Interest

  Alliance of Small Firms and Self Employed People

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  CBI

  CBI Wales

  CBI Scotland

  Forum of Private Business

  National Chamber of Trade

  The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.

  590

  (II) Trade/Employers Associations

  Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators

  Association of Tanker Container Operators

  Association of Local Authority Bus Managers

  British Association of Removers

  British Retailers Association

  British Road Federation

  Building Employers Federation

  Builders Merchants Federation

  Coach Operators Federation

  Community Transport Association

  Construction Plant Hire Association

  Dairy Trade Federation

  Federation of Public Passenger Transport Employers

  Freight Transport Association

  Institute of Road Transport Engineers

  National Owner Drivers Association UK

  National Playbus Association

  Road Haulage Association

  Showman's Guild of Great Britain

  Wales Community Transport Operators Association

  2. Employees Representative Bodies

  Fire Brigades' Union

  National Joint Committee for Young Large Goods Drivers

  National Union of Road Transport Operatives

  National Union of General and Municipal Workers

  Road Transport Association

  Trades Union Congress

  Transport and General Workers Union

  United Road Transport Union

  3. Insurance Industry

  Motor Insurers Bureau

  Association of British Insurers

  Lloyds Motor Underwriters Association

  4. Motor Trade

  Retail Motor Industry Federation

  Scottish Motor Trade Association Ltd.

  Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  SPECIALIST

  1. Medical

  Association of British Dispensing Opticians

  Association of Optometrists

  British Medical Association

  College of Ophthalmologists

  The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians

  Medical Committee on Accident Prevention

  Society of Opticians

  2. Road Safety

  Accident Officers Association

  Association of Independent Road Safety Officers

  Association of London Borough Road Safety

  Officers Institute of Road Safety Officers

  Parliamentary Advisory Council of Transport Safety

  Road Operators Safety Council

  Safety Training Advisory Council

  591

  3. User/Transport Interest

  Confederation of Passenger Transport UK

  Institute of Transport Administration

  Motorcycle Action Group

  National Advisory Unit for Community Transport

  Pedestrians Association

  Scottish Community Transport Group

  4. Motoring Organisations

  Automobile Association

  Royal Automobile Association

  . Driving Instructors

  Approved Driving Instructors

  Approved Driving Instructors of Scotland

  Driving Instructors Scottish Council

  Institute of HGV Driving Instructors

  Institute of RAC Registered Instructors

  Motor Schools Association of Great Britain

  National Association of Approved Driving Instructors

  Road Transport Industry Training Board

  5. Others

  Keep Death Off Our Roads (K-Door)

  National Council for Civil Liberties

  6. Press

  Commercial Motor Magazine

  Motor Transport Magazine

  GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

  1. Central Government

  Department of Employment

  Home Office

  Department of Environment, Northern Ireland

  Welsh Office

  2. Police

  Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

  ACPO Scotland

  3. Courts

  Justices Clerks Society

  4. Local Authorit

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of London Authorities

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  London Boroughs Association

  National Association of Local Councils

  Welsh Office of the Association of District Councils

  Committee of Welsh District Councils

  5. Others

  States of Guernsey

  Isle of Man

  States of Jersey

  Sixteen of the above organisations responded: 11 supported abolition of grandfather rights; five opposed. We did not advise those consulted that their responses might be made public and therefore in line with established practice individual respondents are not identified.
  592

  London Underground
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce(a) delays on London Underground and (b) the number of station closures (i) for over 15 minutes due to attributable causes and (ii) due to repair work. [22946]

  Mr. Norris
  Responsibility for minimising delays and temporary station closures on the underground is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd. However, I have recently set new quality of service objectives for LUL to achieve by March 1999, with interim objectives for 1996–97. These objectives include higher targets for service reliability and for customer satisfaction with the quality of train service, and a new target for the percentage of scheduled train miles operated.

  All of the targets are set out in the table.

  Percentage

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1989–89

  Measure

  target

  to date

  target

  target

  Train service regularity (percentage headways achieved)

  95.7

  95.8

  95.7

  96.2

  Percentage schedule operated

  —

  96.4

  96.5

  97.2

  Ticket purchase (percentage queuing under 3 minutes)

  98.0

  97.5

  98.0

  98.0

  Escalator availability

  92.0

  92.7

  92.0

  94.5

  Lift availability

  95.0

  95.7

  96.0

  96.0

  Train service CSR

  77.0

  76.0

  76.0

  78.0

  Train and station information CSR

  —

  73.0

  73.0

  76.0

  Customer security and safety CSR

  83.0

  82.0

  83.0

  83.0

  Staff helpfulness and availability CSR

  69.0

  68.0

  69.0

  71.0

  Train and station cleanliness CSR

  —

  68.0

  69.0

  71.0

  CSR = Customer Satisfaction Rating.

  London Transport
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to provide the bulk of funds to London Transport announced by the Secretary of State in 1991. [22947]

  Mr Norris
  Grant for London Transport in 1992–93 was paid in line with that announced in the 1991 autumn statement. The plans then announced for grant in later years have been superseded by subsequent years' announcements. The Government's current plans for the provision of grant for London Transport were announced in the unified Budget in November 1995.

  Departmental Secondment
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individuals, by name, civil service post and receiving company, who are on temporary secondment from his Department to industry as part of the continuing programme of interchange of staff with the private sector. [22791]
  593
  Mr. Norris
  The information is set out in the table.

  Transport secondees to private sector

  Name

  Grade in civil service

  Company seconded to

  Mr. Steve D. Allen

  7

  J. Henry Schroder & Co. Ltd.

  Mr. William Hills

  7

  Union Railways Ltd.

  Mr. Alan Jeffs

  7

  Black Country Development Corporation

  Ms Lynda Jones

  SEO (part time)

  Cispotel (lifeboat fund-charity)

  Mr. John H. Mairs

  SPTO

  International Atomic Energy Agency

  Mr. Nick Patel

  7

  Bristol Development Corporation

  Motorways (New Service Areas)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on providing access from the motorway network to new motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement. [23721]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency is consulted on all planning applications for new motorway service areas—MSAs. It will not normally object so long as the proposal meets a range of minimum requirements relating to the facilities to be provided and the spacing of the site from other MSAs, and provided the proposed access arrangements are acceptable in safety and traffic management terms. As a matter of policy, however, we do not expect to connect new MSAs to any motorway which, because of exceptional traffic circumstances, has been or is expected to be widened to dual five lane standard. To do so would invite further congestion on what are the most heavily used parts of the motorway network

  Weighbridges
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trials are currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom of weighing-in-motion weighbridges; and what proposals he has to implement them nationally. [23300]

  Mr. Norris
  The Vehicle Inspectorate is trialling weigh-in-motion equipment at three sites. The results of the trials will inform decisions on how such equipment might be used most effectively to support enforcement against overloading.

  Highways Agency Expenditure
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected outturn expenditure of the Highways Agency for the financial year 1995–96, broken down between (i) assessment, strengthening, repair and upgrading of structures, (ii) capital maintenance of roads, (iii) motorway control and communications equipment, (iv) network enhancements, (v) national schemes, (vi) routine maintenance, (vii) research and development 594
  and (viii) other activities; and what proportion, by value of the work planned for 1995–96 in the Highways Agency's business plan, is expected to be completed within this financial year. [22757]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 27 March 1996:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you asked for details of the expected outturn of the Highways Agency for the financial year 1995–96. I attach detailed forecasts, broken down into the categories which you requested, which were prepared on the basis of outturn figures available at the end of February. I expect the final outturn to be rather higher but still within the Agency's overall Vote of £1782m.
  You also asked what proportion, by value of the work planned for 1995–96 in the Business Plan, is expected to be completed within this financial year. The Agency is on course to meet all of the targets in the Business Plan, as amended by Ministers in January.

  Forecast Outturn 1995–96 £ million

  (i) assessment, strengthening, repair and upgrading structures

  108.1

  (ii) capital maintenance of roads

  303.7

  (iii) motorway control and communications equipment

  48.6

  (iv) network enhancements

  67.3

  (v) national schemes

  775.6

  (vi) routine maintenance

  161.5

  (vii) research and development

  11.8

  (viii) other activities (including Preparation and Supervision and Land)

  410.6

  Total Programme Forecast (Gross)

  1,887.2

  Total Programme Forecast (net of appropriations-in-aid)

  1,749.2

  Note:

  Routine Maintenance includes Routine and Winter Maintenance and Communications Maintenance.

  Source:

  February 1996 MMR and 1996–97 Business Plan.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much British Rail and its successor bodies have spent on the painting of the Forth rail bridge in each of the last four financial years, and in the current financial year; and what changes have occurred in the method used for painting the bridge. [22843]

  Mr. Watts
  On the question of costs, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 November 1995, column 150.

  I understand that the painting methodology changed in the early 1980s when British Rail began moving from a short-term cycle of repainting to a long-term cycle.

  Aircraft Movements
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, columns 308–9, what records the Civil Aviation Authority maintains of aircraft taking off and landing without allocated slots. [21733]
  595
  Mr. Norris
  The CAA does not maintain records specifically of aircraft taking off or landing without being allocated a runway slot.

ENVIRONMENT

  Organic Pollutants
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government will support the efforts of the UN environment programme to draw up a global, legally binding treaty to ban the most dangerous identified persistent organic pollutants at the forthcoming meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development. [22265]

  Mr. Gummer
  The UK has played a major role in developing a proposed protocol on persistent organic pollutants under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. The Government support the United Nations Environment Programme initiative to build on this work and will play an active role in its development.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to draw up a national plan of action(a) to end the United Kingdom's use of the most dangerous identified persistent organic pollutants and (b) to phase out the disposal of raw sewage and industrial waste in rivers and oceans. [22266]

  Mr. Gummer
  The 12 most dangerous persistent organic pollutants identified by the United Nations Environment Programme are no longer used in this country, except for polychlorobiphenyls, the use of which is being phased out.

  In line with the requirements of the urban waste water treatment directive, an implementation programme, which includes the provision of treatment for all significant discharges of sewage, has been established. A copy of this programme is in the Library of the House.

  The discharge of industrial waste from prescribed processes is controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. In issuing permits, it requires dischargers to apply the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the operators of purpose-built incinerators concerning the Government's policy statement, "Making Waste Work". [22955]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have received a number of representations from organisations representing the industry.

  Drinking Water
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated average cost per gallon of treating drinking water drawn from(a) reservoirs, (b) rivers and (c) groundwater. [22980]
  596
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Trafford Home Improvement Services
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what actions have been taken by his Department since the liquidation of Trafford Home Improvement Services to safeguard(a) public money and (b) moneys owed to owner-occupiers and building firms; and when these actions were taken; [23043]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the position of creditors of Trafford Home Improvement Services; [23044]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the discussions he has held with Trafford council in respect of the liquidation of Trafford Home Improvement Services; [23045]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the liquidation of Trafford Home Improvement Services in Trafford, Greater Manchester; [23046]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department, Trafford council and Trafford Home Improvement Services, with reference to appointments to that body or concerning that body which were made by him, or by Trafford council and the financial regulations which he imposed; [23047]

  (6) when his Department was made aware of the financial position of Trafford Home Improvement Services which led to its liquidation; and what action his Department took. [23048]

  Mr. Clappison
  In early February, my Department was informed by Trafford council that Trafford Home Improvement Services had gone into voluntary liquidation. Trafford Home Improvement Services is a private company limited by guarantee, used by Trafford council to provide home improvement agency services in its area. None of the directors or guarantors of the company is appointed by the Government. I am unable, therefore, to comment on the position of the creditors. It is understood that the receivers appointed by the creditors will prepare a report in due course.

  Local authorities are invited each year to submit bids for grant towards the costs of providing home improvement agency services in their area. Authorities are responsible for agreeing individual budgets produced by home improvement agencies and for claiming grant on their behalf. In view of the collapse of Trafford Home Improvement Services, the Department has asked for a full report from Trafford council on affairs of the agency. The Department is also seeking to establish whether the authority has breached any of the grant conditions and, if appropriate, will seek recovery of grant.

  The Department has agreed to fund Trafford council's costs in employing an official for one month to assist with the orderly closure of the agency. Care and Repair Ltd., the national co-ordinating body appointed by the Government to advise on home improvement agencies, is also closely involved with the programme of work to wind up the affairs of the agency.
  597

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits for 1995–96. [23438]

  Mr. Gummer
  I propose to make the following changes:

  (a) The DOE/HC (Housing Corporation) non-voted cash limit, covering grants and capital expenditure by the Housing Corporation in England, will be increased by £4,316,000 from £1,149,089 to £1,153,405,000. The increase is to fund an additional £2,820,000 in respect of city challenge expenditure; and to effect a transfer of £1,496,000 from current to capital expenditure under the rough sleepers' initiative.

  (b) The DOE/LACAP (local authority capital) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £1,649,000 from £1,924,064,000 to £1,925,713,000. The increase is due to take up of end-of-year flexibility for supplementary credit approvals to local authorities to enable funding of projects within the Housing Partnership Fund. The EYF entitlement of £933,000 was announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82, but was subsequently recalculated following revised forecast outturn data. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned control total of public expenditure.

  (c) The DOE/RCW (regeneration and countryside and wildlife) non-voted cash limit will be decreased by £2,262,000 from £1,504,274,000 to £1,502,012,000. The decrease is the net effect of a transfer of £2,820,000 to the non-voted cash limit for the Housing Corporation (DOE/HC), to allow expenditure on city challenge projects financed by the Housing Corporation in England and an increase met by a transfer of £558,000 from the cash limit on class VII, vote 4 to allow the issue of supplementary credit approvals in respect of the urban programme.

  (d) The external financing limits will be increased for urban development corporations by £500,000 from £259,514,000 to £260,014,000 to allow Merseyside development corporation to bring forward regeneration projects; and for housing action trusts by £2,855,000 from £89,979,000 to £92,834,000 to accelerate progress on the redevelopment of housing action trust estates.

  (e) The DOE/OES (other environmental services) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £4,703,000 from £32,832,000 to £37,535,000. This increase reflects the take up of end year flexibility (£2,310,000) as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82, to fund increases in provision for: contaminated land; recycling; and, Isles of Scilly water and sewerage supplementary credit approvals. The increase also includes a technical transfer of £2,393,000 from the DOE/NT (new towns) non-voted cash limit in respect of local authority contributions to the Commission for the New Towns under road cost sharing arrangements. The increase will be used to provide supplementary credit approvals to local authorities to cover their capital contributions to the Commission for the New Towns.

  598

  (f) The DOE/NT (new towns) non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £2,025,000 from -£125,000,000 to -£127,025,000. The reduction is the result of additional receipts of £2,393,000 from local authorities financed by the increase in DOE/OES described above. In addition, there is a decrease of £315,000 resulting from a change in the final EFL (from nil to -£315,000) of the former Letchworth Garden city corporation which ceased to exist on 30 September. This is offset by an increase of £683,000 through take up of end year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82. I draw attention to the presentation of the DOEINT (new towns) non-voted cash limit for 1995–96 in the Summary and Guide to the Supply Estimates 1995–96 (Cm. 2775). It incorrectly showed the cash limit to be -£134,301,000 instead of the correct figure of -£125,000,000.

  (g) The external financing limits for the British Waterways Board will be increased by £200,000 from £49,640,000 to £49,840,000. The increase arises from savings on other sub-heads within vote 3 (environmental protection and water) and it will fund additional capital and maintenance expenditure.

  (h) The cash limit for class VII, vote 4, (local government and planning, England) covering sections A to F of that vote, will be reduced by £558,000 from £30,086,810,000 to £30,086,252,000. This change is to allow savings due to lower charges for Valuation Office Agency non-domestic rating work on section A (valuation services) to be transferred to the non-voted cash limit for regeneration and countryside and wildlife to allow the issue of supplementary credit approvals for the urban programme.

  All the increases will be offset either by savings or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) requests for information and (b) applications for grants were made under the home energy efficiency scheme in (i) February 1995, (ii) February 1996, (iii) March 1995 and (iv) March 1996 to the latest available date; and if he will supply the information in the same form as his answer of 7 February, Official Report, column 201. [23073]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table shows the numbers of requests for information received by Eaga Ltd. the scheme managers, and the numbers of applications made for grant.

  Month

  Requests for information

  Grant applications

  February 1995

  27,322

  42,801

  February 1996

  53,874

  58,551

  March 1995

  18,805

  32,390

  March 1996 (until 22nd)

  37,398

  43,450

  599

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Merseyside Fire Brigade
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Merseyside fire brigade dispute; and if he will make a statement. [22494]

  Mr. Sackville
  The dispute is a local matter about changes to leave arrangements proposed by Merseyside fire and civil defence authority. I understand that the authority and the Fire Brigades Union are engaged in talks at the Advisory, Consiliation and Arbitration Service and I hope that these discussions will lead to an early end to the dispute. In the interim, military assistance to provide fire cover if there are further strikes continues to be available to the fire and civil defence authority.

  Loyal Orange Lodge (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many marches have been made by the Loyal Orange Lodge on the streets of Liverpool in each of the past three years; how many police were involved in policing the marches; what was the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [22450]

  Mr. Maclean
  The deployment of police resources and details of police arrests at particular events in Liverpool are operational matters for the chief constable of the Merseyside police. Such information is not held centrally.

  Immigration (Computers)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for introducing computers into the handling of immigration casework. [23566]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The immigration and nationality department has developed a programme to computerise the handling of immigration casework in order to deliver improvements in service, to strengthen the administration of the control and to produce substantial efficiency savings. A seven-year contract is to be awarded to Siemens Business Services under the private finance initiative, by means of which the company will design, build, finance and operate a comprehensive new information technology system for this purpose and assist IND in the introduction of appropriate working methods.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect of the national lottery on charitable income. [23567]

  Mr. Howard
  The national lottery has provided an unparalleled source of new funds for charities and the voluntary sector generally. The National Lottery Charities Board has so far made awards totalling £159 million, exclusively for the benefit of the voluntary sector. Furthermore, a very large part of the awards from the other lottery distributors has gone to the voluntary sector. Of the £1 billion allocated so far to arts, sports, heritage and millennium projects, almost £400 million has been awarded to voluntary sector organisations. This means that almost 50 per cent. of available lottery moneys for 600
  good causes has gone to charities and voluntary organisations. As the lottery continues, similar sums of money will be available to the sector year on year.

  The claims which have been made so far have been based on surveys in which people state whether they have made any recent unplanned donations. These surveys say little about the size of donations, nor about whether any changes in giving are due to the lottery. A wide range of economic and social symptoms has been blamed on the lottery, from a decline in savings to a reduction in cinema attendances; but the causal link, not least for charities, is far from clear. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, while there are charities which have seen donations declining since the introduction of the national lottery, others have reported an increase.

  During the passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill, the Government gave a commitment to monitor changes in charities' income following the introduction of the Lottery. With the participation of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Government have set up a research programme to look at charities' income before and after the lottery was established. Provisional findings should be available by late spring, more comprehensive findings by next year and final results by early 1998.

  Examination of charities' accounts is a more reliable and factually based method of approaching this issue than surveys of the public can be. It is, however, inevitably a longer-term exercise and, in the meantime, public surveys, a useful but secondary method of researching the issue, remain the main source of information. While this is the case, firm conclusions cannot be drawn.

  John Kearney
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the escape of John Kearney from prison officer custody. [21753]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 27 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to your recent Question about the escape of John Kearney from prison officer custody.
  Mr. Kearney has served nine years of a life sentence. In August 1995, he successfully completed an escorted visit to his aged father who could not travel and whose health was failing. Mr. Kearney made a second request to visit his father. The governor, having taken into consideration Mr. Kearney's successful completion of an escorted visit, his continued good prison behaviour and his father's health, decided to allow another escorted visit.
  Mr. Kearney was handcuffed during the journey, but on the instructions of the governor, the handcuffs were removed on arrival. Mr. Kearney made good his escape by going out the front door and locking it, the officers were unable to follow. The escape was reported to the police and a thorough search of the area was conducted. Mr. Kearney is still at large. An investigation into the escape was ordered by the area manager responsible for Kingston.
  The investigation report into the escape is currently with the area manager responsible for Kingston who will decide what action needs to be taken.
  601

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of those convicted(a) twice and (b) more than twice for each of the last five years for each offence for which a lift sentence is imposable by discretion, were sentenced to (i) life, (ii) a determinate sentence of (1) 20 years or more, (2) 15 years or more, (3) 10 years or more and (4) under 10 years by type of offence; in respect of how many of those cases, in each category, the Attorney-General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal; and if he will make a statement. [23033]

  Table 1: Offenders convicted twice of an offence carrying a discretionary life sentence

  Sentence length

  Offence1 2

  Less than 10 years

  10 years or more

  15 years or more

  20 years or more

  Life

  Total

  Manslaughter

  Number

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

  Number

  25

  2

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Percentage

  93

  7

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Possession of firearms with intent

  Number

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Buggery

  Number

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Percentage

  67

  33

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Rape

  Number

  6

  1

  —

  —

  3

  10

  Percentage

  60

  10

  —

  —

  30

  100

  Aggravated burglary

  Number

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Percentage

  67

  33

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Robbery

  Number

  70

  1

  —

  —

  —

  71

  Percentage

  99

  1

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Kidnapping

  Number

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  False imprisonment

  Number

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Arson

  Number

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  All offenders

  Number

  123

  6

  —

  —

  3

  132

  Percentage

  93

  5

  —

  —

  2

  100

  1 Previous convictions are for any offence carrying a discretionary life sentence.

  2 There are several offences which carry a discretionary life sentence for which there were no second convictions in the sample weeks. These are attempted murder, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 13, incest with a girl aged under 13, conspiring to commit murder, endangering railway passengers, hijacking, criminal damage endangering life, possession or use of explosives with intent to endanger life or to do grievous bodily harm.

  602
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The information requested is not collected routinely and data for each of the last five years are not available. A sample of those convicted in five weeks of 1993–94 for indictable offences includes 1,086 offenders convicted of offences carrying a discretionary life sentence. Some 132 offenders in the sample had been convicted twice of offences carrying a discretionary life sentence and 50 had been convicted more than twice. The sentence length given to these repeat offenders in the sample is shown for each offence in the tables. Information is not available on referrals to the Court of Appeal for the offenders included in the sample.

  603

  Table 2: Offenders convicted more than twice of an offence carrying a discretionary life sentence

  Sentence length

  Offence1 2

  Less than 10 years

  10 years or more

  15 years or more

  20 years or more

  Life

  Total

  Manslaughter

  Number

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

  Number

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Percentage

  86

  14

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Buggery

  Number

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Rape

  Number

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Percentage

  50

  —

  —

  —

  50

  100

  Robbery

  Number

  32

  —

  —

  —

  1

  33

  Percentage

  97

  —

  —

  —

  3

  100

  Kidnapping

  Number

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  False imprisonment

  Number

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Arson

  Number

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Percentage

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  All offenders

  Number

  47

  1

  —

  —

  2

  50

  Percentage

  94

  2

  —

  —

  4

  100

  1 Previous convictions are for any offence carrying a discretionary life sentence.

  2 There are several offences which carry a discretionary life sentence for which there were no second convictions in the sample weeks. These are attempted murder, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 13, incest with a girl aged under 13, conspiring to commit murder, endangering railway passengers, hijacking, criminal damage endangering life, possession or use of explosives with intent to endanger life or to do grievous bodily harm

  Casinos and Bingo Clubs
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reference number was given to the consultation paper concerning the deregulation of casinos and bingo clubs published on 27 February; to whom it was sent; how many copies were printed: if it is available from(a) Her Majesty's Stationery Office and (b) other outlets; and at what price. [22767]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The consultation paper on casinos and bingo clubs has the reference number ISBN: 1858935725.

  A full list of those consulted is given in appendix 1 to the paper. In addition, copies were sent to all hon. Members. Approximately 2,200 copies of the paper were printed.

  The paper is not available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office but can be obtained, free of charge, direct from the Home Office.

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make changes to the methods used for the mandatory drug testing of women prisoners. [22663]
  604
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 27 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question regarding the methods used for the mandatory drug testing of women.
  The introduction of mandatory drug testing into women's prisons followed a thorough consideration of the issues involved. Mandatory drug testing procedures are subject to constant review and refinement. There are no immediate plans to alter the methods used for the mandatory drug testing of women.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to date to fill the vacant position of the Director General of the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [21086]

  Mr. Howard
  I am considering the matter carefully and will make an announcement as soon as possible.
  605

  Reconviction Rates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest reconviction rates two years and four years after release for(a) adults, (b) 15 to 17-year-olds and (c) 18 to 21-year-olds, breaking down the figures by gender. [22462]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The most recent available information is as follows:

  Two year reconviction rates1 for sentenced prisoners discharged from Prison Service establishments during 1992

  England and Wales

  Age at sentence

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Aged 15–17

  82

  256

  81

  Aged 18–203

  68

  49

  68

  Aged 18–21

  65

  48

  65

  All young offenders

  72

  51

  71

  Adults

  45

  36

  45

  Total

  52

  38

  511

  1 Relates to convictions for "standard list" offences only. These offences include all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences. Rates are based on a sample of prisoners.

  2 This figure is based on only 59 discharges.

  3 Figures are supplied for those aged 18 to 20 in addition to those aged 18 to 21 as prisoners aged 21 at sentence are included among adults.

  Four year reconviction rates1 for sentenced prisoners discharged from Prison Service establishments during 1988

  England and Wales

  Age at sentence

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Aged 15–17

  87

  66

  87

  Aged 18–202

  75

  59

  74

  Aged 18–21

  73

  57

  73

  All young offenders

  79

  61

  78

  Adults

  58

  43

  57

  Total

  65

  47

  64

  1 Relates to convictions for "standard list" offences only. These offences include all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences. Rates are based on a samples of prisoners.

  2 Figures are supplied for those aged 18 to 20 in addition to those aged 18 to 21 as prisoners aged 21 at sentence are included among adults.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Death and Redevelopment Scheme
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who was the last guarantor for the industrial death and redevelopment scheme. [22997]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation, which remains liable to meet all entitlements under the industrial death and retirement scheme.

  Marathon Oil Well (Douglas Head)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the decision by Marathon Oil plc to drill an exploration well 5.6 miles east-south-east from Douglas head. [22455]
  606
  Mr. Page
  The proposed drilling activity will take place in block 112/29 which falls within the Isle of Man territorial waters and is therefore a matter for the Isle of Man Government.

  Seismic Tests (Solway Firth)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the decision by Esso plc to carry out exploratory seismic operations in the Solway firth; and if he will make a statement. [22454]

  Mr. Page
  Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd. is the licensee of blocks 112/10, 112/14, 112/15 and 113/11 in the north Irish sea, which are located to the west of the Solway firth bay closing line. The licensed area of these blocks does not extend into the Solway firth.

  These blocks were awarded in the 14th round of offshore oil and gas licensing and are subject to strict conditions—which were agreed with other Government Departments and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—to take account of the concerns of other users of the sea and protect any environmental sensitivities which have been identified in the area. I have placed a copy of the 14th round indicative licence conditions in the Library of the House.

  The company has already completed seismic operations in the area, and is close to concluding an extensive and wide-ranging consultation exercise regarding its plans to drill. Those consulted include Government Departments, the JNCC,the fishing industry and local authorities.

  Institute of Animal Health
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many scientists and researchers were employed at the Institute of Animal Health in Edinburgh in each year since 1990 up to the current date. [22951]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The number of people in terms of full-time equivalents employed at the neuropathogenesis unit in the science grades for the respective years since 1990 is:

  Year

  Number of science employees

  1990

  25

  1991

  30

  1992

  40

  1993

  41

  1994

  36.5

  1995

  26

  1996

  33

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21865]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: My Department is not required to consult its advisory non-departmental public bodies prior to

  607
  legislative proposals, although it does so whenever appropriate. Nor is it required to publish its response to advice supplied by advisory non-departmental public bodies.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency Offices (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefits Agency offices there have been in Wales in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [22375]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency was established in 1991 and the information requested from that date is set out in the table:

  Main processing offices

  Public caller outlets

  1991

  37

  38

  1992

  37

  38

  1993

  37

  38

  1994

  36

  39

  1995

  35

  40

  1996

  34

  41

  National Insurance (Actors)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has (i) to take actors out of class 1 national insurance and (ii) to consult them before implementing such plans; and if he will make a statement. [22697]

  Mr. Heald
  We have been considering for some time the implications of treating actors as self-employed for national insurance purposes as the majority are now for tax purposes and we have already consulted widely on the matter. We have written to the British Actors' Equity Association and other performers' representatives to invite them to further discussions.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Somalia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) food stocks in Somalia, (b) the number of people suffering malnutrition in Somalia and (c) the possibility of famine in Somalia in the coming months. [23078]

  Mr. Hanley
  The food supply situation in Somalia has been affected by insecurity, erratic rains and pest infestation. The World Food Programme estimates a 1996 food shortfall of about 150,000 tonnes. The WFP plans to distribute 2,500 tonnes per month to meet immediate needs. To date, it has pledges of 39,000 tonnes.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the internal conflict in Somalia and (b) the capacity
  608
  for reconciliation; and what measures are being taken, or are planned, by (i) Her Majesty's Government and (ii) the EU to assist such reconciliation. [23079]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain concerned at the instability in Somalia caused by factional fighting. A return to peace can be achieved only by agreement among the Somalis themselves. We are supporting efforts by the EU and UN to encourage national reconciliation.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made, and what discussions have taken place, between Her Majesty's Government and British and non-British non-governmental organisations of the possibility of making food aid available in Somalia; and what assessment he has made of the security of that food aid and of the people involved in distributing it. [23080]

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble friend Baroness Chalker and officials are in regular contact with international NGOs about food aid needs throughout the Horn of Africa. We have no outstanding requests for food aid for Somalia. We remain ready to consider further assistance if needs increase. In doing so, we would take into consideration the provision of adequate security for the food aid and those distributing it.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesian police officers have received training in the maintenance of public order in each year since 1990 under the police management training project(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Indonesia by United Kingdom police officers. [22876]

  Mr. Hanley
  The training provided under this project has included courses on personnel management, business administration, training management, organisation development, leadership, and training for trainers, as well as attachments to UK police forces. It has not included training in the maintenance of public order.

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which former public sector research establishments in the Overseas Development Administration have been privatised since 1979; and which public sector research establishments in the Overseas Development Administration are currently undergoing reviews with a view to placing them in the private sector. [21940]

  Mr. Hanley
  From 1979 to date, no ODA research establishment has been transferred to the private sector. Over the period, a number of separate bodies were brought together to form the Natural Resources Institute. The transfer of the NRI to the private sector is in progress; a preferred bidder was announced on 5 March,Official Report, column 166.
  609

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was taxable income after all allowances and reliefs as a percentage of total taxpayers' income in(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) the latest year for which figures are available. [20344]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates based on the survey of personal incomes are given in the table. A comparable figure is not available for 1996–97. For years prior to 1994–95, the married couple's allowance and mortgage interest relief affected the calculation of taxable income. From 1994–95, these have been available at a specified rate, so they no longer affect the calculation of taxable income. Taxable income—after allowances and reliefs given at marginal rates—on the new basis as a percentage of total taxpayers' income is estimated to be 73 per cent. in 1996–97.

  Year

  Taxable income after all allowances and reliefs as a percentage of total taxpayers' income (per cent.)

  1978–79

  61

  1982–83

  62

  1986–87

  59

  1991–92

  62

  1996–97

  —

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional annual revenue which would be raised from Welsh taxpayers if the basic rate of income tax were increased from 24 to 25 per cent. [22688]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: It is not possible to provide a reliable breakdown below United Kingdom level for 1996–97. The latest available information is for 1993–94. The full-year yield from an increase in the basic rate of tax under the 1993–94 tax regime and at 1993–94 income levels is £1,600 million for the United Kingdom and £60 million for Wales.

  Privatisation
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines the Government have produced in relation to prospectuses for privatisation of public utilities. [20693]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: At the time of an initial or subsequent offer, the Government, as seller of the shares, and the company concerned, as issuer of the shares to be sold, are subject to the same legal and regulatory framework as other vendors or issuers. There are no guidelines relating specifically to the prospectuses for offers of shares in privatisations.
  610

  Public Sector Borrowing
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which years since 1978–79 the public sector borrowed more than was required to finance its net capital spending. [22389]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: The public sector borrowing requirement exceeded net capital spending in the years 1978–79 to 1985–86 inclusive and 1991–92 to 1994–95 inclusive.

  Small Pension Schemes
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total number of small self-administered pension schemes at the most recent date for which figures are available. [23055]

  Mr. Jack
  Information held by the Inland Revenue's pension schemes office shows that there are currently about 28,000 small self-administered pension schemes.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue staff are engaged in work relating directly to the administration of small, self-administered pension schemes. [23054]

  Mr. Jack
  Approximately 60 full-time staff units of the Inland Revenue's pension schemes office are engaged in work relating directly to the tax approval and monitoring of small self-administered pension schemes. In addition, some staff in local tax offices are periodically involved in this work, as a consequence of dealing with the tax affairs of specific companies and individuals.

  Personal Tax Allowance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue which would be raised by restricting the value of the personal tax allowance to relief of tax at the 24 per cent. rate and below. [22833]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The estimated full-year yield at 1996–97 income levels from restricting personal allowances to the basic rate is £1.6 billion.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the full year cost to the Exchequer of raising the value of the personal tax allowance by(a) £100, (b) £200, (c) £300, (d) £400, (e) £500, (f) £1,000, (g) £1,500 and (h) £2,000. [22832]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: Estimates are given in the table.

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

  Increase in non aged and aged personal allowances

  Full year cost £ billion

  100

  0.6

  200

  1.2

  300

  1.8

  400

  2.4

  500

  3.1

  1,000

  6.0

  1,500

  9.0

  2,000

  11.5

  611

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present annual cost to the Exchequer of the married couple's allowance. [22830]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The estimated full-year cost at 1996–97 income levels is £3.3 billion. This includes the cost of allowances related to the married couple's allowance—the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance.

  Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the addition to Exchequer revenues which would result from raising the basic rate of tax from 24 per cent. to 25 per cent. in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–2001. [22834]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The estimated full-year yield would be about £1.6 billion at 1996–97 income levels. The yields for future years would depend on levels of incomes, tax reliefs and allowances in those years.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present annual cost to the Exchequer of mortgage interest tax relief at source. [22831]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: In 1995–96, the estimated total cost of mortgage interest relief is about £2.7 billion, of which £2.6 billion is given through the MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—scheme.

  These figures are based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 7.3 per cent. The rate of relief is 15 per cent.

  VAT (Historic Buildings)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of ending the payment of value added tax on repairs to historic buildings. [22690]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The best estimate is £60 million per year.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the full-year revenue effect of raising the level of tobacco duty by the equivalent of 5p extra on a standard packet of cigarettes. [22691]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The Treasury publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" shows that the estimated full-year revenue effect of raising the level of tobacco duty by 5p is £175 million.

  Duty (Hydrocarbon Oils)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to prevent 612
  avoidance of duty on hydrocarbon oils by mixing products after the duty has been paid. [23503]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Subject to a resolution of the House, the Government will be bringing forward two new clauses at the report stage of the Finance Bill. These clauses will ensure that duty at the appropriate rate will have to be paid if non-dutiable kerosene is added to diesel road fuel, or to gas oil for use in off-road vehicles respectively. The first new clause will also ensure that lead or octane enhancers cannot be added to unleaded petrol by distributors or retailers without the higher rate of duty being paid. Both new clauses will come into force on a date to be specified in an order made by the commissioners of Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the law covering the duty on hydrocarbon oils. [23507]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise will shortly be starting a major review of the legislation covering the way hydrocarbon oil duty is charged with the aim of bringing forward proposals next year for having it set out more clearly and simply. Customs will be consulting fully with the trade and other interested parties. The intention is not to review the rates of duty charged or the current rebates and exemptions or the time at which duty is charged, matters on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his decisions in the normal way, but to put the existing provisions in a simpler and more robust format which will be better able to cope with the introduction of new products.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets will be set for the Valuation Office executive agency for the year 1996–97. [23504]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The following key targets have been set for the Valuation Office in 1996–97:Operational

  to clear 100,000 appeals against the council tax valuation lists;

  to clear 330,000 appeals in aggregate against the 1990 and 1995 rating lists;

  to undertake 64,000 valuation cases for the Inland Revenue for capital gains tax and inheritance tax purposes.

  Financial and cost efficiency

  to ensure that the agency's net operating cost, after deducting the cost of statutory non-chargeable work, is at least fully covered by receipts;

  to break even from year to year within each business segment, after charging for the full cost of chargeable services including notional interest of 6 per cent. on the average working capital;

  to achieve efficiency savings of 7.9 per cent. on the agency's gross expenditure.

  Quality of service

  to reply to 100 per cent. of correspondence within 20 working days of receipt;

  to achieve specified time limits on 97 per cent. of cases undertaken;

  to achieve a specified valuation quality standard in 85 per cent. of cases carried out.

  Further details are set out in the agency's forward plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.
  613

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the Government's borrowing programme for 1996–97. [23505]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Yes. The Government today published the 1996–97 debt management report. This report, the second of the series, includes details of the 1996–97 borrowing programme and the Government's remit to Bank of England for gilt sales in 1996–97. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sales of Debt
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish a remit for sales of debt by the Department for National Savings. [23506]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The remit for the Department for National Savings for 1996–97 is as follows:Objectives

  The Department for National Savings' declared aim is to support the Government's management of their debt and their policies for personal savings by attracting and retaining investments from the retail market efficiently and cost-effectively.

  The Department's primary task is therefore to be an efficiency and cost-effective source of funding for Her Majesty's Government. It is also charged with maintaining a suitable range of schemes to encourage savings among the population.

  Volume of Funding in 1996–97

  The net contribution of national savings to funding in 1996–97 is assumed to be around £3.0 billion.

  Responsibilities

  The Treasury is responsible, under the National Loans Act 1968, for setting the terms of national savings products. DNS will normally take the lead in bringing forward proposals to Treasury Ministers on product terms, including rates.

  Cost Comparisons

  The Government intend that National Savings' contribution to funding should offer value for money overall compared with other sources of funding. Product terms will take account of the need for DNS to retain the capability and market presence to contribute to the Government's funding needs over the medium term.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21150]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The figures for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments since 1987–88 are in the table.614

  Year

  Oral questions

  Written questions

  1987–88

  354

  2,205

  1988–89

  264

  1,275

  1989–90

  247

  1,461

  1990–91

  227

  1,214

  1991–92

  123

  757

  1992–93

  332

  1,775

  1993–94

  220

  1,285

  1994–95

  235

  1,761

  1995–96

  87

  639

  These figures have been produced from the POLIS—parliamentary on-line information system—database. The figures reflect the number of questions answered and should be treated as indicative only; because of certain factors, complete accuracy on departmental activity cannot be provided.

  The further information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, what the annual production of table-sized rainbow trout from the 104 fattening ponds has been in each of the last 10 years. [21799]

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not available. The licences under which these small ponds operate precludes the sale of the fish produced.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, which Government Department sanctions and licences the movements of the live juvenile rainbow trout from the fish farms which supply to each of the fattening ponds. [21803]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, if he will list by title and location each of the ponds where rainbow trout are artificially fed. [21811]

  Mr. Ancram
  A list of the names and addresses of those holding fish culture licences for garden ponds has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, if he will publish the licences of recorded movements of juvenile rainbow trout from the fish farms which supply each fattening pond. [21805]

  Mr. Ancram
  A copy of the permits issued during 1995 under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 which authorise the movement of live fish and which relate to the supply of juvenile rainbow trout from the fish farms which supply each pond has been placed in the Library of the House.
  615
  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, how often the ponds are tested for enteric red mouth disease. [21809]

  Mr. Ancram
  No routine disease monitoring is undertaken at these ponds where production is not permitted to exceed 500 fish per annum. Testing for a range of diseases, including enteric redmouth is carried out when exposure to infection is suspected and when abnormal mortalities or disease outbreaks are reported as required under the terms of fish culture licences.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, what information the operators of the ponds are required to provide to the Fisheries Conservancy Board. [21797]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, if a fish dealer's licence is required to purchase the mature rainbow trout from the fattening ponds for supply to fishmongers, hotels and the catering trade. [21801]

  Mr. Ancram
  The supply of fish to fishmongers, hotels and the catering trade is precluded by the terms of the licences under which these ponds operate.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, how many recorded uses of chemicals at the ponds there were in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995. [21808]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, on what date each of the 104 ponds were granted a fish culture licence under section 11 of the Fisheries Act Northern Ireland 1966. [21800]

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is contained on the list of holders of fish culture licences in respect of garden ponds which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, how many of the sites where rainbow trout are artificially fed have been granted a fish culture licence under section 11 of the Fisheries Act Northern Ireland 1966. [21804]

  Mr. Ancram
  All known sites where rainbow trout are artificially fed have been granted a fish culture licence under section 11 of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, how often officials of the Fisheries Conservancy Board visit each of the fattening ponds. [21802]

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no routine monitoring of ponds by officials of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland: the monitoring of compliance with fish culture licence conditions is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
  616
  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, what measures are in place to ensure that rainbow trout from the ponds have been reared to Government standards. [21806]

  Mr. Ancram
  Appropriate requirements are imposed as conditions of the fish culture licence.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, how many of the ponds are used and supplied directly by Movanagher fish farm to grow on to maturity. [21810]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, if he will list the fish farms which have supplied and are currently supplying juvenile rainbow trout to the 104 fattening ponds. [21798]

  Mr. Ancram
  Historic information on those fish farms which have supplied juvenile rainbow trout to the ponds is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  During 1995, Seven Springs trout hatchery, Bush Valley fish farm and Movanagher fish farm supplied juvenile fish to ponds.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to combat organised crime. [23509]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government are continuously seeking to enhance the effectiveness of the law to combat racketeering and organised crime in Northern Ireland in a way which balances the freedom of law-abiding people to go about their business against the threat from those who would pervert this freedom.

  Our primary concern has been to counter the murderous campaigns of republican and loyalist terrorists. This will remain the case so long as it is necessary to combat the activities of groups, or a particular group, who espouse violence as a means of achieving their ends. The Government recognise that racketeering in Northern Ireland is intimately bound up with the activities of the terrorists. Indeed, the problem did not disappear during the ceasefires.

  There has never been a clear distinction between "terrorist" racketeering and racketeering for personal gain and the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on Organised Crime has recently warned that combating this menace
  "should not be hindered by concern about what is and is not 'organised' crime".

  This is why we are taking a number of measures to strengthen the law in dealing with organised crime—no matter what its motivation.

  It is vital that those who are willing to testify against criminals are properly protected. Included in the Criminal Procedures and Investigation Bill are proposals which protect the fairness of trials from being prejudiced by intimidation: it will be possible for acquittals to be

  617
  reopened where there has been an offence involving intimidation of witnesses and jurors. In the same Bill, the rules of disclosure in advance of trial are to be recast, with the intention of reducing the risk of unmeritorious acquittals, as where a prosecution has to be stopped to protect the identity of informers. And we hope shortly to bring forward proposals for a new offence of witness intimidation. In other areas, changes which will enable the security services to become involved in the investigation of serious crime will extend to Northern Ireland. No less importantly, we will be taking steps to strengthen and update the law on the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal activity of any nature, in the draft Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order which I hope will be laid soon.

  I will also be looking for ways to enable improved co-operation and exchange of information between the RUC and other forces, whether this concerns intelligence, information technology, DNA samples or other issues. I will look carefully at arrangements between police forces to make sure that arrangements which best serve the needs of the RUC and other forces in the UK are implemented in Northern Ireland. I am also considering ways to facilitate the sharing of information between different agencies and to make sure that Northern Ireland can benefit from full participation in new arrangements at the international level.

  Numbers and percentages of unemployed claimants in travel to work areas' on 8 February 1996

  Travel-to-work area

  Total unemployed by travel-to-work area

  Percentage unemployed

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Ballymena

  1,735

  611

  2,346

  10.0

  4.5

  7.6

  Belfast

  32,498

  9,414

  41,912

  13.7

  5.3

  10.2

  Coleraine

  4,084

  1,132

  5,216

  17.3

  6.9

  13.1

  Cookstown

  1,356

  341

  1,697

  18.4

  8.7

  15.0

  Craigavon

  5,330

  1,460

  6,790

  12.7

  4.9

  9.5

  Dungannon

  2,134

  574

  2,708

  17.1

  7.5

  13.5

  Enniskillen

  2,512

  570

  3,082

  16.4

  6.2

  12.5

  Londonderry

  7,756

  1,544

  9,300

  22.4

  6.4

  15.8

  Magherafelt

  1,531

  400

  1,931

  16.3

  6.6

  12.5

  Newly

  4,682

  1,042

  5,724

  22.0

  7.8

  16.5

  Omagh

  2,081

  508

  2,589

  16.2

  6.0

  12.2

  Strabane

  2,076

  373

  2,449

  23.3

  7.8

  17.9

  Northern Ireland total

  67,775

  17,969

  85,744

  15.3

  5.7

  11.4

  1 Travel-to-work areas are designated by the name of the major town in the area. Some of them coincide with a single District Council area and some are made up from several District Council areas.

  2 All rates are based on the estimated workforce at June 1994.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22515]
  618

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the annual number of extra Northern Ireland Orders in Council that will flow from the proposed Deregulation and Contracting-out Order in Council. [14546]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 13 February 1996]: A composite deregulation Order in Council will be introduced next year and as frequently as necessary thereafter, to carry forward in Northern Ireland, as appropriate, changes being made in Great Britain under the order-making powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and any measures unique to Northern Ireland.

  Unemployment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current number of(a) men and (b) women unemployed (i) as a percentage of the work force and (ii) in total for each council or other convenient geographical area. [22010]

  Mr. Ancram
  Travel-to-work areas are the only geographical areas within Northern Ireland for which both unemployment numbers and rates are available. Male, female and total figures for Northern Ireland TTWAs at 8 February 1996 are shown in the following table:

  The Attorney-General
  No such payments have been made by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Government Property Lawyers or the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has made the following payments in respect of alleged equal opportunities breaches which did not proceed to tribunals or courts:

  1994: 2 payments of £4,000 each to existing staff.

  1995: 1 payment of £17,595.80 to a former member of staff.

  1996: Nil.

  619

  Electro-shock batons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek to prosecute(a) SMDS, (b) J and S Franklin, (c) Compass Safety International/Compass Maritime, (d) CCS, and (e) Civil Defence Supply for their role in the supply of electro-shock batons. [22978]

  The Solicitor-General
  The question of prosecution does not arise unless there has been a prior criminal investigation. These companies to which the hon. Member refers have not featured in the investigation carried out by the Ministry of Defence police. If she has any evidence tending to support allegations that these companies or their employees have committed criminal offences, then she should make it available to the police.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) her Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which she is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22518]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Financial year

  (a) (i)

  (a) (ii)

  (b) (i)

  (b) (ii)

  1995–96

  1 person £1,000

  2 people £5,000 + £ 12,000

  1 person £1,000

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  1 person £16,105

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  1 person £500

  1 person £1,500

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines are currently in force in her Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within her Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22847]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Written guidance is fully in accordance with Government procurement policies, including the principles set out in the recent White Papers "Competing for Quality" and "Setting New Standards" and compliant with the EC procurement directive has been disseminated to staff.
  620
  Tendering processes are designed to ensure that the Department achieves best value for money when entering into contracts. Single tender action is undertaken only after justification has been provided to, and written agreement received from, senior management.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by her Department and its executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if she will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by her Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22861]

  Mr. Squire
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions have taken place with(a) the voluntary sector, (b) trade unions and (c) other groups to encourage people from outside the private sector to join training and enterprise council boards of directors; and if she will make a statement. [22173]

  Mr. Paice
  The membership of training and enterprise council boards is a matter for individual TECs, subject to the requirements for two thirds of the board to comprise chief executives or senior directors of private-sector organisations. The remaining directors must be chief executives or their equivalents from education, economic development, trade unions, voluntary organisations or the public sector.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the local consequences of the mergers between training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce; and if she will make a statement. [22174]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has commissioned independent consultants to look at the impact of training and enterprise council-chamber mergers. They have been asked to report their findings by November 1996.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will take steps to improve the communication and consultation between training and enterprise councils and local democratically elected bodies; and if she will make a statement. [22175]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government's strategic guidance to training and enterprise councils stresses the need for TECs to work in partnership with other local organisations to meet the needs of their local communities. The criteria for the award of a three-year licence to TECs to take account of TEC participation in local partnerships.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to alter the auditing requirements of training and enterprise councils; and if she will make a statement. [22176]
  621
  Mr. Paice
  The Department is carrying out a review of training and enterprise councils audit arrangements in conjunction with the TEC National Council. Any agreed findings will be implemented as soon as practical.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action will be taken where training and enterprise councils do not fulfil the criteria for a three-year licence; and if she will make a statement. [22177]

  Mr. Paice
  After 1997, the Government do not propose to contract with training and enterprise councils which fail to meet the criteria for a licence. The round 3 licensing prospectus, due to be issued shortly, explains what happens if a TEC fails to meet the criteria. A copy of the prospectus will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will ensure that answers to hon. Members' questions on training and enterprise councils are published in the Official Report. [22178]

  Mr. Paice
  Answers to hon. Members' questions on training and enterprise councils are published in the Official Report.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what mechanisms are available to ensure that training and enterprise councils are accountable to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [22179]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies operating under contract with a number of Government Departments. They are accountable through their contract with the appropriate Secretaries of State, and through them to Parliament.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the different costs of training schemes in different sectors are taken into account when providing funding for training and enterprise councils; and if she will make a statement. [22180]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils prepare annual business plans setting out their training proposals. Funding, based on these plans, is negotiated between the TEC and its local Government office. The extent to which the cost of training in different sectors is taken into account is an issue for negotiation between the TEC and the Government office.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines her Department issues in respect of the levels of reserves held by training and enterprise councils. [22183]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department requires each training and enterprise council to specify a prudent minimum reserve level, together with a target level to be met at the end of each operational year. The prudent minimum is determined by each TEC's directors and will include reserves earmarked for specific purposes such as funding fixed assets, financing working capital and specific projects such as business link support.
  622
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those training and enterprise councils that currently hold more than £3 million in reserve; and if she will make a statement. [22184]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 29 February 1996,Official Report, column 38. This provides a list of training and enterprise councils and their reserves, as shown in their annual statutory audited accounts, at the end of the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce measures to ensure that the system for measuring training and enterprise councils' performance is(a) simplified, (b) standardised and (c) gives greater value for money and efficiency; and if she will make a statement. [22186]

  Mr. Paice
  The management information collected from training and enterprise councils provides a sound basis for measuring and comparing TEC performance. We are always looking, with TECs, to improve performance measurement arrangements.

  Training (Outcome-related Payments)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to bring within the system of successful outcome payments the training costs of basic skills up to NVQ level 1. [22181]

  Mr. Paice
  Payments for qualifications in basic skills below NVQ level 1 are already made. Foundation level wordpower and numberpower are payable outcomes for individuals with endorsed literacy and numeracy training needs in training for work and youth training. A separate pre-vocational training programme for unemployed adults, including basic skills, is to be piloted in 1996–97. Basic skills qualifications below NVQ level 1 will be payable in the pilots.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to alter the definition of a job placement for the purpose of outcome-related payments in order to take account of the quality and content of the position gained and the likely length of its duration. [22182]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to alter the definition of a job placement for outcome related payments in training for work.

  Training Schemes (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the annual administrative costs of youth training and training for work schemes for all available years; and if she will make a statement. [22185]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not collect information on the administrative costs of individual programmes.

  Jobseeker's Allowanee
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of existing postal claimants who will no
  623
  longer be eligible to sign by post when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced (a) in total and (b) by parliamentary constituency. [22549]

  Mr. Forth
  The rules allowing certain jobseekers to make their declarations by post will change with the introduction of jobseeker's allowance. The facility will be available to people whose normal journey to or from the jobcentre would take more than one hour, or would involve an absence from home of over four hours. People whose mobility is restricted by disability will also be considered for the postal facility. We estimate that the total number of postal signers will be reduced by up to 50 per cent. from the present level of about 120,000. It is not possible to break this estimate down by parliamentary constituency.

  Firlands Training Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to issue guidance to training and enterprise councils that they should not sign contracts with Firlands Training Ltd. of Aylesbury pending the completion of the investigations by the Department of Trade and Industry companies investigation branch under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 into the involvement of the company's principals in the collapse of the AST group of companies. [23037]

  Mr. Paice
  As private companies, the contract between training and enterprise councils and their providers is a matter for the parties concerned.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Senior Salaries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the annual salaries received by those covered by the Review Body on Senior Salaries(a) before and (b) after the latest awards; and in each case what was the pay increase awarded on a weekly income basis. [21746]

  Mr. Freeman
  The 18th report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries—SSRB—was published on 8 February 1996, Cm 3094. It included recommendations on the remuneration of holders of judicial office, senior civil servants and senior officers of the armed forces.

  Pay ranges and rates for all three groups before the application of the 1996 recommendations are set out in appendix D of the SSRB report.

  The Government decided to stage the awards recommended by most pay review bodies this year. The tables show the salaries payable from 1 April 1996 and from 1 December 1996 when the second stage of the award becomes payable. The weekly rates represent the weekly increase over the previous level of salary.

  For the senior civil service, the Government accepted the SSRB's recommendations for the new system of pay ranges from 1 April 1996. Details of the new pay band framework and calibration are included in chapter 2 of the SSRB report. Awards will be determined on an individual basis by the employing Department.
  624

  Members of the judiciary

  1 April 1996

  1 December 1996

  Annual salary (£)

  Weekly increase (£)

  Annual salary (£)

  Weekly increase (£)

  Group 1

  130,906

  130 (71)

  132,178

  25

  Group 2

  121,054

  119 (66)

  122,231

  23

  Group 3

  116,062

  114(63)

  117,190

  22

  Group 4

  103,425

  86 (56)

  104,431

  19

  Group 5

  88,266

  58 (47)

  89,123

  17

  Group 6

  75,978

  66 (41)

  76,716

  14

  Group 7

  62,018

  52 (33)

  62,621

  11

  The posts included in each group and details of pay variations within each group are listed in appendices C and D of the SSRB report. The 1 April increase for the judiciary includes the committed annual increase which the SSRB recommended in its 1994 report. The figures in brackets show the element of the increase which resulted from the SSRB's 1996 recommendation.

  All service personnel are paid on a daily basis and daily pay rates are produced for every rank throughout the armed forces. The weekly rates shown above have therefore been produced by multiplying the daily rates for each rank by seven and not by dividing the annual rates by 52.

  Senior officers of the armed forces

  1 April 1996

  1 December 1996

  Annual salary (£)

  Weekly increase (£)

  Annual salary (£)

  Weekly increase (£)

  Five star

  124,640

  73

  125,852

  24

  Four star

  100,255

  60

  101,233

  18

  Three star

  74,288

  67

  75,000

  13

  Two star

  65,656

  44

  66,291

  12

  The posts included in each group and details of pay variations within each group are listed in appendices C and D of the SSRB report.

  The 1 April increase for the judiciary includes the committed annual increase which the SSRB recommended in its 1994 report. The figures in brackets show the element of the increase which resulted from the SSRB's 1996 recommendation.

  All service personnel are paid on a daily basis and daily pay rates are produced for every rank throughout the armed forces. The weekly rates shown above have therefore been produced by multiplying the daily rates for each rank by seven and not by dividing the annual rates by 52.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22517]

  Mr. Willets
  The Departments, agencies and other bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible paid £51,000 in 1996 in out-of-court settlements of two cases of alleged breaches involving former members of staff.
  625

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Legislation
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) those Acts of Parliament and (b) those statutory instruments which were enacted in pursuance of the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Communities Act 1972. [19945]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have looked into the hon. Member's question. We do not hold such information centrally and could collate it only at disproportionate cost.

  Embassies and Missions (EU)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, columns 255–58, who, on what occasion and with what authority, sanctioned the establishment by the European Union of delegations in third countries. [22769]

  Mr. David Davis
  The establishment by the European Commission of delegations in third countries falls within the Commission's power to organise its own administration. There is therefore no requirement on the Commission to obtain authority to establish these delegations, although it does consult member states before opening new delegations. Of course, all Commission spending is subject to scrutiny during the annual budget negotiations with the Council and European Parliament.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he(a) has had or (b) plans to have with Mr. Glafcos Clerides following his recent statement relating to the number of people described as missing following the events of 1974; how many Cypriots from (i) Greek and (ii) Turkish communities, are now listed as missing; and if he will make a statement. [23052]

  Mr. David Davis
  None. A UN committee on missing persons was established to investigate the fate of the missing. A total of 1,993 cases of Cypriots who remain unaccounted for have been submitted to the UN committee. We understand from the UN that 1,493 of these are Greek Cypriots and 500 are Turkish Cypriots.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had had with(a) Mr. Glafcos Clerides and (b) the Greek Government on the future resettlement of (i) Greek and (ii) Turkish Cypriots in Famagusta; and if he will make a statement. [23038]

  Mr. Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 26 March 1996, column 499.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been in the implementation of the United Nations confidence-building measures in Cyprus; what assessment he has made of the policy of the(a) Greek Cypriot and (b) Turkish Cypriot Governments to these confidence-building measures; when Nicosia international
  626
  airport will be reopened; when Cypriots will be allowed to resettle in Varosha; and if he will make a statement. [23018]

  Mr. Davis
  Negotiations on the United Nations package of confidence-building measures have seen no progress since June 1994. We continue to believe that these measures could make a positive contribution towards an eventual solution to the Cyprus problem.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he(a) has had and (b) plans with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the present position of the Turkish Cypriots living in areas of southern Cyprus. [23020]

  Mr. Davis
  The high commission in Nicosia maintains close contact with the United Nations force in Cyprus humanitarian branch, which is responsible for overseeing the welfare of Turkish Cypriots living in southern Cyprus. We fully support its work in this field.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government will support an official inquiry into the alleged killing of Greek Cypriots by Greek Cypriot troops during the Greek Cypriot coup d'etat in 1974. [23039]

  Mr. Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 26 March 1996, column 480.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government plan to remain one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus. [23019]

  Mr. Davis
  Yes.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) Mr. Glafcos Clerides and (b) the Greek Government about the number of foreign residents now living in southern Cyprus; what is his most recent estimate of the total number; and if he will make a statement. [23041]

  Mr. Davis
  None. We are responsible for the consular protection of some 7,000 British residents on the island. This does not include 200,000 or so dual nationals who are the responsibility of the Republic of Cyprus. We support the call in UN Security Council resolution 789 for a Cyprus-wide census under the auspices of the United Nations.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Turkish Republic of Cyprus about Cyprus's membership of the European Union; what assessment he has made of the Turkish Cypriot Government's support for Cyprus's membership; and if he will make a statement. [23032]

  Mr. Davis
  Staff at the high commission in Nicosia regularly discuss Cyprus' accession to the EU with members of the Turkish Cypriot community. We welcomed Mr. Denktash's statement last December outlining the circumstances in which he would be prepared to support EU accession by Cyprus within the terms of an overall settlement.
  627

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by his Department and its executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if he will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by his Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22874]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of single negotiated contracts awarded in each of the last three years is not centrally available and collection of the associated data requested could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Russia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the Russian assault on Sernovodsk with the Russian Government; and if he will make a statement. [22928]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We and our EU partners continue to make known our deep concerns about the continuing violence in Chechnya, most recently in the Foreign Affairs Council declaration of 25 March 1996, which refers specifically to events in Sernovodsk.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines are currently in force in his Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22858]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government's public purchasing policy consolidated guidelines require goods and services to be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. In addition, the EC procurement directives and the world trade organisation Government procurement agreement require most contracts above specified thresholds to be graded following competition, subject to certain specified exceptions.

  Guidelines in force in the Department and the Overseas Development Administration and its executive agency reflects best purchasing practice and advocate the use of competition as an essential ingredient for the achievement of value for money for the Department, the ODA and the taxpayer. At the same time, the guidelines acknowledge that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to purchase from a single provider, either by negotiation with a monopoly or otherwise to standardise equipment or take account of (1) only one source being available for technical or quality reasons; (2) repair of original manufacture; (3) repeat order, where the supplier has the tooling, designs or artwork etc; (4) the only supplier responding to a competitive invitation to tender; (5) extreme urgency arising from circumstances outside the Department's control; (6) low value; or
  628
  (7) additional costs outweighing the benefit of renewed competition, takin into account the complexity of the service, the resources originally committed to setting it up and the cost effectiveness of change.

  It is standard practice for the reasons which justify single tender action to be recorded and approved at a senior level in advance of awarding a contract.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if the Government are funding, in whole or in part, training schemes,(a) in the Untied Kingdom and (b) elsewhere, involving members of the Indonesian special forces, the Indonesian military, police or security forces; [23056]

  (2) what specific questions participants in training schemes, which Her Majesty's Government have funded in whole or in part in other countries involving members of the Indonesian special forces—Kopassus--or the Indonesian military, police or security forces, were asked about their past activities with regard to human rights considerations. [23053]

  Mr. David Davis
  Details of training under the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme are confidential between Governments.

  Cuba
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for United Kingdom relations with(a) the United States of America and (b) Cuba of the Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act. [23075]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made clear to the US Administration our concern about the Helms-Burton Act. We will be urging them to use discretion in the way in which they implement the legislation, and will take whatever action we can to protect our legitimate trading interests. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in the House on 20 March,Official Report, columns 332–36, our policy towards Cuba remains the same.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Disabled Football Supporters
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to discuss with(a) the authorities at Wembley stadium and (b) professional football clubs access for disabled supporters; and if she will make a statement. [22426]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: I have no such plans. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 creates new rights of access for disabled people. All goods, facilities and services provided to the public are covered by these rights, including those provided in sports stadia. The Act places a duty on service providers to make adjustments to their premises, where reasonable, to make them more accessible. The Government are currently consulting on the timetable for implementing the rights of access.
  629
  The Football Licensing Authority already encourages football clubs to meet the standards set out in the Government's guide to safety at sports grounds and the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council's best practice guidelines, which both include recommendations relating to spectators with disabilities. The Football Trust is also keen to encourage clubs to aim for the highest possible standard for spectators with disabilities, and always takes particular account of facilities for such spectators when looking at applications from clubs for grant assistance towards new redevelopment projects.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which former public sector research establishments in his Department have been privatised since 1979; and which public sector research establishments in his Department are currently undergoing reviews with a view to placing them in the private sector. [21943]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has none.

  Legal Aid (Marchioness Incident)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what was the value of work covered by legal aid for work by senior counsel, junior counsel or instructing solicitor in the Marchioness case before commencement of representations by the grantees on 13 March 1995; [21978]

  (2) what were the full terms, and date, of directions given by him, or on his behalf, in the context of the Marchioness legal aid grant under section 4(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1968; [21976]

  (3) what was the daily or hourly rate for senior counsel, junior counsel and the instructing solicitor in the Marchioness legal aid grant; [21980]

  (4) what was the date of the grant of £200,000 given in legal aid to those involved in the Marchioness disaster; [21975]

  (5) what is the total amount paid or to be paid under the grant for the Marchioness inquest as assessed by the Legal Aid Board when satisfied that the work, as outlined in the estimate, had been carried out; [21979]

  (6) if the Marchioness legal aid grant (a) was intended to and (b) did cover payment for any work by senior counsel, junior counsel or instructing solicitor acting for the grantees before the commencement of representations from the grantees on 13 March 1995. [21977]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The direction given to the Legal Aid Board in respect of the Marchioness grant was made on 10 March 1995. The terms of the direction were as follows:"To make a grant of up to £200,000 to the firm of Christian Fisher to cover the costs of representation for the families involved in the Marchioness disaster at the forthcoming inquest. The grant is to be made from the legal aid fund under the powers given by Section 4(2)(b) of the Legal Aid Act 1988."
  630
  A number of conditions were also made under the direction. These were: that no further public funds would be made available; that the grant would enable any of the families involved who wished to be represented to have representation; that representation would cover the whole of the inquest; that there would be no claims on the grant other than those channelled through the firm of Christian Fisher; and that the grant would be released only on the production of detailed bills of costs demonstrating that the work had been carried out.

  The direction was given following representations made to the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the families concerned on 21 February 1995. The grant was a global figure, based on estimates submitted by the families' solicitors, for work by the solicitors, senior and junior counsel and two experts. The grant was intended to, and did, cover urgent preparatory work in the four days immediately preceding the start of the inquest on 13 March 1995.

  On receipt of bills submitted by the solicitors, the Legal Aid Board satisfied itself that work up to the value of £200,000 had been carried out, and paid that sum on 30 June 1995 to the firm of Christian Fisher.

  Frederick and Rosemary West
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy that any moneys raised by the sale of any book to be written by Mr. Geoffrey Mansell and commissioned by the Official Solicitor which uses copyright material from the West estate, or any other sums which drive from West memorabilia, will be used exclusively for the benefit of victims of the Wests. [22098]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government have no involvement with the sale of rights in the West estate. The Official Solicitor, who is independent of Government, has been appointed as administrator of the West estate by the court. Like any other administrator, he is accountable to the court and, through the court to the beneficiaries.

  The distribution of the estate and any income derived from it is a matter of law. The family of a murder victim might have a claim against an offender's estate.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22503]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for four executive agencies. As this is an operational matter, I have asked the chief executives of the Land Registry and of the Public Record Office to reply direct. The chief executives of the Public Trust Office and
  631
  of the Court Service, which became executive agencies during the period specified in the question, will reply direct in respect of the period since their creation. In respect of the Lord Chancellor's Department and all other organisations for which he is responsible, no payments to staff or former staff for breaches of equal opportunities have been made over the last three years.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 March 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply in respect of the Court Service to your Question about equal opportunities breaches and tribunals.
  Since the Court Service was established, on 3 April 1995, it has made no payments in respect of alleged equal opportunities breaches which did not proceed to tribunals or courts. The Court Service has paid £3,000 in respect of cases that did proceed to tribunals or courts.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 March 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 21 March 1996 regarding amounts paid out in the current year and the two preceding years for equal opportunities breaches proceeding to tribunals or courts, and for alleged breaches which did not so proceed.
  The figures are as follows:-

  1993–4: Nil

  1994–5: Nil

  1995–6: Nil.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 March 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question requesting details of monies paid out to staff or former staff in respect of alleged equal opportunities breaches.
  I can inform you that no monies have been paid out by HM Land Registry in such circumstances.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. David Shaw, dated 27 March 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about equal opportunities breaches.
  The Public Record Office has made no payments to staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts or (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts, in (1) the current year or (2) the two previous years.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance he has issued to adjudicators concerning family credit in appeals relating to recourse to public funds and defining couples as being self-supporting in the long term referred to in respect of cases cited by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), during the Adjournment debate on 21 February,Official Report, columns 340–46; and if he will make a statement. [23074]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.
  632

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Publications
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has for ensuring that non-governmental publications previously available through the Vote Office will continue to be so available. [22413]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Non-governmental publications which are published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office or for which HMSO is the selling agent can be ordered through the Vote Office, subject to certain exclusions such as works of reference. There are a few cases in which organisations have ceased to use HMSO. There are no immediate plans to alter the green form system, but a review may be appropriate if the problem of dispersed publishing becomes widespread.

  "Commonwealth Year Book"
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what proposals there are to continue to make the "Commonwealth Year Book" available to hon. Members through the Vote Office. [22414]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The green form system in the Vote Office applies only to publications which are available through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I understand that the next edition of the "Commonwealth Year Book" is not to be published by HMSO. That decision is not a matter for the Committee.

  Internet Exhibition
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to educational benefits to pupils gained through access to the Internet to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [23322]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 1 April to Friday 5 April 1996.

  Health Education Authority Exhibition
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Health Education Authority's campaign "Active For Life", to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [23089]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 3 June to Friday 7 June 1996.
  633

DEFENCE

  Works of Art
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which works of art held by his Department have been purchased by staff to use as gifts; to whom they were given; and if he will make a statement. [20911]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department knows of only one such purchase. Senior civil servants in my Department purchased the reproduction "A View of the Admiralty" to present to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell Sir A. Hamilton on his departure from the post of Minister of State for the Armed Forces in 1993.

  Army Careers Information Offices
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 February,Official Report, column 682, what definitions his Department applies to short-term retained offices; and if he will make a statement. [22500]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 29 February,Official Report, column 682, which explains that short-term retained offices are those that will remain open until April 1997.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of decommissioning, in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines, those facilities due to be replaced by the new capital works programme at AWE Aldermaston. [22357]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The cost will be substantial, reflecting the complexity and duration of the task. The work must be undertaken in a careful and progressive manner and in conformity with all relevant guidelines and legislation and the requirements of the regulatory bodies. However, detailed costs of the defence nuclear programme have been regarded by successive Governments as inappropriate for public disclosure.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers and types of Tornado aircraft in service with the RAF, indicating in each case which numbers and types have(a) global positioning systems integration, (b) "smart" weapons guidance and control systems, (c) ground radar suppression systems, (d) all-weather night navigation systems and (e) electronic reconnaissance systems. [22586]

  Mr. Soames
  The strength of the RAF, broken down by aircraft type and number is listed in the annual "Statement on the Defence Estimates," a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It is not my Department's policy to provide detailed information on specific operational capabilities.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the contract for 81 mm mortar ammunition. [22541]
  634
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order to supply the Army with 81 mm mortar ammunition; and if he will make a statement. [22977]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There are three separate tenders for 81 mm ammunition in progress. The high explosive and illuminating rounds are subject to competitive tendering and a non-competitive contract for the smoke round is presently being negotiated with Royal Ordnance. I expect the three contracts to be in place by the end of April.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was his Department's total expenditure on explosives, propellants, and related ammunition and products over the last five years; and what proportion of this was procured from(a) Royal Ordnance and (b) overseas sources. [22589]

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

  Al-Yamamah Deal
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Al-Yamamah deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia included electric shock batons. [22708]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 17 January 1995,Official Report, column 452.

  Navy Accommodation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) officer and (b) other rank accommodation for each individual (i) barracks, (ii) airfield, (iii) shore naval base and (iv) Royal Marine base in Scotland. [22713]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: Single living accommodation at sites in Scotland is shown in the following table:

  Officers

  ORS

  RN Shore Establishments

  HMS Gannet, Prestwick

  41

  263

  HMS Neptune, Helensburgh

  228

  2,109

  HMS Caledonia, Prestwick

  28

  487

  RM Establishments

  RM Condor, Arbroath

  58

  980

  RM Reserve Scotland: main location

  12

  159

  Glasgow, with detachments at Greenock, Dundee and Edinburgh

  In addition accommodation is available at the Royal Naval Armament Depot, Coulport and the Clyde Submarine Base, Faslane

  Army Barracks

  Redford Infantry Barracks, Edinburgh

  23

  412

  Dreghorn Barracks, Edinburgh

  44

  606

  Fort George, Inverness

  26

  453

  Barry Buddon, Training Camp, Dundee

  32

  475

  635

  Officers

  ORS

  RAF Stations

  RAF Buchan, Grampian

  60

  264

  RAG Kinloss, Grampian

  112

  787

  RAF Leuchars, Fife

  142

  845

  RAF Lossiemouth, Grampian

  101

  1,053

  RAF Macrihanish, Strathclyde

  0

  103

  RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland

  14

  137

  RAF Stornaway, Western Isles

  0

  4

  RAF Turnhouse, Lothian

  34

  80

  RAF Edzell, Grampian

  7

  1128

  1 Plus 15 suites available for overspill.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent shooting incident that took place in Limassol, Cyprus that involved a British soldier in a local bar. [22883]

  Mr. Soames
  The recent shooting of a service man in Limassol is currently under investigation by the Republic of Cyprus police and service police. I cannot, therefore, comment at this stage.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is to be taken by his Department to seek to improve the general behaviour of British military personnel based in Cyprus when they are off duty with special reference to visiting resorts on the island of Cyprus. [22881]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department attaches great importance to ensuring that the very good relations which exist between service personnel in Cyprus and the local population are maintained. All service personnel are briefed on the importance of this on arrival and the message is regularly reinforced.

  If difficulties do arise firm measures are taken. Specific areas or individual premises are placed out of bounds from time to time. For example, the area of Ayia Napa remains out of bounds in the wake of the death of Louise Jensen in September 1994, and the tourist "strip" in Limassol and Larnaca are subject to a 1 am curfew for service personnel and dependants. The need to increase or reduce the out of bounds area is kept under constant review. Infringement of the rules is a punishable offence resulting in stiff penalties for the individual, ranging from fines, through loss of rank, to being sent home.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the number of British military personnel who have been charged with being drunk and disorderly in Cyprus in each of the last three years. [22882]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines are currently in force in his Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22853]
  636
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has a number of formal internal guidance documents which detail the procedures to be followed on all aspects of defence contracting, including the selection of the procurement route most likely to produce best value for money. These are supplemented where necessary by occasional memoranda on developments in best practice or updated guidance on specific aspects. A process of delegated authorities constrains the selection of non-competitiveness procurement strategies to instances where the justification for these has been rigorously examined and approval obtained from senior staff, including Ministers in high-value cases. Arguments that may be considered persuasive in support of a non-competitive procurement strategy are the absence of user rights on design information, technical or commercial risk or operational urgency. While the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the Meteorological Office are responsible for the placing and administration of their own contracts, they none the less receive copies of MOD procurement guidance and their procedures are consistent with the description given.

  Export Applications
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has advised companies since 1987 on ways to alter descriptions of goods on export applications to ensure that licences are granted, when previous applications for export or transhipment licences for the same goods have been refused. [22971]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I know of no instance where my Department has acted improperly in this manner.

  Courts Martial
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army and Air Force court martial appeals reached, and were decided by, the Court of Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice in 1995; and when reports of these appeals will be publicly available. [23017]

  Mr. Soames
  Seven Army and three RAF court martial appeals were heard in 1995 by the Court-Martial Appeal Court, the members of which are civilian judges of the Court of Appeal. Copies of the judgments should now be available from the Court-Martial Appeal Court office.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to paragraphs D1.27 and D.1.28 of the Scott report, if he will list those matters relating to the work of his Department since 1979 classified as matters about which successive Administrations have refused to answer. [174191

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Matters about which successive administrations had refused to answer questions was last set out in a memorandum by the Principal Clerk to the Table Office in 1972—appendix 9 to the report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions, July 1972 HC 393. As far as I am aware, there has been no such classification since 1979.
  637
  The present Government's policy is to be as open as possible with Parliament, withholding information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which is decided in accordance with parliamentary convention, the law and any relevant Government code of practice.

  Military Training
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decisions to provide United Kingdom military training assistance to(a) Indonesia, (b) Guatemala and (c) Sudan between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995. [22696]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The military training assistance provided to Indonesia, Guatemala and Sudan between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995 was in support of defence and wider foreign policy aims.

  Army Tanks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tanks the Army possessed in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996. [17758]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 February 1996, c. 557]: I regret that my answer which gave details of tank numbers erroneously stated that at 1 January 1996 the Army possessed 470 main battle tanks of which 350 were deployed in operational units. I can now confirm that on that date the Army possessed 513 main battle tanks, of which 351 were deployed in operational units.

  Beef Purchases
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much beef was purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; how much of this was British; if he will list the other countries from which his Department purchases beef together with the quantity; and what plans he has to review his policy in respect of purchasing British beef. [23000]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since 1 October 1994, the supply of food to the armed forces has been the responsibility of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute. My Department does not specify the source from which NAAFI should obtain beef—or any other meat—but the majority is supplied from south America and until recently some from EC intervention stocks. The use of British beef joints is therefore extremely small, but a range of beef products—for example mince, offal and beefburgers produced from British beef—is provided to the armed forces.

  Prior to October 1994, beef was purchased directly by my Department but no records were kept of the quantities sourced by a particular country, although the majority was imported from south America.

  In view of yesterday's announcement, there is no perceived reason to change existing arrangements.

  Equipment Exports
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what arrangements he is making to examine the nature and extent of information currently provided on the export of defence equipment as recommended in Sir Richard Scott's report; and if he will make a statement. [23294]
  638
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is leading the review recommended by Sir Richard Scott. It will examine the nature and extent of information currently provided, and will take account of the industrial, employment and diplomatic implications of any change in the longstanding parliamentary convention governing the disclosure of information. We shall be seeking the views of a wide range of interested parties and will report back to the House before the summer recess.

  Hon. Members and others wishing to comment on any issue that the review might cover should write to:

  Mrs. Mollie Field

  Export Information Review

  Room 0206

  Ministry of Defence

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London SW1A 2HB.

  Copies of the document already placed in the Library of the House which sets out the current position in relation to informing Parliament about the export of defence equipment can be provided on request.

  The closing date for contributions to the review process will be 24 May 1996.

  Minesweeping Exereise (Firth of Clyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during the forthcoming minesweeping exercise in and around the firth of Clyde, Royal Navy vessels will carry fishery liaison officers; and if he will make a statement. [22453]

  Mr. Soames
  I am pleased to say that fishery liaison officers will indeed be embarked on Royal Navy vessels during the initial minesweeping serials conducted in the new exercise areas in and around the firth of Clyde, following agreement with local fishermen's representatives. Their role will be to develop mutual understanding between the mine countermeasures staff and the fishermen, and to ensure that both may go about their business safely and with the minimum of disruption.

  Civil Servants (Secondment)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individuals, by name, civil service post and receiving company, who are on temporary secondment from his Department to industry as part of the continuing programme of interchange of staff with the private sector. [22792]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There are 26 MOD civil servants who are currently seconded from MOD to industry as part of the Ministry's interchange with industry programme. The list of receiving companies or organisations, with the civil service grade(s) of their secondee(s), is as follows:

  Organisation

  Grade number

  Involvement and Participation Association

  Grade 6 x 1

  Prince's Youth Business Trust

  Grade 7 x 1

  Raytheon Ltd.

  Grade 5 x 1

  Opportunities for People with Disabilities

  Grade 5 x 1

  SEO x 1

  EO x 1

  Docklands Light Railway Ltd.

  Grade 5 x 1

  639

  Organisation

  Grade number

  Grade 7 x 1

  South Dorset Economic Partnership

  EO x 1

  Hunting/Brae Ltd.

  HPTO x 2

  BAe SEMA

  Grade 6 x 1

  Addison Wesley Longman

  Senior Librarian x 1 Engineering

  Dalmuir Suspension

  Technician x 1

  Cray Communications Ltd.

  Grade 7 x 1

  British Railways Board

  Grade 5 x 1

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Fire Services Officer x 1

  Science Management

  BMT Defence Services Ltd.

  Trainee x 1

  The Trident Trust

  HEO x 1

  Chief Typing Manager x 1

  Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust

  HEO x 1

  EO x 1

  Bristol and Avon Enterprise Agency

  SEGO x 1

  Northern Development Company

  Grade 7 x 1

  Kings College, London—Centre of Defence Studies

  HEO x 1

  Fairfax Electronic Commerce Resource Centre

  Senior Patents Officer x 1

  It is MOD policy not to name individual civil servants who may be working outside the Ministry.

  Helicopters (Crossmaglen)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from(a) sporting organisations and (b) others about helicopter operations from the base in Crossmaglen in Northern Ireland. [23065]

  Mr. Soames
  Representations are received from time to time about helicopter operations in Northern Ireland but no record of these is kept centrally. Helicopters are essential to the Army acting in support of the police in Northern Ireland. Every effort is made to minimise any nuisance or inconvenience to the public.

  Attack Helicopter Contract
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place a contract for the new attack helicopter for the Army; and if he will make a statement. [23664]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Following the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, I am pleased to announce that a contract has been signed with GKN-Westland Helicopters for 67 Apache attack helicopters each to be equipped with the Longbow fire control radar and powered by Rolls-Royce RTM322 engines. Apache will replace the Army Air Corps' Lynx anti-tank helicopter.

  Around 180 UK companies are involved in the order. Hunting Engineering and Shorts of Belfast will be involved in supplying the weapons.

  To ensure we have the optimum mix of flexibility and fire power, 48 of the aircraft will be deployed to the frontline in three regiments of 16 aircraft—two with 24 Air Mobile Brigade at Wattisham and one with three (UK) Division at Dishforth. These regiments will also provide support to 1 (UK) Division and the Royal Marines. Nine aircraft will be based at Middle Wallop for training and trials and one at Boscombe Down for trials. The remaining
  640
  nine aircraft will be held at royal naval aircraft yard, Fleetlands as a peacetime attrition reserve. A regiment from 24 Air Mobile Brigade will form the core of the lead aviation battle group of the joint rapid deployment force.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley of 26 February relating to matters classified as ones which successive Administrations have refused to answer. [23059]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21148]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of questions tabled to this Department in each Session since 1987–88 is as follows:

  Session

  Number of questions tabled

  1987–88

  2,536

  1988–89

  3,001

  1989–90

  2,852

  1990–91

  1,618

  1991–92

  790

  1992–93

  2,697

  1993–94

  1,925

  1994–95

  1,846

  1995–961

  624

  1 As at 20 March 1996

  These figures have been produced from the POLIES database (Parliamentary On-Line Information System). These figures reflect the number of questions answered and should be treated as indicative only; because of certain factors complete accuracy on departmental activity cannot be provided.

  The rest of the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but is a matter of public record.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent in total in answering parliamentary questions in each parliamentary Session since 1989–90. [22878]

  Mr. Boswell
  This Department does not calculate the data requested, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fisheries Conservation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to modify the regulations governing the western waters effort limitation scheme; and if he will make a statement. [22451]
  641
  Mr. Baldry
  None. The arrangements for regulating and monitoring fishing effort in western waters are set out in Council regulations (EEC) Nos. 685/95, 2027/95 and 2870/95. These regulations provide for the adoption of further measures including catch reporting, integrated computerised control systems and technical conservation. Detailed rules for recording effort in EU logbooks are set out in Commission regulation (EC) No. 2945/95.

  EU Assistance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of the agricultural projects which have been approved in the south-west objective 5b area. [23568]

  Mrs. Browning
  The European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund provides assistance to agriculture and food industries in the south-west objective 5b area. This area takes in Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly, parts of Devon and parts of west Somerset.

  EAGGF products processed in the south-west objective 5B area

  Project title

  5(b) area to benefit

  Expenditure £

  EAGGF grant

  MAFF grant

  1. Island Procedure—Establishment of a Potato Group

  Isles of Scilly

  38,000

  9,500

  9,500

  2. Isles of Scilly Horticultural Development Initiative

  Isles of Scilly

  202,900

  63,450

  5,845

  3. Horticulture 2000 (including horticultural facilitator

  Phase I

  5(b) Area as a whole

  540,000

  200,000

  100,000

  Phase II

  1,196,000

  371,000

  251,000

  4. Festival of West Country Food and Drink

  5(b) Area as a whole

  34,700

  8,700

  500

  5. Inchs Cider Apple Orchard Group

  Devon

  927,000

  231,750

  231,750

  6. Cheese Farm Market Development

  Cornwall

  6,000

  1,500

  1,500

  7. Plant Biomass—Phase I

  5(b) Area as a whole

  972,100

  284,330

  254,900

  8. Quality Cheese Production

  Devon and Cornwall

  593,000

  130,000

  130,000

  9. Plant Production and Sales Centre

  Cornwall

  108,400

  21,680

  21,680

  10. Exmoor Oak and Timber Products

  Devon and West Somerset

  722,500

  145,178

  145,178

  11. SW Pig Production Development

  5(b) Area as a whole

  12,000

  3,000

  3,000

  12. 5b Facilitator—Mr. G. N. Parker (Bio-mass, Industrial Corps, Diversification and Speciality Foods)

  5b Area as a whole

  135,022

  67,511

  67,511

  13. 5b Facilitator—Mr. N. J. Wendover (Livestock, Cereals and the Environment)

  5(b) Area as a whole

  153,916

  76,958

  76,958

  14. 5b Facilitator—Mr. and Mr. J. M. Woodcraft (Farm Tourism)

  5(b) Area as a whole

  82,530

  41,265

  41,265

  15. Wheal Sara Flowers

  Cornwall

  43,200

  7,560

  7,560

  16. Western Quality Pigs

  5(b) Area as a whole

  750,000

  183,000

  173,000

  17. West Cornwall Vegetable Packing

  Cornwall

  240,000

  45,367

  45,367

  18. Kingsbridge Estuary Conservation Project

  Devon

  60,000

  25,250

  2,750

  19. West Country Tourist Board Farm Tourism Project

  5(b) Area as a whole

  3,854,500

  819,081

  819,081

  20. River Tamar 2000 Conservation Project—Phase I

  Devon and Cornwall

  989,200

  304,650

  224,650

  21. Brimpts Barn—Re-use of farm buildings for training purposes

  Devon

  176,600

  29,775

  29,775

  22. Improvement/Development of Winter Cauliflowers

  Cornwall

  234,302

  74,813

  74,814

  23. North Cornwall Poultry Group—Feasibility Study

  Devon and Cornwall

  9,346

  2,336

  2,337

  24. Bodmin Moor Commoners

  Cornwall

  25,282

  11,016

  10,106

  25. Ostrich Farm International

  5(b) Area as a whole

  1,238,653

  150,092

  150,093

  Total

  13,345,151

  3,308,762

  2,880,030

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from the Cabinet Office and its agencies
  642
  Under the programme MAFF is able to provide support which in turn draws in EAGGF money from Europe. Assistance is generally available in support of farm tourism, agricultural and horticultural development and diversification, protection and enhancement of the environment and the generation of energy from alternative sources by the agriculture industry. In addition, there is a special package for the Isles of Scilly.

  The first EAGGF projects under this programme were approved in March 1995. In the 12 months which have followed, a total of 25 projects have been approved and these will lead to the eventual investment of more than £13 million in the objective 5b area. The projects approved vary from small schemes, such as that to develop a market for farm cheese, to a multi-million pound project to promote farm tourism in the whole area. Geographically, they span the objective 5b area from horticultural enterprises in the Isles of Scilly to timber products on Exmoor and there is no part of the region which will not benefit. I am very pleased with the interest shown and hope that many more projects will be approved in the future.

  Full details of the approved projects are as follows:

  in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [21703]

  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 26 March.
  643

  Duchy Lands and Assets
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if the lands and assets of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are the property of Her Majesty's Government. [22811]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: No. Formal title to the lands of the Duchy of Lancaster is vested in the sovereign and of the Duchy of Cornwall in the Prince of Wales. However, neither the sovereign nor the Prince of Wales is able to dispose of the estates' capital; they are entitled only to the annual income.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22513]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 26 March.

SCOTLAND

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding his policy of care in the community; and if he will make a statement. [21334]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have received many comments on many aspects of the policy.

  NHS Trust Contracts (Glasgow)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts have been awarded by NHS trust in the Greater Glasgow health board area following the competitive tendering process. [21335]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Forty-six.

  Depopulation (Hawick)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Hawick to discuss the implications of depopulation in the area; and if he will make a statement. [21336]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I would be pleased to consider such an invitation.

  Schools
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average number of schools for each local authority director of education in Scotland. [21337]
  644
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Each authority has one director of education. However, on the information available, the ratio of senior officials to schools varies between 1:2 to 1:7.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average size of the electoral register for parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. [21338]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The answer is 55,043.

  Education Policy
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss future education policy; and if he will make a statement. [21339]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a meeting.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on local government expenditure. [21340]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Local government expenditure in Scotland has increased by almost 20 per cent. in real terms since 1985–86, and is 30 per cent. higher per head of population than in England.

  Deprived Areas (Education)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to give priority treatment to areas of deprivation with particular reference to education. [21341]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The 1996–97 local government finance settlement makes provision for 1,000 additional teachers for areas of deprivation. In addition the Scottish Office-led urban partnership initiatives have established education strategies.

  Flood Protection (Tay Valley)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about a flood protection scheme for the Tay valley; and if he will make a statement. [21343]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about a flood protection scheme for the Tay valley. The Perth flood prevention scheme, which aims to protect the city of Perth, has been advertised and submitted to him for confirmation. A number of objections are being addressed by Tayside regional council.

  The regional councils at present, and the new unitary councils from 1 April 1996, have permissive powers under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to carry out flood prevention schemes for the protection of non-agricultural land. Following the 1993 Tay floods, Tayside regional council commissioned a study of the entire Tay catchment. It will pass information from this

  645
  to the new Perth and Kinross council regarding possible flood protection work for rural communities in the Tay. This will enable the new council to prioritise work that it considers necessary.

  Defence Orders
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what United Kingdom defence orders have been gained by Scottish-based companies in the last 12 months. [21344]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The latest available statistics show that the value of Ministry of Defence procurement orders placed with Scottish companies in 1993–94 was £550 million.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of Scottish jobs dependent on inward investment. [21346]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In 1994, there were an estimated 83,000 persons directly employed in foreign-owned manufacturing companies in Scotland. However, the estimated total number of jobs dependent on these foreign-owned manufacturing companies is estimated at almost 165,000.

  Community Hospitals (Grampian)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Grampian health board of discuss community hospitals. [21347]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I meet health board chairmen regularly to discuss all matters of current interest.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress in reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease in Scotland. [21348]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The target set in "Scotland's Health—A Challenge To Us All", the national policy statement issued in 1992, is to reduce mortality from coronary heart disease by 40 per cent. between 1990 and 2000 in persons under 65. By the end of 1994, a substantial and encouraging reduction of some 21 per cent. had been achieved.

  Crime
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met chief constables to discuss crime. [21349]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend met chief constables on 20 January.

  Drugs (Money Laundering)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of legitimate businesses which are used for the laundering of money from illegal drug trafficking; and if he will make a statement. [21350]
  646
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to estimate the number of businesses which are currently being used for the laundering of money from drug trafficking. Where, in the course of their investigation, the police have reason to believe a business has been used as a front for money laundering activities, they will bring the matter to the attention of the procurator fiscal.

  Severe Weather Assistance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what claims he has now received from local authorities for financial assistance resulting from problems caused by the severe weather at new year; and if he will make a statement. [21351]

  Mr. Kynoch
  To date, 40 local authorities have responded to the Scottish Office's request for information on the extent and nature of expenditure incurred as a result of severe weather at the turn of the year. Of these, eight are nil returns and the remainder are being examined to establish whether the scale of expenditure would justify the triggering of the Bellwin scheme.

  Salmon and Trout Fishing
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss offshore drift netting for salmon and sea trout. [21352]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I will be meeting representatives of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards on 3 April.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of objective 1 projects in the highlands and islands. [21353]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Since the start of the programme, 255 European regional development fund and 554 European social fund projects have been approved for funding along with a further 20 supported by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund financial instrument of fisheries guidance. The total expenditure committed, including match funding from project sponsors, amounts to around £308 million. This is made up by £230 million, ERDF; £44 million, ESF; and £34 million, EAGGF-FIFG. A further bidding round is under way and funding decisions will be made in June of this year.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Cabinet committees he and his colleagues attend on a regular basis; and if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of each Committee. [21354]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 18 July 1995,Official Report, columns 1005–12.
  647

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the change in the number of students in higher education between(a) June 1970 and February 1974, (b) 1974 and 1979 and (c) 1979 and 1991. [21355]

  Mr. Raymonds Robertson
  The number of full-time higher education students for the years requested is as follows1

  Number

  Number of full-time HE students in 1970–71

  57,656

  Number of full-time HE students in 1974–75

  66,136

  Change in number of full-time HE students between 1970–71 and 1974–75

  an increase of 15 per cent.

  Number of full-time HE students in 1974–75

  66,136

  Number of full-time HE students in 1979–80

  70,008

  Change in number of full-time HE students between 1974–75 and 1979–80

  an increase of 6 per cent.

  Number of full-time HE students in 1980–81

  72,152

  Number of full-time HE students in 1991–92

  108,079

  Change in number of full-time HE students between 1980–81 and 1991–92

  an increase of 50 per cent.

  1 Figures for 1991 and 1979 are not directly comparable, 1980 is the first year for which comparable figures are available.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for enlargement of the assisted places scheme. [21356]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 29 February,Official Report, columns 622–23, setting out our proposals for increasing the number of assisted places in the next school year to 3,500.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution he has made to the Government's White Paper on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [21357]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's policy on the intergovernmental conference was determined by the Cabinet. I was therefore fully involved in decisions on policy and fully consulted on the terms of the White Paper.

  Housing
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Scottish Homes to discuss housing provision and need in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [21358]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend and I meet representatives of Scottish Homes from time to time to discuss a range of issues. I last met members of the board on 6 March.
  648

  Fire Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on Government funding for the fire service in 1996–97. [21342]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend received a number of representations from local authorities, fire service organisations and members of the public before 1996–97 revenue budgets for the fire brigades were determined.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Scotland's future economic outlook. [21345]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The economic outlook for Scotland is very encouraging. Independent forecasts are predicting healthy levels of gross domestic product growth, falling unemployment and rising employment both this year and next.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances the college boards in Scotland will be expected to administer the travel expenses of students with disabilities after April 1996; what additional funding will be provided to cover these costs; and from what source it will come. [22288]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Students, including those with disabilities, attending incorporated colleges of further education will be eligible to apply for assistance with travel expenses from the bursary scheme operated by the college at which they are studying. A total of £45 million has been transferred to the colleges of further education for the purpose of operating the bursary scheme. Bursary awards can include an element to cover travel expenses.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of students with disabilities in Glasgow who will have their travel costs provided for by the new unitary authority after April 1996. [22296]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: Information on the number of students with disabilities who seek assistance with their travel costs is not held centrally. From 1 April 1996 students attending incorporated colleges should approach their college about a bursary award, which can include an element in respect of travel costs. Students attending non-incorporated colleges should contact their new unitary authorities which will be responsible for their bursary awards.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the measures taken in Scotland following the recommendations of the 1995 world government meeting on land-based sources of marine pollution; and if he will make a statement. [22228]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The UK delegation took a leading part in the conference organised by the UN Environmental Programme in Washington DC between 23 October and 3 November 1995, which adopted the global
  649
  programme of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities. This programme of action reflects the approach being adopted throughout the United Kingdom, and by the other states in north-west Europe, to this task. Implementation in Scotland will therefore be achieved by continuing our present policies.

  Fishing (Firth of Clyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet, in the near future, representatives of the Clyde Fishermen's Association in order to discuss commercial fishing activities in and around firth of Clyde; and if he will make a statement. [22452]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I was due to meet representatives of the Clyde Fishermen's Association in Aberdeen on 14 March. However, as a result of the tragedy at Dunblane on 13 March I was unfortunately unable to keep that appointment. I expect the meeting to be rescheduled for a mutually convenient date in the near future.

  Dunblane Incident (Criminal Injuries Compensation)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made for those who may be entitled to make a criminal injuries compensation claim following the Dunblane incident. [23570]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The board has already responded to a number of direct inquiries and has made arrangements with Victim Support (Scotland) and others for advice to be available locally.

  I understand from the board that advice is given on request on the differences between compensation under the present scheme and under the new scheme, which will replace the present scheme on 1 April for all applications received on or after that date. This advice is available from the board to any potential applicant and their representative who might seek assistance in determining whether application in respect of injuries caused before 1 April should be made under the present or under the new scheme.

  More generally, I also understand that the board has made arrangements to enable applications to be received up until midnight on 31 March.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20093]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The following bodies have a statutory base:

  Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  Building Standards Advisory Committee

  Children's Panel Advisory Committees

  Consultative Committee on Freshwater Fisheries

  650

  Extra Parliamentary Panel

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee for Scotland

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Police Advisory Board

  Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council

  Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Scottish Police College Board of Governors

  Scottish Records Advisory Council

  Scottish Valuation Advisory Council

  Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee.

  The following publish their advice to the Government:

  (i) under a statutory requirement

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Scottish Records Advisory Council

  Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee.

  (ii)voluntarily

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People.

  The following publish an annual report:

  (i) under a statutory requirement

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Scottish Valuation Advisory Council

  Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee.

  (ii) voluntarily

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Post Qualification Education Board for Health Service Pharmacists in Scotland

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  Scottish Records Advisory Council

  Scottish Standing Committee for the Calculation fo Residual Values of Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs.

  The following lay an annual report before Parliament:

  (i) under a statutory requirement

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Scottish Records Advisory Council

  Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee

  Scottish Valuation Advisory Council.

  (ii) voluntarily

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of

  651
  members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20110]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  (a) children's panel advisory committees hold public meetings on a voluntary basis.

  (b) The following conduct public consultation exercises:

  (i) under a statutory requirement

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland.

  (ii) voluntarily

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum.

  (c) The Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum voluntarily consults outside commercial interests.

  (d) Nil.

  (e) and (f) The General Teaching Council for Scotland and children's panel advisory committees voluntarily publish agendas and minutes of meetings.

WALES

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [21123]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), on 18 March,Official Report, column 1.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans(a) to introduce the scheme to provide

  South Glamorgan

  Mid Glamorgan

  Gwent

  Number of registrations

  Percentage change

  Number of registrations

  Percentage change

  Number of registrations

  Percentage change

  1981

  1,757

  —

  2,064

  —

  1,812

  —

  1982

  1,682

  -4.3

  2,182

  +5.7

  1,833

  +1.2

  1983

  1,771

  +5.3

  2,232

  +2.3

  2,081

  +13.5

  1984

  1,827

  +3.2

  2,524

  +13.1

  2,193

  +5.4

  1985

  1,891

  +3.5

  2,564

  +1.6

  2,286

  +4.2

  1986

  1,879

  -0.6

  2,813

  +9.7

  2,239

  -2.1

  1987

  1,708

  -9.1

  2,613

  -7.1

  2,413

  +7.8

  1988

  1,884

  +10.3

  2,557

  -2.1

  2,246

  -6.9

  1989

  1,932

  +2.5

  2,420

  -5.4

  2,221

  -1.1

  1990

  2,101

  +8.7

  2,857

  +18.1

  2,109

  -5.0

  Source:

  Wales Cancer Registry

  Health Authority Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total pay bill for health authorities' chief executives and general managers in Wales for the year ended 31 March 1990. [21725]
  652
  powered indoor wheelchairs for severely disabled people and (b) to introduce a voucher scheme for the purchase of wheelchairs for the disabled. [20913]

  Mr. Richards
  In the light of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health's recent announcement about the provision of powered wheelchairs and a wheelchair voucher scheme, I am currently examining the implications of introducing similar arrangements in Wales.

  Hospital Casualty Units
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the future development of hospital casualty units in Wales; what assessment he has made of the Audit Commission report; and if he will make a statement. [21386]

  Mr. Richards
  The future development of hospital accident units will be judged against the criteria of clinical safety, ease of access and value for money.

  The Audit Commission's report "By Accident or Design—Improving A&E Services in England and Wales" is currently being considered. It will undoubtedly aid the Department's review of accident and emergency services throughout Wales.

  The recently launched patients charter for Wales anticipated a number of the Audit Commission's recommendations and others are being considered for future editions of the charter.

  Cancer
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been diagnosed as having cancer in(a) South Glamorgan and (b) Mid Glamorgan and Gwent in the last 10 years; what was the percentage change in each year; and if he will make a statement. [21873]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of malignant neoplasms registered in each year since 1981 and the percentage change in each year is given in the following table. Figures for 1991 and later years are not yet complete.

  Mr. Richards
  There were no chief executive posts in health authorities in Wales in 1990. The salary bill for NHS general managers in Wales in 1989–90 was £508,000.

  Source: The summarised accounts of the health authorities in Wales and of the family health services authorities in Wales for the year ended 31 March 1990.
  653

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what basis he decides if there are sufficient people being trained to work as general medical practitioners in Wales and whether adequate resources are being invested by the Welsh Office in the training of medical personnel in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [22201]

  Mr. Hague
  It is the Government's policy to secure an adequate supply of appropriately trained doctors in each sector and specialty. This is achieved through advisory and planning mechanisms at a UK and Wales level.

  The medical workforce standing advisory committee considers the longer-term need for doctors and for making recommendations on the intake of medical schools. In 1995, the committee recommended an increase of 11 per cent. in UK medical school intakes by 2000 to a total of 4,970. The Government have accepted that recommendation.

  The Welsh Office is involved in UK work force planning through its representation on the Advisory Group on medical education and staffing. The advisory group is currently examining the issue of recruitment and retention of GPs. My officials also have regular discussions with professional educationalists in Wales to ensure that the provision of training for intending GPs is appropriate.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what dates(a) he (b) fellow Ministers at the Welsh Office met representatives of the Medical Practices Committee to discuss the adequacy of the number of general practitioners throughout Wales. [22200]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials met representatives of the Medical Practices Committee on 31 October 1995, and will meet them again on 28 March 1996.

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin received from his Department in(a) 1990, (b) 1992, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [22401]

  Mr. Richards
  Funding by the Welsh Office to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin is shown as follows: the figures are expressed in terms of financial years.

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin: Funding by the Welsh Office

  Funding under the child and family services grant scheme £

  Section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 £

  Section 21 of the Education Act 1980 £

  Total £

  1990–91

  127,751

  358,250

  15,000

  501,001

  1991–92

  175,526

  400,000

  7,000

  582,586

  1992–93

  152,872

  457,000

  —

  609,872

  1993–94

  152,872

  473,544

  12,900

  639,316

  1994–95

  152,872

  537,000

  5,306

  695,178

  1995–96

  152,772

  537,000

  —

  689,872

  654

  Intensive Care Units
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many beds there are in each intensive care unit in Wales; and if he will make a statement; [22399]

  (2) how many hospitals in Wales have intensive care units; and if he will make a statement; [22402]

  (3) what is the annual cost per intensive care bed in each hospital in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [22400]

  Mr. Richards
  There are 17 hospitals in Wales with intensive care beds. These are as follows:

  Hospital

  Number of intensive care beds in 19951

  Princess of Wales, Bridgend

  5

  Bronglais General

  2

  East Glamorgan General

  6

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  4

  Llandough

  5

  Prince Philip, Llanelli

  3

  Morriston

  8

  Neath General

  1

  Nevill Hall

  2

  Prince Charles, Merthyr

  4

  Royal Gwent

  5

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust:

  —University Hospital

  7

  —Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  5

  West Wales General

  2

  Withybush General

  3

  Ysbyty Wrexham Maelor

  4

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  8

  Total

  74

  General intensive care beds only. No information is held centrally on the cost of intensive care beds in each hospital.

  All health authorities in Wales have been asked to review the number of intensive care and high dependency beds needed in their areas and to take action to address any shortfalls identified.

  Arts Council Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding the Arts Council for Wales received from his Department in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [22460]

  Mr. Richards
  The Arts Council of Wales received a total grant of £13,696,000 in 1994–95.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of students in further and higher education in Wales; and what is the current ratio of school leavers to the number entering higher education. [22368]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of student enrolment at further and higher education institutions in Wales for 1994–95 was 188,681 (provisional). In 1993–94, 9,100 pupils aged 17 and over left school in Wales, of these 64 per cent.—5,860—entered higher education.
  655

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with further education colleges on the amalgamation of existing colleges in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [22370]

  Mr. Richards
  None. It is for the governing bodies of further education colleges to consider mergers and, if appropriate, put a proposal to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Data Gathering
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he intends to improve the statistical and data-gathering functions of the Welsh Office, with special reference to those areas for which his Department has specific responsibility. [22994]

  Mr. Hague
  The statistical and data-gathering activities of the Welsh Office support research and decision making within the Department and beyond. These activities will continue to be developed, with an emphasis on meeting the specific needs of users of statistics while keeping the burden of form filling to a minimum. A new publication series, the "Digest of Welsh Local Area Statistics", providing statistics for the new local authority areas, has just been introduced.

  Welsh Development Ageney
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list in constant 1996 prices (i) the amount of expenditure and planned expenditure and (ii) the percentage of expenditure and planned expenditure spent by the Welsh Development Agency on(a) Wales as a whole, (b) the north division, (c) the south division and (d) the west division in 1996–97 and each of the preceding three years indicating the percentage change for each category over the whole period; [22698]

  (2) what was (a) the amount and (b) the percentage of the Welsh Development Agency's international and marketing budget spent in 1995–96 on promoting inward investment for (i) the north division, (ii) the south division, (iii) the west division and (iv) Wales as a whole. [22699]

  Mr. Hague
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Oil Pollution (Sea Empress Incident)
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the oral statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 February,Official Report, columns 493–96, what arrangements he has made to evaluate the environmental impact of the Sea Empress oil spill. [23508]

  Mr. Hague
  In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I have appointed Professor Ron Edwards to chair an independent steering group of 11 experts in the marine environment, to 656
  co-ordinate the environmental evaluation of the impact of the Sea Empress oil spill. This will include consideration of the response, clean-up procedures and the techniques employed following the oil spill. The group will also ensure that a comprehensive set of relevant environmental data is obtained; it will assess the overall impact of the incident on environmental resources of the area affected—including fisheries, agriculture, amenity and wildlife; as well as passing any information relevant to human health to public health authorities for assessment.

  Professor Edwards, who chaired the national parks review panel from 1988 to 1991, is currently a member of the Environment Agency. The first meeting of the group will be held on 2 April at the Welsh Office in Cardiff. I have asked Professor Edwards to provide me with a report within 18 months, which will be made public. Interim reports, which will also be made public, will also be produced.

  Apart from Professor Edwards, the 11 members of the steering group I have appointed are—Mr. David Bedborough, marine pollution control unit; Dr. Malcolm Smith, Countryside Council for Wales; Dr. John Portmann, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Dr. Charlie Pattinson, National Rivers Authority, Welsh Region; Mr. Nic Wheeler, Pembrokeshire Coast national park; Mr. David Seal, Pembrokeshire county council; Mr. Roy Bunce, Department of the Environment, European wildlife division; Dr. Allan Elliot, university of North Wales, Bangor, department of marine sciences; Mr. Arthur Hacking, ADAS, agricultural science advisers to the Welsh Office; Dr. Ian White, managing director, International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation; Dr. Havard Prosser, Welsh Office scientific adviser.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the national health service bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [21834]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: All national health service bodies, as defined by the Cabinet Office, in Wales are subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioner for Wales (ombudsman), and scrutiny by both the Audit Commissioner and the National Audit Office.

  The principles of open government are incorporated in the code of practice on openness in the national health service with which all national health service bodies must comply. The principles of the citizens charter apply to national health service bodies and have been incorporated in the charter for patients in Wales. The Welsh Office Health Department monitors the performance of all national health service bodies in Wales.
  657

HEALTH

  Health Authorities (Capital Spending)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital spending by health authority in each of the last five years. [21670]

  Mr. Horam
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Finance
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which (i) regional and (ii) district health authority made the payments amounting to £579,000 to support staff relocation which the NHS executive deemed to be beyond its powers. [21996]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The figure relates to payments made by the former Yorkshire regional health authority and South Birmingham district health authority.

  Relocation
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the payments made by regional and district health authorities to staff to support relocation by(a) each year since 1990–91, (b) authority and (c) grade to staff. [21998]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 8 March 1995, column 242.

  NHS Contracts
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued, and when, to NHS personnel on contract prepayments. [22741]

  Mr. Horam
  Relevant guidance was set out in the "National Health Service Trusts Finance Manual", part 3, chapter 9, issued in February 1992. This was followed up with a letter to finance directors in March 1994, FDL (94)24. Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued, and when, to NHS personnel on the letting of contracts,(a) without tender and (b) non-competitively; and in what circumstances such procedures are permitted. [22740]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service contracting authorities are all aware of their obligations under the statutory rules relating to public procurement. Where a contract comes within scope of the relevant regulations, there are only limited circumstances where a negotiated procedure not involving competition is allowable.

  In its guidance on the drawing up of standing financial instructions, the Department has made it clear that contracts of a more than minimal level should be based on competitive tender and any waiving of this requirement should be subject to board level approval based on overall value for money. The reasons for such decisions should be recorded for audit scrutiny.
  658

  Consultancy Fees
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid in(a) consultancy and (b) outsourcing fees and contract payments by each regional health authority in each year since 1992. [22747]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Treatment Guidelines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who is responsible for informing a patient when cancer treatment has been carried out on them for conditions that were subsequently diagnosed as benign; [22593]

  (2) who is responsible for informing patients that treatments have been carried out on them without prior diagnostic confirmation of their condition. [22584]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for local agreement within the trust.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who is responsible for issuing guidelines in respect of the circumstances in which laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer may be attempted; and to what extent such guidelines are available to(a) patients, (b) members of the public and (c) Parliament; [22596]

  (2) who is responsible for issuing guidelines relating to procedures involving radical cancer surgery to the vulva; and to what extent these guidelines are accessible to (a) patients, (b) the public and (c) Parliament. [22552]

  Mr. Horam
  Development of clinical guidelines for patient treatment is done by the relevant professional body. Guidelines can be made available to patients, members of the public—as potential future patients—and Parliament on request.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the clinical audit of laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomies by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; and how many such hysterectomies have been carried out(a) in total and (b) in the circumstances of endometrial uterine cancer. [22651]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health is funding a joint study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists medical audit unit and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The vaginal, abdominal or laparoscopic uterine excision hysterectomy study will compare the long-term outcome of hysteroscopic surgery as opposed to conventional hysterectomy. The total number of vaginal hysterectomies in 1993–94 was 14,141. It is not possible separately to identify laparoscopic vaginal hysterectomies within that total. Neither is it possible to identify the number undertaken for endometriauterine cancer.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what requirements are placed on doctors to confirm diagnosis of conditions and diseases by objective tests before asking patients for consent to undergo treatment; [22554]
  659
  (2) what guidelines his Department issues to doctors requiring them to confirm diagnosis of cancer by objective tests before asking patients for consent to radical surgery. [22583]

  Mr. Horam
  Development of clinical guidelines for the management of patients is done by the relevant professional body. Confirming the diagnosis by appropriate investigation would be encompassed in such clinical guidelines and is part of the general duty of care.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a patient's consent may be deemed to be invalidly given. [22585]

  Mr. Horam
  In normal circumstances, patients need to be able to make a balanced judgment before giving valid consent to treatment. They should therefore receive sufficient information to enable them to understand the proposed treatment, the possible alternatives and any substantial risks.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name the 36 NHS trusts which recorded a retained deficit in 1994–95 giving, in each case, the deficit in cash terms and as a percentage of turnover and indicating the principal reason for the deficit. [22670]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the tables.

  NHS trusts with deficits in 1994–95, principally, for reasons of a technical accounting nature as analysed in the National Audit Office report on NHS summarised accounts for England 1994–95

  Trust

  Deficit £000

  As percentage of income

  Reason for deficit

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  97

  0.1

  Early retirement costs

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care

  811

  1.6

  Other reasons

  South Lincolnshire Community and Mental Health Services

  46

  0.2

  Early retirement costs

  Oxfordshire Community Health

  161

  0.5

  Early retirement costs

  Allington

  141

  0.8

  Early retirement costs

  Horizon

  8,378

  18.9

  Early retirement costs

  Southend Health Care Services

  1,082

  1.6

  Loss on disposal of fixed assets

  Homewood NHS Trust

  2,463

  10

  Loss on disposal of fixed assets

  Lifecare

  527

  2.3

  Early retirement costs

  The Royal West Sussex

  271

  0.7

  Loss on disposal of fixed assets

  Frimley Park Hospital

  39

  0.1

  Other reasons

  East Somerset

  1,121

  3.1

  Loss on disposal of fixed assets

  Bath Mental Health Care

  61

  0.2

  Other reasons

  South Warwickshire Health Care

  120

  0.6

  Early retirement costs

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals

  940

  2.2

  Loss on disposal of fixed assets

  South Warwickshire Mental Health Services

  304

  2

  Early retirement costs

  Premier Health NHS Trust

  413

  1

  Other reasons

  Christie Hospital

  275

  0.8

  Early retirement costs

  East Cheshire

  1,587

  2.6

  Early retirement

  660

  NHS trusts with deficits in 1994–95, principally, for reasons of a technical accounting nature as analysed in the National Audit Office report on NHS summarised accounts for England 1994–95

  Trust

  Deficit £000

  As percentage of income

  Reason for deficit

  Guild Community Healthcare

  1,210

  3.3

  costs Early retirement costs

  NHS trusts with deficits in 1994–95 where the reasons are other than technical accounting as analysed in the National Audit Office report on the NHS summarised accounts for England 1994–95

  Trust

  Deficit £000

  As percentage of income

  Reason of deficit

  Humberside Ambulance Service

  622

  5.1

  Excess expenditure

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  334

  0.2

  Excess expenditure

  Louth and District Healthcare

  25

  0.2

  Shortfall in planned income

  Lincoln Hospitals

  257

  0.4

  Activity levels greater than contracted

  Sheffield Children's Hospital

  245

  1.1

  Shortfall in planned income

  East Anglian Ambulance

  68

  0.3

  Other reasons

  Mid Anglia Community Health

  44

  0.2

  Other reasons

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  3,436

  11.6

  Other reasons

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital

  826

  6.8

  Other reasons

  Greenwich Healthcare

  2,888

  2.8

  Shortfall in planned income

  Crawley Horsham

  1,154

  2.6

  Other reasons

  Swindon and Marlborough Hospitals

  522

  0.8

  Other reasons

  The Poole Hospital

  226

  0.4

  Excess expenditure

  Royal United Hospital, Bath

  2,545

  3.8

  Shortfall in planned income

  Worcester Royal Infirmary

  944

  1.6

  Other reasons

  Wolverley

  155

  1.1

  Other reasons

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name the 13 NHS trusts which exceeded their external financing limits in 1994–95. [22672]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is contained in "NHS Trusts: 1994/95 Financial Performance", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name the 93 NHS trusts which failed to meet their target rate of return on average relevant net assets in 1994–95 giving, in each case, the margin on both cash and percentage terms by which it failed to do so. [22671]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service trusts are required to make a 6 per cent. return on their net relevant assets, not a target figure in cash terms. Tables showing the actual return achieved in percentage terms by each trust for 1994–95 is contained in "NHS Trusts: 1994/95 Financial Performance", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Sheffield University School of Health and Related Studies
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) courses have been attended at the Sheffield

  661
  university school of health and related studies and (b) other resources of the school have been used by (i) NHS management trainees and (ii) existing NHS staff. [22735]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts have been awarded to Sheffield university school of health and related studies since 1994 by(a) his Department, (b) the NHS executive, (c) the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, (d) the former Yorkshire regional health authority and (e) Trent regional health authority; for what purposes these contracts were awarded; if they were awarded by competitive tender; and what was the value of each of these contracts. [22734]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the(a) costs of and (b) savings from the out-sourcing of (i) the nursing division and (ii) the priority and community services group of the former Yorkshire regional health authority to the university of Leeds. [22743]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority for details.

  Peter Walker Associates
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts, and of what value, have been awarded in each of the last four years by(a) the former Yorkshire regional health authority, (b) the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, (c) the Trent regional health authority, (d) district health authorities within the two regions and (e) NHS trusts within the two regions to Peter Walker Associates. [22751]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Professional Misconduct
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued on the appropriate time scale for initiating investigations of allegations of professional misconduct by health authorities and trusts. [22553]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance was issued in circular HC(90)9 to national health service employers in March 1990 on disciplinary procedures for hospital and community medical and dental staff.

  This guidance recommended indicative time limits for dealing with cases of professional misconduct. This states that the time taken from the decision that there is a prima facie case to referral of the final report to the employer should not exceed 32 weeks.

  Yorkshire Services Organisation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of services provided to the former 662
  Yorkshire regional health authority by the Yorkshire Services Organisation in each year since 1992; and what services, and at what cost the Yorkshire Services Organisation currently provides to (i) the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority and (ii) the Trent regional health authority. [22750]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for the Northern and the Yorkshire and Trent regional health authorities respectively. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of those authorities for details.

  Royal College of Obstetrieians and Gynaecologists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) research projects, (b) reviews and (c) audits he has asked the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to undertake; and for how many he has provided financial support. [22592]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health provides core funding for the college's audit unit. The Department has also funded two audits:

  National endometrial ablation survey

  Pregnancy care for health women.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in the last 12 months he has sought the advice of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; and on what topics. [22595]

  Mr. Horam
  The royal college has frequent contact with Health Ministers and their officials on a wide range of health and health service matters.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what matters the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is currently preparing clinical guidelines at his request. [22667]

  Mr. Horam
  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, other royal colleges and interested groups are in the process of producing clinical guidelines for the management and treatment of osteoporosis.

  Northern and Yorkshire Regional Headquarters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who conducted the full option appraisal into the relocation of the Northern and Yorkshire NHS regional headquarters to the Mountjoy science park in Durham. [22673]

  Mr. Malone
  The appraisal was carried out jointly by members of Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority and a team provided by the national health service executive of the Department of Health.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research commissioned by his Department is currently being carried out at(a) the Royal Hallamshire hospital, (b) the Doncaster royal infirmary, (c) the Weston Park hospital, (d) the Pontefract general hospital and (e) the Mexborough royal infirmary, Sheffield; and if he will show in his answer the total amount of funds made available by his Department for each project. [23069]

  Mr. Malone
  Research commissioned within the Department's policy research programme is set out in "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and
  663
  "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Cancer (Sellafield)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the report from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment on the incidence of cancer and leukaemia in the vicinity of the Sellafield site, west Cumbria. [23569]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government are grateful to the committee for its thorough and comprehensive report, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Ministerial colleagues and I note the Committee's concern about the continuing excess of leukaemia and lymphoma in young people in Seascale. We accept the recommendations made in the report, including the committee's recommendation that the incidence of leukaemia and other cancers in the area be kept under surveillance and reviewed periodically by the appropriate authorities. Government also accept the committee's advice that there will be no benefit from continuing to investigate Seascale in isolation in the absence of new evidence of particular causative characteristics which could be relevant.

  We welcome COMARE's advice on research priorities and will continue to fund the Department's long-standing programme of research into radiation protection, seeking advice as necessary from expert sources. The Department will also maintain contact with other funding bodies to ensure priority is given to relevant, high quality research.

  The Government's commitment to maintaining and updating effective radiation protection policies is demonstrated by the Department's current spend of nearly £2 million a year on radiological protection research, together with support amounting to some £6.5 million year for the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Following is COMARE's main conclusion:
  "We conclude that there has been a continuing excess of leukaemia and other cancers in 0–24 year olds in Seascale Ward in the post—Black period 1984–1992, primarily due to an excess of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and NHL. Taken together with the results for the earlier period 1955–62 (for which comparable statistical analysis is not possible) and 1963–1983 the data show that there has been a continued excess of leukaemia and NHL in Seascale for four decades. Such evidence as we have does not indicate any excess between 1900 and 1945. We have investigated possible causes of the excess in later decades and conclude that:

  (i) On current knowledge, environmental radiation exposure from authorised or unplanned releases could not account for the excess. Much work has been done to reduce the uncertainties present in the previous assessment although some uncertainties do still remain.

  (ii) On current knowledge occupational exposure to radiation is very unlikely to account for the excess. Although there are uncertainties regarding internal radiation exposures it is not clear how these could affect the population of Seascale and not the other residents of small towns and villages nearby where workers from the Sellafield site also live.

  (iii) Other possible hypotheses regarding chemicals and infectious aetiology have been considered. We conclude that environmental exposure to chemicals is unlikely to offer an explanation although admittedly the data are sparse. We do,
  664
  however, believe that a mechanism involving infection may probably be a factor affecting the risk of leukaemia and NHL in young people in Seascale.

  We conclude that the excess of leukaemia and NHL in young people in Seascale for the period 1963 to 1992 is highly unlikely to be due to chance alone. Various factors considered above could affect the incidence of leukaemia and NHL but no one factor alone could account for the increase. We cannot rule out interactions between different possible factors but, as yet, have no way of quantifying their effects nor of saying why the interaction would be unique to Seascale.
  We have now produced four reports to Government on the incidence of childhood cancer and leukaemia around particular nuclear installations. The first and present reports have been concerned with the Sellafield site. Our work to investigate the cause has entailed one of the most intensive investigations of a local public health concern, due to a suspected environmental problem, ever undertaken in the UK. In addition to our efforts, the input from Government in sponsoring research, from the NRPB and many other independent research bodies and individuals, including industry, has been very substantial. Given this effort there exists a natural expectation of a clear and unambiguous answer to the key issues being addressed. Certainly, we are in no doubt of the raised incidence of leukaemia and NHL which has occurred in the young people of Seascale, and its persistence over several decades is probably unique in this country.
  We have examined leading available current hypotheses and pathways by which the observed excess could have come about and have been unable to find any convincing explanation. We have, of course, been constrained by the fact that mechanisms involved in human leukaemogenesis are still not clearly understood. It is our view that current research efforts being undertaken in the UK and worldwide should eventually supply answers to these questions. However, until this research provides the required information we advise against further work specifically addressing the Seascale cluster until new insights into possible carcinogenic mechanisms suggest possible causes to test".

  COMARE has made five recommendations, as follows:
  "Recommendation I (Chapters 2, 4, 6, 8)
  We note that there are a number of epidemiological studies underway which will examine the various hypotheses which have been discussed in this report. The United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study is testing both radiation and non-radiation hypotheses including infectious aetiology and possible predisposing features to carcinogenesis. We recommend that these should be supported to completion.
  Recommendation 2 (Chapter 2)
  We share the concern about the continuing excess of childhood and adolescent leukaemia and lymphoma and possible excess of other cancers in Seascale and we recommend that the incidence of leukaemia and other cancers in the area be kept under surveillance and reviewed periodically by the appropriate authorities and that any new cases of leukaemia or other cancer be fully characterised.
  Recommendation 3 (Chapters 2 and 7)
  We recommend that the mortality/incidence of both childhood and adult leukaemia and other cancers in Seascale for the years 1946–62 be examined as thoroughly as possible to connect the mortality study of 1900–45 with the incidence studies of 1963–92.
  Recommendation 4
  With regard to radiation specifically, our investigations have made us aware of several areas where an urgent need exists for improved knowledge. We consider that their investigation is both important for the scientific basis of radiation protection generally and for the evaluation of potential future problems in the field of radiation and public health. We therefore recommend support, wherever possible, for innovative research in the areas [set our in COMARE's report].

  665
  Recommendation 5 (Chapters 8 and 9)
  We are aware that our inability to identify causative mechanisms to explain all the Seascale leukaemia and NHL excess reflects the present inadequate state of knowledge regarding the causes of childhood leukaemia. It is possible that this excess, and any others if they occur in future, will continue to elude explanation until underlying mechanisms are better understood. We expect such understanding to come from current and future initiatives in leukaemia and cancer research, whether related to radiation or not. We recommend that high quality innovative research, especially where it permits hypothesis testing, should be supported wherever possible, that this should be considered a necessary part of the remit of radiation protection, and that there should be continued liaison between funding bodies to ensure that essential research receives adequate priority for available funds."

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make additional funds available for high-dose chemotherapy and autografting for women with breast cancer within the two nationally agreed clinical studies. [22492]

  Mr. Horam
  Any additional proposal would require careful consideration in the design criteria for existing studies before further funding could be considered.

  Treatment Protocols
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy not to allow health authorities not to provide treatments without reference to ministerial protocols; [22496]

  (2) if he will bring forward protocols to avoid recurrence of health authorities deciding not to provide treatment to sick children, with special reference to the case of child B. [22497]
  666
  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities are responsible for assessing the health needs of their local populations and for securing services to meet those needs through available resources. The Government have made it clear that there should be no clinically effective treatment which health authorities decide as a mater of principle should not be provided. There will always be exceptional cases and each should be considered on its merits.

  Sick Children
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the compliance of the Government's policy towards the treatment of critically ill children with the provisions of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. [22493]

  Mr. Bowis
  In our report to the United Nations committee on the rights of the child, HMSO 1994, we noted that advances in medical science offer new opportunities in the acute care of children. We accept the evidence that critically ill children are best treated in dedicated paediatric intensive care units, and on 6 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that he had asked for a report by the end of April on the implementation of plans for the development of paediatric intensive care.

  Secondments
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the individuals, by name, civil service post and receiving company, who are on temporary secondment from his Department to industry as part of the continuing programme of interchange of staff with the private sector. [22790]

  Mr. Horam
  There are none.

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

Fishing: ECJ Judgment
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the worst effects of the recent European Court of Justice decision regarding compensation to foreign owners of British fishing vessels could be overcome by a suitable amendment to the vessel licensing arrangements.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Statement that I made to the House on 6th March explained in detail that the European Court of Justice's recent judgment in the Factortame case confirms the principle that those adversely affected by national legislation in breach of Community law are, if the breach is sufficiently serious, entitled to seek compensation through national courts. The ECJ judgment is now for national courts to consider. It cannot be undone by any future amendment to vessel licensing arrangements by fisheries departments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and also for the extremely helpful letter that he sent me earlier this week on the subject. Will the Minister confirm that, if we look to the future, the fisheries Commissioner, Mrs. Emma Bonino, has suggested that there are ways to deal with the problem of quota hopping in the future within Community and national law? Might that include: the payment of social taxes— for example, national insuranceto—the country of registration; a condition that the skipper and mate of the British registered vessels should hold UK issued tickets; and a requirement to land a proportion of the catch at a restricted number of nominated ports?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are greatly encouraged by the attitude that Mrs. Bonino is taking. On the best advice we have, we do not believe that any of the routes which she proposes will work but we are nevertheless examining them with a will. Nothing would please us more than to discover that we were wrong and that there is a quick way round the problems. The noble Lord mentioned the possibility that the skipper and mate might be British. Many other countries try that regulation and the Spanish have a highly practised route around it. They merely install in a cabin on the boat an equivalent of Captain Haddock and his bottle of whisky, and the mate Alan, who is Spanish, runs the boat. So far as we know, there is no way round the problem that works, either in practice or legally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the Court's judgments have been based on a principle of non-discrimination between nationalities and as the fishing quota system is operated, in contradiction, entirely on separating nationalities, 'will the United Kingdom Government insist on changes in the common fisheries policy? Can my noble friend say any more about Signora Bonino's suggestion that there could be regional arrangements for the south west of England or off Scotland? Might it be another way of solving the quota hopping aberration?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we will consider all ways round quota hopping. We are committed to pursuing it at the IGC if that is the only way forward, as looks like being the case at present.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government thought of consulting the French Government? They know the way round most of the European regulations.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, we have. We have researched what happens in France where people are suffering as we are, although not to the same extent. They have about 20 Spaniards quota hopping on them and the French are among the most active of the European countries in the process of becoming distressed at what is going on.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that he said that the Court of Justice had clearly established that there was a right of compensation where national governments breached Community law and damaged the interests of Community citizens? Can he say whether that right also applies in a case where the Commission is in breach of the law? For example, there is the flagrant breach of law by the Commission today in banning exports of British beef to third countries outside the European Community. Will the British Government now support British beef producers in suing the Commission for compensation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot answer that legal technicality. The noble Lord may know what the Commission has decided but I have not yet received the news. If what it has done is to support what its veterinary committee said, we would find it an extremely distressing, unwelcome and unreasonable development. It will doubtless have repercussions for a long time to come.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an undertaking—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have been cut out on two occasions recently so I am standing my ground. Is the British Government's view about our ability to secede from the common fisheries policy the same as that of Commissioner Bonino? She told fishermen in the South West that whether we did secede from the common fisheries policy was a matter for the British Government and the British Parliament—something that has been denied on several occasions in this House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that I have said anything other than that it is a matter for the British Government and the British Parliament. I have merely pointed out that the negotiations that would be involved with our other 14 partners in bringing an end to that part of the treaty would be likely to be so expensive and so burdensome on us in their result as to make the whole exercise supremely not worth while.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference the role of the European Court of Justice will be thoroughly reconsidered with a view to its political role being separated from its legal role, where that becomes possible to determine?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is rather drifting away from the Question. I refer the noble Lord to our White Paper. I am very satisfied with what is said in it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a recent report which revealed that, of 371 infringements of the common fisheries policy notified in 1994, 119 involved British vessels; 73 French vessels; 62 Irish vessels; and only 22 involved Spanish vessels. How many of the 119 so-called British vessels were registered here, but were in fact Spanish?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, regarding the rate of infringement by Spanish vessels, according to our records—I cannot comment on the European report, of which we have not formally received a copy or had a chance review—generally last year, I believe there were 117 or 119 infringements in total. Of those, two involved Spanish-registered vessels and seven involved British-registered vessels landing in Spain. At those kinds of levels it does not seem possible to prove, or indeed perhaps likely, that the Spanish are worse than the rest of us.

"Sea Empress" Inquiry
2.45 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to reconstitute the Donaldson Committee in order to inquire into the wider ramifications of the accident involving the "Sea Empress" in February 1996, in addition to the investigation being undertaken by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch into the causes of the accident; and, if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, completed less than two years ago, set the broad framework for the Government's policy towards marine pollution from ships. Until the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch has completed its investigation into the cause of the "Sea Empress" grounding and the conduct of the subsequent salvage
1698
operations, it would be premature to examine whether its findings justify reconsideration of the report's recommendations.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, although I think that it will bring little joy to Wales. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Welsh Wildlife Trust. Is my noble friend aware that it has been widely reported that the two-page interim report by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch contains a number of errors of fact? Will he assure the House, and thus place on record, that the report contains no such errors?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand that the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents has written to the honourable Member in another place who made these allegations defending and explaining the accuracy of the original bulletin. I therefore believe that bulletin to be accurate.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that at an appropriate time, given the quality of the Donaldson Report, the noble and learned Lord will be invited to review the application of his report generally and at that stage take into account subsequent developments, including the consequences of the grounding of the "Sea Empress"? In relation to one particular recommendation of the Donaldson Report, can the Minister confirm or deny statements that the Government intend, for the sake of saving a little money, to cease stationing strong tugs at the Minch and off the Straits of Dover from the end of April at least until the beginning of October? Given the fact that those are key areas where dangers to shipping are particularly strong, if that is a true statement of intention, will the Government review their decision?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I can assure the House that we will take extremely careful note of recommendations that the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch might make in its inquiry not only into the grounding of the "Sea Empress" but also into the conduct of the subsequent salvage operation. We will therefore use those recommendations and the information put out by that independent inquiry to look again at the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to see whether they justify further work.
On the second point, it is important to know that until two years ago there were no government-sponsored tugs around the coast of this country. Subsequent to the Donaldson Report, we acted on its recommendation. We have held two trials—to put two powerful tugs for winter-only periods in Dover and in the Minches. We are currently reviewing the results of those trials. We will of course make clear our intentions for the future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the ramifications referred to in the noble Lord's question are wide and very serious? Does he further agree that they have caused profound concern in Wales, and especially in south-west Wales, where this

1699
terrible tragedy took place? Could he say when the report of the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch is likely to be published? Will he give an assurance that the suggestion by the noble Lord that the matter should be referred to the Donaldson Committee will be considered very carefully? Further, will he tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Wales has been consulted on this matter, and what his reactions are?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first point, we understand the genuine concern of people throughout the country and especially within the region that has been hit by that very severe spill. Of course we understand their environmental concerns and concerns for the economy of the region.
Secondly, with regard to the estimate of time, the best indication is that the investigation into the "Braer" incident in the Shetland Islands took just under a year. We must give the chief inspector the time that he needs to make a thorough investigation into all the consequences and obtain all the information and all the facts as well as to interview all the witnesses that he needs to hear. We should not dream of constraining him in that regard. But I know that the chief inspector fully realises that the country is waiting to hear what his recommendations might be and his assessment of the situation.
On the noble Lord's third point, I believe that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I gave a full explanation of the way in which we would take forward any recommendations that the chief inspector might make.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that this very morning in Bangor, the Secretary of State for Wales made a very long and detailed comment on the whole situation? Has he not been informed of that? Has his office not been able to keep pace with what is happening in Wales? Is he not aware that this morning the Secretary of State appointed Professor Edwards to chair a steering group, which will have some extremely distinguished members in it, some of whom we know and trust?
We are still concerned about the rumours of commercial rivalry between local firms in the early stages at Milford Haven having seriously delayed effective salvage operations. I am astonished that the Minister has not been informed. All that information was available this morning. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, myself and several others have full details.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am astonished at the question and that the noble Baroness says that I am not informed by the Welsh Office. We have been working extremely carefully both at ministerial and official level between the two departments. The noble Baroness is confused between the technical investigation into what happened with the grounding and subsequent salvage operations and the environmental assessment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales spoke about. They are two separate issues. Of course, we need to make sure that all the technical aspects are covered and that we learn all the relevant lessons for shipping safety. We must also make sure that we know exactly the consequences of the clean-up operation, including all the environmental consequences as well.
1700
There is nothing between the Secretary of State for Wales and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who in the past have carried the responsibilities that he now carries believe that he has acted prudently, sensibly and in the best interests of all concerned? I am sure that that would also be the view of the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench who is about to ask a question, for he too carried those responsibilities and is well aware of the difficulties which he experienced from time to time in dealing with such matters.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very kind words. I would not seek to pre-empt the question which may be about to emerge from the noble Lord sitting opposite. My noble friend is quite right. These are difficult and complicated issues. We must make sure that we have the best shipping safety regime that we can practicably have and that we learn all the lessons that come out of that unfortunate incident to try to ensure that it is not repeated.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, from previous experience I am very much aware of the problems that the Minister faces. But does he agree that it is now self-evident that the narrow remit of the investigation currently being undertaken by the MAIB is insufficient? We already know that there are wide environmental implications involved and that wide international as well as national issues remain. The Government themselves to some measure are involved and their conduct has to be investigated. Is he aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, would be prepared to have his committee reconstituted in order to deal with these matters? Does he agree that that would be a much more thorough way of dealing with the matter, particularly in the light of his suggestion that we may have to wait for one year before the report of the MAIB is available? What is now being done in relation to Milford Haven to ensure that no further accident of that kind can happen before the report is tendered to him?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is missing the essential point. The Marine Accidents Investigation Branch was set up to deal with specific circumstances such as this one. Following the awful tragedy of the "Herald of Free Enterprise", it was felt that the best way to investigate serious marine accidents was to set up a government body that would be totally independent of Ministers and officials from whatever department to investigate the cause of accidents and make recommendations to stop them happening again. The inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, produced a much wider ranging report which looked at all aspects of maritime safety and pollution prevention. It is only two years old. It was a very thorough report and covered all the issues.
We have said that we shall look very carefully indeed at the recommendations and the findings of the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch report. We shall then consider whether the recommendations made by the

1701
noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, only two years ago in his report, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas, need to be re-examined. That is the essential point. We need to find out the facts and do it as quickly as possible.
With regard to Milford Haven, the chief inspector is able to put up interim recommendations and if he feels that those are required, he can do so at any point.

Wheel Clamping
2.57 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have come to any conclusion on the regulation of wheel clamping of vehicles on private land and the legitimacy of fines imposed for the release of such vehicles; and whether they intend to introduce legislation to clarify the situation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government are still considering what action, if any, should be taken to regulate wheel clamping on private land. We are looking at detailed matters, such as the level of fines imposed by wheel-clampers, and whether there is a need for new legislation, as part of that consideration.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not find that Answer exactly satisfactory. As wheel clamping has become a growth business of the 1990s, and a very lucrative one at that—it is said to be worth £150 million a year—should not some action be taken quickly by the Government? Should wheel clamping on private ground be made illegal unless clear warning is given, on a sign adequately lit, with a notice of the fine that is likely to be charged, together with the name, address and telephone number of the clampers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is certainly one suggestion. The problem is neither so great as it was perceived when the Question was originally put nor so great as was anticipated by so many people. We know that many wheel-dampers have gone out of business, particularly the "cowboys" referred to in previous Questions. So, we are not convinced that this is quite the problem that it was. Also, there is now case law which has started to clarify what is legal and what is illegal in terms of parking on private land.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, although permission is of course required for parking on private land, has there been an improvement since my Question of 20th June in suppressing the menace of pirate clampers operating on disused or unsupervised land? Does my noble friend recall that there has been some progress in Scotland, where a judge ruled in court that in Scotland the practice is theft and extortion, as victims' cars are held to ransom for very large sums?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I mentioned in my first Answer, we believe that the situation has much improved. Also, the situation is very different in Scotland. There is a different definition of theft in Scotland, for example. Wheel clamping on private land
1702
is effectively illegal, as the result of a ruling by the High Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh on 12th June in the case of Black and Another v. Carmichael that wheel clamping amounts to extortion and theft. However, as I said, the definition of theft is rather narrower than that in Scotland, in that Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 requires that there must be an intention permanently to deprive. Generally, there is no such intention involved in wheel clamping.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, when the noble Baroness says that the situation is much improved, how does she know? There is no regulation in this area at all. Also, since her predecessor, Mr. Michael Jack, said that pirate clamping would be examined with all urgency, why have not the Government come forward with precise proposals?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a consultative exercise. We are convinced that it is not the problem it was. Many of the cowboy organisations have gone out of business and there are not nearly as many complaints as there were. We know too that there has been some clarification through the civil courts. For example, it was established in the case of Arthur and Arthur v. Anchor that it is legal for somebody owning private land to establish a wheel clamping system. In that case there were clear signs displayed and a reasonable charge levied for the recovery of the vehicle. That kind of case is therefore helpful. There have also been cases where the court has found in favour of the person clamped, which again goes to establish the law. We believe that that clarification is helpful. Material to that is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David; that is, that there should be clear signs and a reasonable charge levied for the recovery of the vehicles.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister indicate how much longer the Government will require before they embark upon any substantive action, if it is required? When does she expect the report to be available?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot say when the report is to be made available. It is not being given quite the urgent attention it was because the situation is not thought to be as urgent as it was at first count. Also, wheel clamping is an effective solution to prevent people parking illegally on private land. We must think of hospitals, schools, residents' parking bays, small businesses—especially those where they are loading and unloading goods—and small hotels. It is an effective remedy against people parking on private land illegally.

Selar Farm: SSSIs
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the proposed destruction of the habitat at Selar Farm in the Vale of Neath, what is their policy on sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs).
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government remain committed to the conservation of our natural heritage. We believe that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 continues to provide an effective and flexible framework which protects wildlife and habitats.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, that Answer makes no reference to what has happened in this specific habitat where, without a public inquiry, permission has been given for open-cast mining. Are the Government satisfied that there has been an adequate environmental impact assessment in this case? It threatens particularly the marsh fritillary butterfly. We have already lost 100 species in this country this year and this is yet another example of neglect of the environment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness's attitude is born of long periods in opposition and not having to deal with the practicalities of life where one must balance the needs of the local population, their employment and their industry, with that of the local nature. There will always be occasions when some SSSIs are damaged or destroyed because of the economic needs of the people living in the area. It is up to the Government and local authorities to balance those needs. We believe that they have done so properly in this case and that the conservation of the marsh fritillary butterfly is dealt with extensively in the biodiversity initiative documents we published. We are doing a great deal nationwide not only to preserve that butterfly, but to help it to increase and spread and make sure that it has a firm position in our natural fauna.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that English Nature admits to damage to 104 sites last year? In Wales, of 899 sites, 20 per cent. suffered damage last year. That is an extremely large number. Scotland reports damage to 23 sites and reports that damage due to insufficient management is not recorded. What is special about damage due to mismanagement that results in it not being recorded? Surely damage to an SSSI, by any means, should be recorded and taken seriously by the Government. Is it government policy to accept all that without protest?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the nature conservation bodies concerned take damage seriously. They try to pursue each case and make sure it is remedied. Their record in that respect is excellent.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me when it was, in recent history, that the SSSI designation became the equivalent of a glass case?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, never.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, is there any proposal under present consideration for denotification of this SSSI? How many new, permanent local jobs will be provided as a result of the open-cast development? How does that figure compare with the figure of lost jobs in the mining industry over the past 17 years which has seen the devastation of that once proud and productive workforce?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this has nothing whatever to do with the history of mining in Wales, though one can note that mining provided some wonderful wildlife sites on the old waste tips of the mines which have by now had time to develop wildlife which would otherwise be extremely rare in Wales. In relation to this development, I understand that in due course it will provide in excess of 100 jobs locally—and that, in an area where jobs are hard to come by, weighed heavily with the local council when it gave its support to the scheme. We feel that it got the decision right.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hilton speaks not so much from a few years' experience in opposition but after many years of distinguished service in public service.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not doubt that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend think it may be helpful if the Government considered introducing the Scottish system for SSSIs into England and Wales? That is a system whereby there is a separate advisory committee which advises on contentious issues. Since its introduction in 1991 it has proved to be a great success in Scotland.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my colleagues in Wales to the Scottish SSSI system.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the merits of this specific application, there is a need also to balance the requirements of the present generation against those of posterity? Will there not come a point, with the loss of the SSSIs referred to, where that balance is struck improperly in favour of the present generation? How do the Government propose to address that question?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are addressing it by an extensive and extremely well-funded series of initiatives to improve the environment as a whole. The emphasis surely must be on increasing the wildlife value and the natural habitat available to species in this country, which we are doing through a large number of farm-based schemes as well as other environmental efforts. Occasional damage will be caused to some parts of that environment, but the countryside is not a museum; it is a living and developing system. As the noble Lord is doubtless aware, 10,000 years ago Wales was just a glacier. All that has appeared has done so since then. Sites of special scientific interest can be created and appear naturally as well as disappear.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about today's debates. Other than the mover and the Minister replying, in both debates speakers will be limited to 10 minutes. I should remind your Lordships that if any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. I remind your

1705
Lordships also that when the clock shows 10 minutes, the full 10 minutes have elapsed and the speaker is already trespassing on the time of others.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Howe of Aberavon and the Lord Skidelsky set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should perhaps say something in explanation.
On Item 1, the committee recommends that the Government should be invited to lay before the House an annual report listing all the Acts which have not been repealed or brought into force, giving reasons for any delay in each case; and that the first report should be laid early in 1997 and should be limited to Acts enacted before 31st December 1992. For future years, the committee favours an annual published report; but, as the committee's report indicates, it will be for consideration whether the information accessible from the Statute Law Database, which we understand will come on line in the course of 1997, will meet the need. The committee considered this matter at the request of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and hopes the House will find it useful to be able to monitor the extent to which legislation has not been brought into force.
On Item 2, the committee recommends that speeches by Lords whose names are not on the speakers' list and who therefore speak in the gap before the winding-up speeches should be limited to four minutes. As noble Lords will see, the committee recommends an appropriate amendment to the guidance contained in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
On Items 4, 5 and 6, the committee draws attention to three well-established conventions which have not always been followed recently. These are, first, the expectation that a Lord who takes part in a debate should attend the greater part of that debate, including the opening speeches and particularly the winding-up speeches; next, the convention that Lords should not leave the Chamber until a maiden speaker has been congratulated by the next following speaker; and then the custom that no Lord may pass between the Woolsack and any Lord who is speaking, nor between the Woolsack and the Table. I invite the House to take note again of these conventions, and the committee hopes that they will be observed fully.
1706
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 50) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. BRINGING ACTS OF PARLIAMENT INTO FORCE
The Committee has considered the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee "that the House seeks a mechanism to ensure that Acts passed by Parliament are brought into operation" (12th Report, Session 1993–94, HL Paper 90, paragraph 38).
The recommendation was made in the light of instances, such as the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 relating to criminal injuries compensation which were not brought into force.
Such instances can only arise because of the commencement provisions of the Act concerned, giving Ministers power to bring the Act, or parts of it, into operation. No recommendation by this Committee could override such provisions. It must be for the House in each case to decide whether commencement provisions in a bill are acceptable. In some cases it might be appropriate for a bill to lay down that the Act will come into force on a stated date if not brought into force earlier by means of a commencement order or orders. In others, it could be provided that the provisions of an Act would cease to have effect on a stated date if not previously brought into force.
While no formula is likely to be suitable in all cases, the Committee considers that it would be useful for the House to be able to monitor the extent to which legislation has not been brought into force. The Committee recommends, therefore, that the Government should lay before the House (perhaps as a Command paper) an annual report listing all the Acts and provisions within Acts which had been neither repealed nor brought into force, giving reasons for the delay in each case. Initially, such a report might be limited to Acts which had been enacted before a certain date.
The Committee understands that the Statute Law Database, a version of the statute book on computer, is expected to come on line in the course of 1997 and that the Database, to which Lords and members of the public will have access, may facilitate the preparation of such a list. The Committee recommends that the Government should be invited to lay the first report early in 1997 whether or not the Database is by then available and that the report should be limited to Acts enacted before 31st December 1992. So far as future years are concerned, the Committee favours an annual published report laid before Parliament. It will be for consideration, however, whether the information accessible from the Database will meet the need.
2. SPEAKING IN THE GAP
The Committee has considered whether a time-limit should be imposed on speeches made by Lords whose names are not on speakers' lists and who rise to speak before the winding-up speeches. The Committee concludes that such speeches should be limited to four minutes and that the guidance in the Companion to Standing Orders should be amended to read "Any such speaker is expected to be brief (not longer than four minutes)."
3. APPLICATION OF ROTATION RULE TO THE LIAISON COMMITTEE
The Committee recommends that the rotation rule, which is applied to most select committees of the House in order to secure a regular turnover of membership, should be applied to the Liaison Committee so as to require the retirement of one member per session.
4. ATTENDANCE AT DEBATES
The Committee again draws attention to the guidance in the Companion (at page 67):
"A Lord who is taking part in a debate is expected to attend the greater part of that debate. It is considered discourteous for him not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following his own, and for the winding-up speeches."
Lords who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end should normally remove their names from the list.
5. MAIDEN SPEECHES
The Committee reminds the House that since maiden speakers are normally congratulated by the following speaker only, it is desirable that Lords should not leave the Chamber during such congratulations.
6. PASSING BETWEEN THE LORD SPEAKING AND THE WOOLSACK
The Committee reminds the House of the custom (set out in the Companion at page 64) that "No Lord may pass between the Woolsack (or the chair) and any Lord who is speaking, nor between the Woolsack and the Table".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is proposed that speeches in the gap should be restricted to four minutes but I have not seen in the report or anywhere else any particular argument in favour of that. A speech may be made in the gap because the noble Lord concerned was away the previous day and was not able to give notice; it may be on a matter of great importance and delicacy; it may be on quite a trivial matter. But we have not been told by the Procedure Committee which of these arguments caused it to put forward what is undoubtedly a penalisation of the noble Lord who speaks at that time. He will be anyhow penalised by coming in at the end of the debate after all the speeches other than the winding-up speeches. Why he should be penalised in advance, without any indication as to what are the grounds for penalisation, I do not know, and the Procedure Committee has not been good enough to tell us.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to a matter that is not in the report but was before the Procedure Committee. I understand that the committee did not report on it because it considered that it was more a matter for government business than of procedure.
It is a matter of the very greatest importance because it affects your Lordships' legislative role and indeed your role in the constitution. The matter that was raised was the inconvenience—the undesirability—of taking controversial and important business in the supper adjournment. I drew three cases to the attention of the committee. One concerned a matter which had been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who said that it had been raised by him on a number of other occasions.
The first example in my recollection occurred in July 1978 when no fewer than eight items were listed for the supper adjournment. Several of those items were of great importance. Two of them were Northern Ireland appropriation measures which were liable to take the whole of the time and, in fact, left only seven minutes for the remaining four or five items. One of those remaining items was the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order which in effect extended to Northern Ireland the provisions of the Divorce Reform Act 1969. I need not remind your Lordships, in view of the recent discussions on the Family Law Bill, how intensely controversial that was. Needless to say, it ran over the seven minutes, to the great inconvenience of those who were waiting for the main business, which was not concluded until nearly one o'clock in the morning.
1708
The second occasion was in 1989 when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to the impropriety of taking the business that was then listed for the supper adjournment and said he had protested on many occasions against that practice. That protest seems to have been effective because the practice was not revived until very recently—until in fact last summer—when a deplorable incident took place on the Criminal Appeal Bill. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner had moved an amendment to provide for mandatory sentences for murder to be assimilated into the practice of discretionary life sentences, thus making them much more open to the public. That amendment was supported by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, by his predecessor my noble and learned friend Lord Lane and by the former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry, so its importance could hardly be exaggerated. The amendment was opposed by the Home Office Minister, although it was supported by the Opposition parties. All parties, though not of course the Cross-Bench Peers, had sent out Whips. It was very controversial as well as important. It was carried by a substantial majority in your Lordships' House—and that only happens when a great number of government supporters either vote against the Government or abstain, which is what happened on that occasion.
Evidently that was by no means congenial to the Government and arrangements were made to reverse your Lordships' decision in a whipped vote in the other place. That came on a Friday and indeed the majority in the other place naturally overturned your Lordships' decision. That fell for discussion on the following Monday only and on that occasion the business was listed in the supper adjournment. The Government had sent out a Whip, but of course none of the other parties had had time, even if they had had the inclination, to whip their supporters. With the result foregone, your Lordships' decision was reversed.
It is clear from that—is it not?—that your Lordships were effectively denied your proper legislative role. Your Lordships were given no real opportunity of adhering to your former decision nor even to adapt the misleading cliché of asking the other place to think again because it had only considered the matter once. It is because of the constitutional importance that I venture to bring this matter before your Lordships.
The Chairman of Committees, with his usual courtesy and helpfulness, notified me of what had happened because I could not attend the Procedure Committee meeting. I gather that the committee was generally sympathetic to the case put forward in the memorandum. There were three reasons why it declined to act. First, it was difficult to define what was important and controversial. There might be borderline cases, but in none of those I have mentioned would there have been the smallest difficulty in saying that the issues were important and controversial.
The second reason was that it is sometimes necessary or desirable to take important and controversial business in the supper adjournment. That was allowed for. I venture to suggest that the rule should apply only in ordinary circumstances, so that in exceptional

1709
circumstances such business can be taken in the adjournment after discussion with all concerned. The third was the real reason; namely, that it was considered more a matter of business management than procedure. I imagine that your Lordships will be quite content if the matter is taken care of under the aegis of business management so that in future noble Lords will not be frustrated in performing their constitutional role.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Committee must have examined the matter of speaking in the gap in some detail to arrive at the figure of four minutes. I ask the Chairman of Committees this question: what was the average length of the speeches in the gap which they examined?
As regards maiden speeches, the report states,
"The Committee reminds the House that since maiden speakers are normally congratulated by the following speaker only".
That is the theory. Twice in my short time in the House it has reaffirmed that only the following speaker should congratulate, but that is constantly ignored. Practically every speaker throughout the remainder of the debate, particularly the Front Bench speakers, are fulsome in their congratulations. No doubt they are well-earned, but that is very distracting in getting on with the debate. Does the Committee really believe that that is the normal procedure or has it given up the ghost and given up trying?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which asked the Procedure Committee to find a means of ensuring that Acts passed by Parliament shall be brought into effect, perhaps I may commend the first item in the report to your Lordships. It introduces a means by which your Lordships can see for yourselves the extent to which Ministers do or do not use the important powers delegated to them of bringing legislation into effect.
As regards the intervention of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I regard it as anything but a penalty to speak in the gap. That is when everyone is pouring back into the Chamber to hear the really important speeches from the Front Benches. It is perfectly possible to get one's name on the list by telephoning if one is not in the House and in person on the morning of the debate. It is a great privilege to speak in the gap and it should not be regarded as being as of right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as regards the recommendation that the speaker in the gap should be allowed four minutes, if people constantly take those four minutes, does not that in fact mean the end of the timed debate? If a speaker takes four minutes in a timed debate, that can only be at the expense of the winding-up speakers.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as concerns the first part of the report, to which the Chairman of Committees referred. The report now under consideration states that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended in its 1993–94 report,
1710
"That the House seeks a mechanism to ensure that Acts passed by Parliament are brought into operation".
My concern is that this report does not do that. I shall come to what I believe it does, but I do not believe that it does that. The matter is very important. Failure to provide such a mechanism brings Parliament into disrepute. Further, time spent laboriously working on the Bill is wasted unless that legislation is brought into effect.
The Procedure Committee report refers to certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which were not brought into force because the Government rejected certain central provisions of the Act after it had become law; and they were able to do that because of the commencement provisions. These prescribed that provisions of the Act should be brought into force, by order, without limit of time within which any order must be made. It is a striking instance but far from unique.
Such an open-ended provision is objectionable and should only be enacted exceptionally when the Government have satisfied the House that there are the most cogent reasons for doing so, for such Acts are permissive and not mandatory on government: they amount to optional legislation.
The recommendation of the Procedure Committee that an annual report should be laid before the House listing provisions neither repealed nor brought into force, though welcome, does not address the problem. I wonder therefore whether the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee should be invited to report on open-ended commencement provisions, giving its opinion as to whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify acceptance.
Commencement provisions appear at the very end of Bills. At Committee stages they often fall to be considered at a late hour and tend not to receive the consideration that they should. I recall moving an amendment to one such clause and, although I was able truthfully to say that I received support from all quarters of the House, I confess there was only one of your Lordships in each quarter!
I cannot refrain from referring to the very sad death of Lord Airedale, of which we learnt only the other day. It was he who annually at this time of the year referred to the Easter Act passed in the 1920s, which is still not in force. He would, I am sure, have supported my plea for action.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in querying the wisdom of limiting speeches in the gap to four minutes. I believe that that very much depends on the length of the gap, which can be quite long. Sometimes the gap is long enough to cause surprise and inconvenience to speakers in the following debate because the current debate ended so early.
In addition to the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, there is the point that a noble Lord may have been unsure whether he was able to attend a debate that morning so had not put down his name. He may then attend the whole debate and feel

1711
that he has something important to add. I agree that four minutes is probably enough, but it may not be and therefore I believe it unwise to impose that limit.
Finally, when I joined your Lordships' House some six years ago, I got quite a lecture from the then Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir John Sainty, who felt that our debates were becoming rather stereotyped. He asked me to do what I could to encourage genuine and open debate. I would have thought that speeches in the gap fall within that category. It is that admonition which emboldens me to query the wisdom of limiting speeches in the gap to four minutes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his remarks about speeches during the interval. I have had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House for 20 years but have not once spoken in the gap. Personally, I am not interested in the matter. But I can conceive of circumstances where a Member of your Lordships' House has something to contribute to a debate covering a field in which he or she has specialist knowledge, which fact he or she may not have been able to communicate to the usual office in time. I believe that to fix a time for these interventions is arbitrary. In my experience, the House has its own way of expressing disapproval of those who intervene without any justification and who, in many cases, may have come into the Chamber just prior to delivering their speeches. I suggest that the Procedure Committee takes this back again without imposing any time limit. The House can enforce its own disciplines, more particularly under the leadership of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as a member of the Procedure Committee I should like to deal with speeches in the gap and the practice of noble Lords walking out of the Chamber after maiden speeches. If one has only just come into the House one has no business to speak in the gap. One should be there for the whole of the debate. It is amazing how much can be said in four minutes if one puts one's mind to it. A limit of four minutes will concentrate the mind.
I believe that the practice of walking out immediately after a maiden speaker has sat down is deplorable. It is right that Members should wait for the congratulations to the maiden speaker. But the committee was referring to the congratulations from the speaker following the maiden speaker, not any congratulations from other Peers later on. I am aware that other noble Lords have been asked not to congratulate the maiden speaker, but if in a time limited debate a subsequent speaker chooses to sacrifice some of his slender ration of time to congratulate an old friend perhaps we should not be too hard on him.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I speak as someone who has noted the wish of the House to limit the length of his speech. I hope that the House accepts that sometimes I can appreciate the feeling of the House. I shall deal with the first section of the report, admirably introduced by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. The Procedure Committee has found an
1712
ingenious mechanism that ensures the House is made aware of any problems that may exist but does not constrain the House in the way it deals with those problems.
The cut-off date chosen for the first report is a little curious. The report will be for the edification not only of Members of your Lordships' House but will be available to Parliament as a whole and the country at large. It is suggested that the first report will be published early in 1997 and should include only those Acts passed up to December 1992. Effectively, there will be almost a five-year gap. Although it does not directly affect us, we should note that in the next year there will be a general election. It is only right that in a general election the people of this country make a judgment of the performance of the Government that has been in office in the previous Parliament.
If we put before the British people a report that gives information about Acts of Parliament passed up to 1992, they will have no information about principal Acts passed by this Parliament since the last general election. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Procedure Committee. I hope that the committee will reconsider the cut-off date in the interests not only of this House but of Parliament as a whole and the British people.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Lord Chairman can give the House an indication of the Government's intentions in regard to paragraph 1. If so, how and when will the Government indicate whether or not they agree with this recommendation?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I should like to turn first to the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords. Arguments were not put forward in the report because it is not customary to do so. For the convenience of the House, the committee seeks to keep those reports as brief as possible. This is a matter which is not unfamiliar to your Lordships. For long there has been guidance on this matter in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I quote briefly from the bottom of page 65, where reference is made to speeches made at that time:
"Any such speech should be brief".
The Procedure Committee decided to give additional guidance to your Lordships. Some discussion took place about the amount of time that should be suggested to your Lordships as a reasonable limit. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, asked about the average. Statistics were presented to the committee by the Clerk. The average worked out at between three and four minutes. That was of assistance in recommending to your Lordships that the maximum should be four minutes. The Procedure Committee very much hoped that noble Lords who chose to speak in the gap would not necessarily go up to the limit of four minutes but might take a shorter period. There were a number of exceptions in the length of speeches in the gap. In one particular case the length of speech was 14 minutes. However, there had been a dispute as to whether or not the speaker concerned had made an effort to give notice that she wished to take part in the debate.

1713
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not mention all those who have spoken on this report. I trust that what I have said will give an indication. As always, in procedural matters we feel our way when new proposals are put forward. The matter is always in the hands of your Lordships. This is your Lordships' House and it is your Lordships' committee. It is always possible to consider matters if evidence emerges that changes need to be made at any time. That was the firm recommendation of the committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as several noble Lords have indicated that a rigid limit of four minutes is inappropriate, will the Procedure Committee give further consideration to this matter at its next or future meetings? If the average is four minutes, there may be a very important matter that may take eight or 10 minutes, which may be offset by matters that may take a minute and a half or two minutes, and so four minutes will probably be excessive. Can we be told that the Procedure Committee will have another look at it?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, no. My remarks were not intended to convey that impression. It is a firm recommendation by the Procedure Committee to your Lordships on the basis of the thorough discussion that we had. If your Lordships agree the Motion today, your Lordships will be adopting that recommendation, among the other recommendations before you. Of course, at a subsequent time, if evidence emerged—as I was seeking to say just now—that changes were desirable, then the matter can always be returned to by your Lordships in the familiar way.
Perhaps I may now turn to the matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am grateful to him for having mentioned beforehand that he proposed to intervene in this discussion. It is true that that matter, although considered in thorough detail by the Procedure Committee, is not in the report. There is a simple reason for that: it is customary, as your Lordships will, I hope, be aware, not to report things upon which the Procedure Committee, or indeed other committees, do not make recommendations, and to leave things as they are. Were we to embark upon a change in that custom, your Lordships would find that we would have an endless series of proposals of a negative character only ending up in a report with a series of negative recommendations which would probably not be too helpful to your Lordships. As I said on another matter just now, it is sought to keep reports to a minimum size, if possible.
There is also a distinction to be drawn between this matter and, for example, the Consolidated Fund Bill which was reported upon in a recent report by the Procedure Committee. That was the subject of discussion on a number of occasions within the Chamber itself.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, so, in fact, were the three instances to which I referred. Evidently, in addition, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, had raised the matter on a number of other occasions.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, waited for a moment or two, he would have found that I was going on to deal with those matters. The distinction which I was seeking to draw was that the matter had been raised a number of times on the Floor of the House. It had also been referred recently three times to the Procedure Committee. On that particular matter, the Procedure Committee in one of its recent reports made a positive recommendation, which was that it felt that the matter had been aired sufficiently. It recommended to your Lordships—and your Lordships accepted the recommendation when you accepted the report—that the matter should not be raised again. There is a distinction. That is why that matter is not reported upon in the report itself.
As I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will know from what I had an opportunity to say to him before the debate, his case was presented thoroughly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We had the benefit of a detailed memorandum from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the advocacy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Perhaps I may say as an aside that this is the first time that I, as a mere silk, have had the opportunity to congratulate a judge, and a senior judge at that, on his advocacy. I hope that he will not consider it presumptuous or impertinent of me to have done so. After all, one of the blessings of this place is that we do not just have the benefit of the judicial participation of our—if I may call them this—noble and learned friends; we have the benefit of their advocacy on legislative matters. It is partly as a result of their supreme advocacy that they have reached the pinnacle of the judicial system.
I say all that merely to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that his proposals were considered thoroughly. Although it is true to say that his worries were carefully listened to and discussed by the Procedure Committee, where there was some sympathy for the points he was making, the Procedure Committee was in no doubt whatsoever that it was in fact a matter for the business management of the House. Perhaps I may add to that that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, so ably—if I may say so—put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was taken and well understood. I feel sure that it will be dealt with sensitively. I do not believe that there is any cause for qualms upon that score.
Perhaps I may turn now to item one which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I shall deal first with the short point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The Government will of course be studying the report and will be making their views known about it at some point in the future. I would just say this, because I believe that it is important to have some flavour of the discussions which took place in your Lordships' Select Committee: it was on the initiative of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, supported most constructively by the other leaders in your Lordships' House and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, who suggested about a year ago

1715
now, that the database mentioned might provide a vehicle for providing your Lordships with facilities for that aspect of scrutiny. He and others have since been pursuing that matter. It is also thanks to the noble Viscount's suggestion that, whether or not the database is on line at the beginning of or in the early part of next year, a report will in fact be produced. So that time limit will be met.
On the substantive matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I would say that that is a significant step forward. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for what he said on behalf of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I know of course that the proposal made in the report of the Procedure Committee does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, would have wished, although I understand—I am grateful for this—that he supports the measures even though he feels that they should go rather further.
As with other matters—I believe that this is a significant step—we are again feeling our way. It would he possible to look at this after it has been in operation for a short period to see whether there is any other way in which we might improve it. We will also have the benefit of the Government's clear advice on these matters and no doubt an opportunity to reconsider them then. I suggest that we try this scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned 1992. We did have some discussion about the date. There is nothing inviolate about a particular date. I do not believe that there will be any point in the Procedure Committee returning to that matter at a very early date, because it has just had an opportunity to discuss the matter thoroughly. However, we can keep that in mind. The question of a time limit has not escaped attention, but the substantive point which the Procedure Committee had in mind was its concern about Acts that were seemingly passed a long time ago and have not been enforced as opposed to more recent Acts, some of which, for obvious reasons, should be allowed a little time.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, made a specific suggestion. I hope that he will forgive me if I say, first, that it is not within my power to commit the Procedure Committee to anything, still less your Lordships. I certainly should not wish to trespass in the province of the chairman and members of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. However, it is clearly within the right of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and any noble Lord to seek guidance from that committee, as it would he in this case, to see whether it would be prepared to consider the matter. Perhaps the best way forward might be to leave the matter in that way to be followed up as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, chooses.
I turn to commencement provisions in principle, which are matters fundamentally for your Lordships when legislation is going forward. If a battle is to be fought on whether commencement provisions are needed or are adequate, it must be fought when the Bill is going through your Lordships' House. That is when your Lordships' minds need to be settled on the matter, whatever else is done. If we can further improve the
1716
scrutiny functions of your Lordships' House, its reputation will be enhanced by their operation, as has been the case in respect of other matters.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this late stage but the Chairman of Committees took almost 10 minutes to reply to a 10-minute speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I briefly raised a point relating to the four-minute limit for speaking in the gap, which has not been answered. If we are to continue with time limited debates, will not those additional four-minute speeches wreck the programme and curtail the speaking time of noble Lords in winding up the debate?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I was conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, had intervened on that matter. I venture to suggest that he is right in saying that the programme could be wrecked. Indeed, difficulties can arise if noble Lords on the list of speakers take longer than the time limit expressed. Although the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is always at pains to emphasise the point about time limits, I venture to suggest that his words need to be taken yet more seriously than they appear to be by some Members of your Lordships' House. Damage is caused to subsequent speakers if earlier speakers go over the time limit prescribed. I hope that that will provide some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, as regards his valid point. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Legislation: Simplification
3.54 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon rose to call attention to the opportunities, as well as to the case, for simpler and more user-friendly tax legislation, and to the proposals to that end recently made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Inland Revenue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first express my gratitude to my noble friends who have encouraged me in the formulation of today's Motion and supported its appearance on the Order Paper. I am also grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have given notice of their intention to speak today.
We owe thanks to several generations of workers on this topic, starting with those who for a number of years have urged the strong case for reforming the whole process of law making as a general matter. For example, more than 20 years ago my noble friend Lord Renton presided over a distinguished committee on The Preparation of Legislation and has argued the cause ever since.
My noble friend Lord Rippon was more recently invited by the Hansard Society to produce a further report on Making the Law, again a general one. More particularly in this field there are those who have been pressing the case for improvement in fiscal legislation. Perhaps I may mention the Institute for Fiscal Studies

1717
and the Tax Law Review Committee, of which I have the honour to be the extremely passive president. I pay tribute to the chairmanship of that committee by Graham Aaronson and to the work of his colleagues, including a number in this House. I am glad that today we shall be hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who is one of its members, and from a former director of the institute, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
The other report relevant to the debate is that produced by the Inland Revenue as a result of an amendment to last year's Finance Bill by Timothy Smith. It required the Revenue to produce a report which appeared under the title The Path to Tax Simplification and which received the benediction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My role in this general field I described at too great a length in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, almost two years ago. Suffice it to say—and I disclose some sense of guilt—that it is almost 20 years since as Shadow Chancellor I addressed the Addington Society and denounced what I called the:
"incoherent drift towards a tax system that is incomprehensible, unrespected, unenforceable—and spinning like a top".
Even so, after 11 years in government, almost half of them as Chancellor or Leader of the other House, little has changed since I made that enunciation.
It is not that I did not try, but I was certainly unable to mobilise the huge political will which was, and which will be, essential if we are to effect the fundamental changes that are needed. In one respect there has been helpful change since those days as evidenced by the documents to which I draw attention in today's debate. There is now a much stronger head of steam in support of the cause for change. The purpose of today's debate is to help turn that pressure into more solid progress.
The problem manifests itself in two ways: first, the surging volume of tax legislation and, secondly, its mounting unintelligibility or inaccessibility. There is all too often a tendency to justify the situation by saying that the problem is world-wide. Indeed, it is. During the past quarter of a century our tax law has grown from 2,000 to 6,000 pages. The Australians have doubled theirs in the past 10 years, and many other nations suffer the same fate. However, we cannot accept that growth with hand-wringing inevitability and do nothing about it. We do not have the option of doing nothing.
The problem falls into two halves: to improve the quality of legislation yet to be born; and if we are to achieve that, it is essential to improve the quality of that which already exists. That is a much longer and more difficult task.
Some people believe that we might achieve that by searching for a better, simpler tax policy. Of course, policy is relevant to the objective of simplification in the sense that policy makers should always have it in mind as a consideration. However, in a debate on the Finance Bill in April 1994 my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who was kind enough to include me among the Chancellors who from time to time had simplification as an objective, pointed out that the policy changes cannot be sufficient to achieve the cause of
1718
simplicity. Canada, for example, appointed the Carter Commission to achieve global simplification of tax law. The results of that were described in retrospect as Mr. Trudeau's "economic Vietnam". In this country we need no reminder of the fact that simple motivation for tax change implies many losers as well as winners and often does not work as well as expected. I mention sotto voce the poll tax.
But the objective of simplicity must always be a dominant consideration. We should not disregard it, but we cannot regard it as offering anything like the complete answer to the problem of simpler taxes. The most important factor is whether we believe it is possible at all to achieve improvement in the quality of our tax legislation. I am happy to say that all who have considered the question reply with a strong affirmative.
Plain language law, law which is user friendly, is obtainable. The Tax Law Review Committee and the Inland Revenue agree on the key components: a clearer structure of what you are trying to do; much shorter sentences; and modern design, modern layout and headings that help the reader. Of course, simplification cannot be at the cost of clarity. You have to balance the two. But one cannot seek complete precision at the price of infinite prolixity.
The fact that one can make those improvements is clear from the examples contained in the appendices to the reports to which I have drawn the attention of the House. I suspect that I am not alone in preferring the more radical approach of the Tax Law Review Committee to that exemplified by the Inland Revenue. The Tax Law Review Committee's approach coincides with the style of the Special Committee of Tax Law Consultative Bodies which offers a sample of legislation—what it calls rent-a-room relief. The verdict of the writer in the periodical Taxation is one which I welcome. He described the TLRC's redraft of roll-over relief as "magnificent".
There is no dispute that plain language can bring huge benefits. It can bring about a reduction in compliance costs. It is estimated that the cost of compliance for Inland Revenue taxes alone amounts to some £4 billion per year. It can help us to ease the process of future policy reform if we enable future finance Bills to be simpler and clearer. But, if that is to be achieved, it will require a very substantial culture change for everyone involved in producing fiscal legislation. The TLRC emphasises that. There is no doubt that that culture must change.
We need to have and to enforce stricter rules to secure more advanced decision-making, fewer last minute scrambles. There should be no law making on the hoof; no Dangerous Dogs Acts. There should be—in two words—more time. We need more human resources, above all, in the engine rooms of parliamentary draftsmanship—in the Revenue departments as well as in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Parliamentary counsel are often criticised—I see my noble friend Lord Carr sitting there; he will join me in this—for what has been described as an unduly,
"rigorous, arcane and somewhat inflexible craft-tradition".

1719
Without disclosing any secrets, I recollect that at the time that my noble friend and I were setting about the draftsmanship of the Industrial Relations Act in 1970, we dared to suggest to senior parliamentary counsel at the time that it might help if words which were defined in the definition clause were printed in italics—as now recommended by the TLRC. That simple proposition evoked a five-page reply telling me why that was not possible.
But I must not be unfair, because parliamentary counsel need time to do their work properly and we do not often give it to them. They need their resources strengthened. And we have had much help from them for the TLRC and, in particular, from the presence there of Sir Peter Graham, who was First Parliamentary Counsel until 1994.
As I said previously, if the process is to work, it needs a senior Minister (or ministerial group) in overall long-term charge. Theoretically, the Prime Minister is responsible, but I dare say that he is too busy. The Attorney-General by himself is not strong enough. One needs to integrate and draw together the authority of the Leaders of both Houses, the Attorney and the Lord Chancellor.
Even then, we need to agree on what we are setting out to do. We need to commit ourselves to a rewrite, over a period of not more than five years, of all fiscal legislation. We should start with the taxation of income, as the TLRC suggests, and have a pilot scheme in that area. There is no reason why Customs and Excise should not look at its area too.
There are many key propositions which I believe need further consideration but to which at this stage we should give only provisional answers. Should we opt for what is called purposive legislation? More statements of purpose are desirable but I am doubtful whether the concept of "purposisation" should be "totemised" as an answer to the problem.
Should we consign more to secondary legislation? Up to a point maybe, but if we look at the way in which we handle secondary legislation at present, which the Rippon Committee described as "highly unsatisfactory", I am not confident that that would be the right way forward.
We must recognise that the process will involve more than mere consolidation. It should allow for the recommendation of at least minor changes. But those too will need parliamentary endorsement. Should we hand over the management of all the details to a new extra-parliamentary body? I confess to little enthusiasm for that because in my days as Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs I established a body called the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee with the intention that that should do the same in the field of consumer affairs. One of its early chairmen was the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It was by no means a success, but that was probably my fault rather than his.
But we do need institutional changes. Outside Parliament the planning work and the shaping of proposals must be done by a specialised body. I do not think that that should be a Royal Commission. It should not be as detached as the Law Commission. Rather, it
1720
should be a joint project team, a working party, drawing together the talents of the Revenue and the private sector.
There is a question about who should be in charge of that. I think there will probably be a need for continuous ministerial leadership, as well as parliamentary oversight.
Finally, we need to concentrate on what changes are necessary in Parliament itself. In that context, there is a clear need for special legislative vehicles, special tax simplification Bills, and an equally clear need for a special track for the processing of such Bills. If we get that right, that may well pave the way to an acceptance of the notion of a regular annual Tax Management Bill as part of but distinct from the regular Finance Bill routine.
The experience of both Houses now, although still quite limited, very strongly supports the case for handling such legislation by means of a Special Standing Committee. The House of Commons Procedure Committee recommended that frequently for that House, and in this House that has been recommended by the committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. In both Houses it has been relatively little used so far.
The Law Commission produced a report in November 1994, Parliamentary Procedures and the Law Commission. It asked why the Special Standing Committee procedure had been used so seldom when in both Houses it has been regarded by those who have tried it as a great success. My right honourable and learned friend Sir Patrick Mayhew, for example, has commended it very enthusiastically more than once.
The reasons given by the Law Commission paper were, first, that a Special Standing Committee is:
"Not popular with either of the Departments or business managers";
and, secondly:
"All that is lacking is the necessary will of the Government Department".
I plead guilty in that respect also because that procedure was never used in my time as Leader of the House of Commons.
Finally, one must consider the relationship between the two Houses on this matter. Can there be a role for your Lordships' House in this field, notwithstanding the fact that Bills will concern either money or supply, on which we are precluded from making amendments? The Tax Law Review Committee answers that by saying no, but I believe that it would be a great pity so to conclude when one sees the outstanding role played by this House in connection with Law Commission Bills and thinks of the presence in this House of fiscal experts ranging from Law Lords like the noble and learned Lords, Lord Nolan and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to my noble friends Lord Cockfield, Lord Rees, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Hayhoe, who are to speak later.
If this House is to have a role in that field, does it make sense to have separate Special Standing Committees? It is difficult to believe that it would be useful for outside experts to be involved in giving

1721
evidence to two separate parliamentary committees on each piece of legislation. Perhaps my most radical proposal is to ask whether there is a case for establishing, to handle that task, a joint Special Standing Committee of both Houses, albeit with Members of the House of Commons in the majority. There is only one precedent in the non-fiscal field for such a Joint Special Committee. That was on the Highways Bill in 1958–59. But is that not a change that would make sense? It would maximise the impact of the expertise in both places and secure a legitimate role for your Lordships' House.
I have closed on probably the most important procedural question, at least so far as concerns this House. Those are some of the questions on which my colleagues and I on the Tax Law Review Committee will concentrate in the preparation of our final report and on which I believe the authorities in the Treasury, in the Inland Revenue and in both Houses should now be focusing their attention. It would perhaps be suitable for all of them to bring their reports to a conclusion together, ahead of the probable date of the forthcoming general election so that early practical arrangements can be put in place for a new Parliament by a freshly elected (or, as I should hope, a freshly re-elected) government. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, as usual, I find myself in almost complete harmony with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. We have co-operated on a number of reports in the past and, once again, on the question of tax reform, we find that we are very much at one. I too very much welcome the reports that we are debating. I find that the report of the Inland Revenue is a very positive document, especially on the central issue of the rewriting of tax law. However, I want to concentrate on the report of the Tax Law Reform Committee issued by the Inland Revenue.
First, perhaps I may tell the House that I take special personal pleasure in the quality of the reports produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I very much appreciated the friendly remarks made after my maiden speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Certainly, looking back on the vagaries of my career, what gives me the most sense of satisfaction is the fact that I played some part in the setting up of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. After I left the institute it really started to prosper and it now goes from strength to strength.
I approach the discussion of this kind of issue with great humility because I am by no means an expert on the technicalities of tax. It takes a very brave critic to question the judgment of the very learned members of the Tax Law Review Committee or, indeed, to take on or tangle with the Inland Revenue on technical issues. I should like to make a few comments. First, I want to echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said on the importance of the issue. It is indeed of very considerable economic importance. Tax compliance alone, for which the noble and learned Lord gave figures, amounts to over 1 per cent. of GDP. It is not just a question of the cost; it is also a question of justice.
1722
We may not be entitled to expect complete certainty in tax law. Perhaps sometimes we err too much in our devotion to the search for certainty which is a very illusive concept and that search often leads to unduly complex legislation. If we are not entitled to expect certainty, we are entitled to expect the lack of total incomprehensibility. An example was given in the report of the Tax Law Review Committee. At page 33, the report cites one part of the National Insurance Act 1946 which I believe is worth reading to your Lordships:
"For the purposes of this Part of the Schedule a person over pensionable age, not being an insured person, shall be treated as an employed person if he would be an insured person were he under pensionable age and would be an employed person were he an insured person".
I remember at one stage that I tried to find out what the definition of "income" was for the purpose of income tax legislation. The conclusion that I came to was that the only meaning that the word could be given was that it is a particular form of increase in wealth which is subject to income tax legislation—a totally circular definition.
How can we avoid that nonsense? How can we improve the law and achieve a greater degree of comprehensibility? There are two main recommendations made in the interim report from the Tax Law Review Committee. The first is greater use of explanatory memoranda. That certainly seems to me to have a great deal to commend it. It is much more satisfactory than finding out the purpose of a particular piece of legislation by referring to Hansard. It may be that there is a very clear explanation in the speech of the Minister introducing a particular tax measure, but it has not been outside the experience of the other place that the Minister does not altogether understand the tax law that he is introducing. All right, the brief is probably written for him or her by the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, but odd comments may be made in the course of the speech, there may be answers to questions, there may be a political spin given to it; indeed, there may be all sorts of reasons why Hansard is not necessarily a very accurate guide.
A clear explanatory memorandum or memoranda for different clauses is a much more satisfactory guide and a most important one. It is an important democratic principle that legislation should be interpreted in the way in which the Government, as sanctioned by Parliament, intended.
However, much the most important recommendation—indeed, the absolute centre of the reforms—is that the primary legislation of tax should be rewritten in a simple way. I was delighted to see that the Inland Revenue has accepted that task and that it reckons, perhaps to my surprise, that it could be done within five years. We should remember why that is so important. Again, perhaps I may quote from a section of the committee's report where it deals with the fact that tax legislation tends to be built on previous legislation. Paragraph 3.6 at page 18 says:
"Each year's Finance Act has built upon the structure left by the previous one so that we now have a huge edifice that bears little resemblance to the original, modest single-story block from which it has slowly metamorphosed".

1723
That is the trouble. One cannot really clarify the law unless one starts, as it were, by rewriting the whole.
The only regret that I have from the report—and which, as I understand it, is now to be remedied—is the fact that it does not mention the very important way in which we can improve the scrutiny of legislation. Obviously we want to get away from elaborate schedules. Sometimes it is the fault of politicians that so much goes into a schedule. I remember one occasion when the Chancellor said, "I want a short Bill", but the Inland Revenue said, "Yes, but we have to get this and that in". So the temptation arose and the question was put, "Can we not put it in the schedule?" There is very little scrutiny of a schedule and often very little understanding of it. In fact, it has always been the case that schedules have not necessarily been scrutinised.
Some noble Lords may know the apocryphal story of the town clerk in Birmingham in the 19th century, when divorce was only possiblle by an Act of Parliament, who was, unfortunately, unhappily married. It so happened that he was responsible for drafting a very complex local water Bill. When the legislation was finally passed into the law there, hidden away in the corner of its schedule, were the words, "The Town Clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved".
The question is: how can we effect better scrutiny? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, part of the problem is time. Indeed, the pressure on time can be very considerable. I remember that the pressure of time on one occasion was such when I was in the Treasury that we found ourselves debating highly technical provisions in the early hours of the morning. At that stage, two Ministers were in charge of the Bill. My colleague was the late Lord Harold Lever. One of the Members of the Opposition asked, not unreasonably, "Can we know which of the two Ministers is answering the debate, so at least one of the two can wake up?". Well, it was true that both of us were asleep, but it was in fact Lord Lever's particular debate. Never has my admiration for that learned and witty man been greater than it was then. He jumped up, straight out of deep sleep, and said to his opponent, "The Hon. Member would no more be justified in inferring from the fact that our eyes are closed that we are asleep, than we would be in inferring from the fact that his eyes are open that he is awake".
It is of supreme importance that we have proper scrutiny. The answer must be a permanent Standing Committee to look at tax. That committee could have three functions of great importance. First, it could look at the technical changes. The point is often made that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between technical changes and the mainstream kind of policy changes contained in finance Bills. It may sometimes be difficult to distinguish, in which case it should be kept in the main body of the Bill. However, there are other occasions when it is clear that changes are technical. They should be considered by a Standing Committee.
Secondly, such a Standing Committee could also look at the periodical reports from the review of legislation being carried out by the Inland Revenue—the re-write of the primary tax legislation. Thirdly, it could look at
1724
proposed changes in tax law. A very good report was produced when it was proposed that there should be a wealth tax. Proposals for all sorts of new taxes could be examined by such a committee. More MPs would become knowledgeable; there would be less pressure of time during the Finance Bill; and the quality of taxation could be greatly improved.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I would like to take the opportunity provided by this very useful debate to address one point only, and that is the urgent need for the simplification of the capital gains tax system for the benefit of the ordinary investor. I trust that in doing so I am speaking within the intention of the debate, notwithstanding that I am descending from the general to the particular.
Basically, capital gains tax is a very simple tax and not an unfair tax. I do not seek its abolition. I ask only for a more user-friendly structure.
As your Lordships will know, in essence, the tax is this: if the sale price of a share exceeds the purchase price, you deduct one from the other, and that is a capital gain which is taxable above a certain level. Nothing could be simpler or easier.
The complication arises from the fact that a gain is taxable however many years it took for that gain to mature, up to a total of 16 years; that is to say, from March 1982 to the present day if the share has been held for that length of time, or from the date of purchase if it was bought after March 1982. But money has fallen in value by over 80 per cent. since March 1982. Consequently, it has been recognised that it would be unfair to tax a gain which has resulted only from the fall in the value of money and not from any real increase in the value of the share. There has therefore been built into the capital gains tax legislation what is called an indexation allowance. It is here that the complication starts.
To calculate a taxable gain you have to take five steps, which I must regretfully explain to your Lordships in order to sustain my plea for a simpler tax structure. Step one: you deduct the retail prices index at March 1982, or at the later date of purchase, from the RPI at the date of sale in order to obtain an adjusted RPI. Step two: divide the adjusted RPI by the RPI at the date of purchase in order to obtain a re-adjusted RPI. Step three: you multiply the cost price of the investment by the readjusted RPI in order to obtain the indexation allowance. Step four: you add the indexation allowance to the actual cost price in order to obtain the adjusted cost price. Step five: you deduct the adjusted cost price from the sale price and there is your taxable gain.
However, that is not the end of the agony. It is only the beginning. If rights issues have been made during the time that the share has been held, the same exercise has to be gone through for every such issue, because there will be a different RPI at the date of the rights issue from that which prevailed at the date of the purchase of the share.
Furthermore, if the investor has been trying to save by accumulating dividends—that is, by using dividends to buy more shares, which is a popular way of saving in

1725
these days—the exercise which I have outlined will have to be carried out every time a dividend is declared. So, at the end of the day, there may be 28 occasions in the case of a single investment where it is necessary to carry out this procedure if the share has been held since 1982. Of course, all this assumes that the shareholder has kept immaculate records of the history of his investment over the years that he has held it.
Of course, what happens in practice is that the investor throws up his hands in horror and passes everything over to his accountant at £100 an hour, or whatever is the going rate for an accountant. To me, the case seems overwhelming for another look at capital gains tax in order to avoid these horrors.
If capital gains tax on ordinary Stock Exchange investments were limited to gains made, for example, over the past two years, there would be no need whatever for any indexation allowance because there will have been no, or very little, inflation; or investments held for more than two years could be taken out of the charge to tax altogether.
I do not know how much money is yielded by capital gains tax—perhaps we may be told—or whether it would cost very much to apply a two-year time limit. But I do know that the present system produces a very great deal of wholly unproductive work for tax experts which adds nothing whatever to the prosperity of this country.
Therefore, I would like to hear an assurance from the Government that they will at least have a look at capital gains tax to see whether it might be given a slightly more user-friendly face.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, first of all may I express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon for enabling us to debate this important subject. I offer my apologies that, due to a long-standing prior engagement, I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
In common with my noble and learned friend, I express suitable contrition, I hope, because, as the table to the Revenue's paper shows, I cannot pretend that during the period that he and I laboured at the Treasury, along with my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who I hope is going to enlighten us further on this particular subject, tax legislation became less voluminous, less complex or more user-friendly. We did our best in a modest way, but the time and the pressure of events perhaps disabled us from doing as much as we would have liked.
It must be common ground between both sides of the Chamber that the system is absurdly complex, absurdly voluminous, difficult to understand and expensive to administer, both for the taxpayer and, indeed, for the Government. However, I do not believe the problem to be just a question of more skilful draftsmanship.
We all know the charming aspiration of Oliver Cromwell to simplify and reduce legislation to one small book. I believe that merely shows that, while a very capable soldier and a very capable administrator, he had
1726
not a very great deal of experience of legislation and, of course, the world in his time was slightly simpler than it is now.
I am full of admiration for the part of the paper which, under the presidency of my noble and learned friend, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced for us to work on and which I have read with great profit. It has attempted to re-draft roll-over relief and post-cessation expenditure relief. Certainly, even I can see that it is expressed in words of greater clarity and greater elegance, but I am not really capable of judging how successful it may have been. Perhaps some noble and learned Lords will be able to enlighten us on that with their keen judicial minds and greater experience of construing such measures.
The point I want to make is that clarity is certainly one objective, but, as my noble and learned friend conceded in his opening remarks, certainty is another. I do not know whether such attempts to redraft in elegant and clear language will actually stand the test of close scrutiny by the courts and the keen eyes of accountants and members of the legal profession. I suspect that it will be found to be bristling with difficulties in the actual application.
I now turn to how the legislation might be improved. There is, of course, a keen debate, which again my noble and learned friend has touched on, as to whether it is possible to confine legislation, or primary legislation, to the statement of general principles, leaving the application to the good sense of the courts. This, of course, is the historic basis on which the corpus of fiscal legislation was built up. The doctrine of judicial precedent has enabled all sorts of amendments, amplifications and enlargements to be grafted on. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said, that perhaps it is a rickety and rather complex structure. That is not entirely due to the doctrine of judicial precedent but because of additions over the years. Like so many British institutions it is developing, but in this case it has not developed into something simpler, but has taken a rather more complex direction. The objection to the statement of principle approach to draftsmanship is that it does not enable the taxpayer to know with certainty what his position may be against any new piece of legislation that is introduced. My only answer to that is that it is questionable how far the taxpayer or his advisers are any more certain nowadays when legislation runs to an infinite number of clauses and an infinite number of pages.
Against that background, I hope that I played some modest role in stimulating the helpful innovation—this has been an innovation over the past decade or so—of the publication of explanatory memoranda. They are certainly a guide to comprehension of the basic thrust of the legislation. However, I am not certain how far they really assist, when it comes to litigation, to the construction of fiscal Acts before the courts. Equally, I applaud the greater use—I believe the courts are moving much more towards this—of permitting travaux préparatoires on the Continental basis. That is an increasing tendency which I applaud.

1727
I turn now to the process of legislation itself. Again I believe that my noble and learned friend, and I to a lesser degree, can claim some credit for the increased introduction of Green Papers and draft clauses produced in advance of the finance legislation itself. This may have made a significant contribution to informed debate. As I have said, I think that the current administration can claim some credit for that.
As regards the legislative process itself, one of the important factors is that there should be an opportunity for a slower, more leisurely, and more considered review of the legislation after it has been published. It should be considered in a less adversarial and less highly charged forum. I have spent too much of my life in another place in the pitched battles over finance Bills that have dragged on through the afternoons and nights of the summer months.
I wonder whether it would not be possible after a finance Bill has been published, and after the Second Reading has taken place in another place, that it should be consigned to a Select Committee with liberty to call evidence. Of course it is objected that this would be a time consuming procedure, but now that the Budget is introduced in an earlier part of the parliamentary year and has become an autumnal rather than a spring rite, I hope that time might be available for that approach. Obviously I am not suggesting that the underlying policy should be subject to such scrutiny but at least the detail of fiscal legislation would be given a more detailed and a more leisurely scrutiny. I certainly warm to the suggestion which my noble and learned friend made that such a Select Committee might even be a Select Committee of both Houses. There is a precedent although it may not be an exact one. I think of the Consolidation Committee on which I sat many years ago, and which was composed of Members from both Houses. I hope that that suggestion may be given a little more consideration.
In the same vein, I wonder whether governments could learn to exercise a slightly greater self-restraint in their fiscal legislation. Is there any need for the annual legislative orgy which finance Bills have become? I am not saying that this is a fault confined to any one party. Of course rates may need to be fixed annually, but I wonder whether the more technical aspects—I know all the difficulties of distinguishing between what I call the more political and the more technical aspects of finance Bills, but it is possible in many cases to draw that distinction—could be confined to technical finance Bills or even to secondary legislation, provided that it is susceptible of amendment.
I now turn to the background to fiscal legislation because I believe it is impossible to divorce the complexity and the mild absurdity of the present fiscal structure. It derives from the complexity of modern life both in the private and the commercial spheres. There is also the international context. Taxation, although naturally the responsibility and concern of domestic legislatures, impinges on transactions that straddle many frontiers. There is the need to reconcile measures, for example, of dividend taxation, with similar measures overseas, the need to consider double taxation, and all those other aspects of our tax structures. Then, again,
1728
there is the use of taxation for purposes of social engineering. Here I know that I touch on perhaps controversial political matters. When one has confiscatory rates of direct taxation of 83 and 98 per cent., which we endured up to 1979, it is inevitable that the tolerance of taxpayers and the whole approach of the tax paying world to the fiscal system will be different. The period between 1945 and 1979, with short periods of intermission, resulted, I believe, in a dramatic increase in the complexity and the weight of taxation and, as I say, reduced the tolerance of ordinary taxpayers.
I shall not today in the time available touch on the question of tax avoidance. I notice that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has for the moment put that aside, but there is a case for considering whether a simpler, fairer, lower rate tax system—I shall mention a precedent for that—might lead to a different relationship between the taxpayer and the Revenue. However, it will take time to reverse attitudes. I am well aware that even after the fairly impressive reductions in direct taxation which have been put through in this country, there will still be a tendency to tax avoidance. I turn now to the overseas examples. There is a helpful—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if I may call my noble friend's attention to the time.
Lord Rees: My Lords, this Administration over a period of time has reduced taxation. It has abolished a number of taxes. I hope therefore that Mr. Blair's latest statement shows that there is some common ground between us. I hope that we may profit from the example of New Zealand and I hope that a low tax, simple environment may lead to genuinely user-friendly legislation. I hope that that is not too optimistic a note on which to end my overlong speech.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are singularly fortunate that a Chancellor of the Exchequer of such distinguished service as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, should focus our minds on this aspect of our fiscal system. We are also greatly indebted to the three reports to which he referred. Particularly, it was most encouraging to read the two models on which we might base a complete rewriting of our fiscal code over the next five years. I mention the three reports at the risk of impertinence after the contribution, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has been consistently useful, not least in its latest report.
There are two different types of legislation. One is designed for ordinary people. An example of that would be the recent Family Law Bill which has been before your Lordships. Whatever one may say about its thrust, it is well drafted and can be understood by the people it affects—the ordinary people in the streets. Then there is technical legislation, for which one can reasonably be required to have recourse to an expert. For patents, one goes to a patent agent; for landlords and tenants legislation, to a solicitor, and for the revenue statutes to a solicitor or accountant. However, there is no excuse for the complication and obscurity of much of our fiscal

1729
code. An accountant ought at least to be able to understand the provisions of a Bill at First Reading, yet there is no question but that he cannot do so at the moment. The legislation needs to be reconsidered and rewritten.
I shall not attempt to cover points made by noble Lords who preceded me. Many of them have had far more recent experience of Treasury and fiscal matters than I and I shall not be affronted if the Minister tells me that I am discussing a Jurassic fiscal code. I venture to agree with practically everything that has been said but I wish to submit three broader considerations for your Lordships, for what they are worth.
First, we use our fiscal code for economic engineering. That is permissible, but it almost inevitably leads to great complication because it needs fine tuning. Frequently, what is required to be done by the fiscal code could be done in other ways; for example, capital allowances by direct grant. One would have to interpolate some body like the University Grants Committee or the Arts Council to make the necessary adjustments. We are used to such machinery and I suggest that whenever the fiscal code is used to implement an economic policy or even to guide personal behaviour, one should find out whether there is a simpler method of achieving the same result.
The second consideration which I wish to point out is how profoundly I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said about the haste with which much of our fiscal legislation is prepared. It is almost always due to an excessive desire for secrecy. When I was a Treasury Minister, no one outside the Treasury was allowed to see a Finance Bill until it had been published. That was relaxed painfully, and the Law Officers were finally allowed to see it. The secrecy was unnecessary. Some things are highly secret, like Customs and Excise legislation, where a change in duty may lead to reticulation. But income tax and other matters concerning the Inland Revenue are not so secret and could well be widely discussed, particularly with a view to ensuring perspicuousness.
The third consideration which I suggest is that one-fifth of our fiscal legislation relates to anti-avoidance provisions. They are incredibly complicated. The reason is that the tax avoidance schemes are often complicated. With our tradition of fiscal equity, the Inland Revenue follows the convolutions through so as to hit precisely one scheme and no other. By that time, the provision is often quite incomprehensible.
I once had such a provision, and an accountant on the Back Benches pointed out that in certain remote circumstances, it would involve a double charge to tax. That was a challenge to the Inland Revenue, which proceeded to chase it further to ensure that there was no double charge to tax. It succeeded, but at the cost of complete incomprehensibility. When I was challenged as to its meaning, all I could do was to repeat what Sir John Simon, with his incomparably clear legal brain, said: "What the Inland Revenue intends to do by this is so-and-so. I don't see how it does it, but that is the way
1730
they tell me they will administer it. I hope you will allow it to pass on that basis". They did allow it and allowed me to pass it on that basis too.
We can sweep away the great bulk of the anti-avoidance provisions by a simple provision such as exists in the United States and Australia. Any transaction, the dominant purpose of which is the avoidance of tax, shall be void for that purpose, though valid for any other. The law is quite capable of dealing with a dominant purpose. I ask that the point be considered.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the issues raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and the report of the Tax Law Review Committee are of great importance. However, I wish to go further into the causes of the trouble than that report or my noble and learned friend's speech went. The report deals essentially with the effects and not with the causes. It deals with symptoms, not the disease itself. Although there is a great deal of merit in the relief of symptoms, there is much greater virtue in trying to tackle the causes.
My noble and learned friend kindly referred to the speech that I made in your Lordships' House nearly two years ago. On that rare occasion noble Lords were permitted by the usual channels to discuss the Finance Bill, and I analysed the reasons for the complexity of fiscal legislation. I do not propose going over the whole of that field again. But I want to make one comment which links back to those remarks.
The guilty parties, if I may use such a phrase, in this field are successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and also the legal profession, particularly the judiciary. I shall come to the latter point in more detail in a moment. So far as Chancellors of the Exchequer are concerned, it is not simply a question of failure to simplify taxes; it is a penchant they have for introducing new complications. Almost every Budget has its list of what that very great Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Lever of Manchester, described as "ripping little wheezes". Those are what in these days are called "tax shelters" designed to attract public attention and, no doubt, the plaudits of the business community and particularly of the financial services industry, in whose pockets for some strange reason the benefits of the tax relief almost always end up.
We should be much better if we had much lower rates of tax—I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Rees—but no tax shelters. The two things go together. If there are a lot of tax shelters, there are high tax rates. What we want are no tax shelters and much lower tax rates.
I now turn to the question of the legal profession and the judiciary. One has to be very, very careful what one says here. As we know, the judges are a very sensitive lot, much given to criticising one another (if one studies the minor incident of the Scott Report) but somewhat adverse to people criticising them.
It is very well known that the standard of proof in criminal cases is very much higher than the standard of proof required in civil cases. That is not so much a

1731
matter of statute law as of judicial decision over a long period of time. Equally it is the case—I agree that they are not entirely ad idem—that the judiciary applies very, very stringent tests indeed to the interpretation of fiscal legislation. Indeed, in one of the leading cases on which I was brought up, the judgment of the learned judge concerned could well be regarded as incitement to tax avoidance. It is not surprising, if that is the attitude on the part of the judiciary, that there is then the growth of a prosperous tax avoidance industry. The effect of that is that the Inland Revenue in turn sets out to pre-empt what it thinks will be the activities of the tax avoidance industry, and then if it finds it has failed it comes along with even more complicated legislation. Somehow we have to break through that vicious circle. I shall be absolutely frank: I do not know how that is done.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. One of my earliest jobs when was very young was cleaning up the excess profits duty of the 1914–18 war. That contained an anti-avoidance provision; so, indeed, did the excess profits tax of the 1939–45 war; so did the excess profits tax of the Korean War. I was involved in the administration of all three. I hate to say how old I am, but noble Lords can draw their own conclusions from my remarks. There can be provisions of that kind in times of war. First, people are prepared to tolerate them, and secondly, on the whole the standard of behaviour on the part of the kind of people who normally go in for tax avoidance is inhibited by public opinion. Incidentally, in both of the first two instances we had exactly the same sort of body as the noble and learned Lord suggested. I believe it was called the Board of Referees, which pontificated on whether or not the main purpose of the transaction was tax avoidance. A few years ago, in the Ramsay case, it looked as though the judiciary was taking a rather stronger line on purely artificial transactions, but I believe that has gradually been chipped away at in subsequent cases.
In the end, the attitude of the judiciary in this respect is a reflection of public opinion as it existed a generation or so ago. It has been said, and the quotation will be familiar to noble and learned Lords, that the law lags behind public opinion and public opinion lags behind the truth. In the present instance the time lags are very considerable. I believe that the general attitude in the country towards taxation is somewhat different to what it was, for example, at the time of the Civil War. I refer of course to the Civil War in which Oliver Cromwell and Charles Stuart were involved. The origin of that civil war rested on taxation considerations. The whole emphasis after those events was to cut down the power of the Crown to tax the citizen.
There has been a change in this quite extensive period, and people accept that there is a legitimate place for taxation and that it is not simply a question of the Crown getting money out of the citizen for purposes of which the citizen would not approve. Of course some governments take too much money, and for purposes that not everyone will support. But, as a general proposition, I believe there is a greater acceptance today that the state has a greater role than it had before the war, and certainly a greater role than it had before 1914.
1732
That is inevitably reflected in the level of taxation. But it is also affected by public opinion on the question of tax avoidance.
At the end of the day, this issue is capable of resolution only if there is a state of public opinion under which it is unacceptable. In those circumstances, a general anti-avoidance provision may take us some way further forward. But in the end, that can happen only if there is a change in the ethos and outlook of people in the country, of the legislature itself and particularly, at the end of the day, of the judiciary, whose job it is to enforce the standards by which we all have to live.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have been taking part in financial debates in one House or the other since the year of grace 1951. I must say at once that, of all those debates over all those years, I have never heard one opened better than this one, introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. His speech was masterly, it gave a splendid set-off to the debate and it demonstrated a greater quality of understanding of the hideously complex issues with which we are concerned in these debates than any I have heard. The House has every reason to be greatly indebted to him.
I want to deal quickly with one or two particular aspects of the matter and first of all with the need for simpler and more friendly financial legislation. That is becoming more difficult because of the curious way in which the Inland Revenue appears to be handled.
For many years I dealt with Inland Revenue offices in the town of Rugby, where I was an administrator, and in London where I lived mostly, and in Hampshire with a tax office close to me. It now appears that it is the policy of the Inland Revenue to move their offices very largely away from what I might describe as "inhabited areas" and put a considerable distance between a great many taxpayers and their offices.
Perhaps I may quote from my own experience. When I was chairman of Rugby Portland Cement, I dealt with the tax office in Rugby. Later I and my wife dealt with tax offices which are located, believe it or not, at Walsall and Bootle. I do not know how many noble Lords are familiar with those no doubt distinguished areas, but they are a very long way from those who live in the south of England.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will say whether there is a deliberate policy of moving tax offices into remote parts of the country, with the consequence that proper, immediate contact with the tax office is much more difficult. If the tax office is in the same town or area in which one lives or works, many small points of difficulty can be easily resolved by a visit to the office and having a word with an official. But if the tax office is located, as in my case, hundreds of miles away, every issue, small or great, that one wants to take up with that office has to be dealt with either by prolonged and expensive telephone calls or by extended correspondence.
I wonder whether it is pure chance that I have been affected or whether it is the deliberate policy of the Revenue to move its offices out of the south of England

1733
in particular and install them in areas which are, no doubt, significant in themselves but are a considerable distance from where quite a large proportion of the population lives. It is important to get that point clear.
I turn to particular forms of taxation. I agree wholly with what was said earlier today; namely, that the best system of taxation is taxation at low rates with very few concessions. Once taxation is at a high rate and, to prevent causing hardship, it becomes necessary to allow a great many concessions, the whole system becomes infinitely more complicated. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether it is the policy of the Government to impose rates of taxation which are as low as possible, even though that may involve it being levied over a fairly wide area?
Here, I should like to comment on a tax which I believe is a thoroughly bad one; namely, VAT. VAT involves imposing an additional charge on a vast number of goods. In truth, it is inflationary because it inflates prices arbitrarily. It also operates in surprising areas. Some noble Lords may recall that a little time ago I raised in your Lordships' House the extraordinary business of VAT being imposed on repairs to old churches. If ever there is an area which would seem to be justifiably made free of tax, it must surely be work on old churches. When a small country parish, such as the one with which I am associated, has to repair its lovely but ancient little church and finds that, in addition to the building costs involved, it is also taxed on the money used for that purpose and the expense incurred, that seems to justify criticism of the tax system. I believe that VAT is a very bad tax. Its effects on the economy are very serious indeed.
It has been said earlier in the debate that the more there is a tax burden in one direction or another, the greater is the incentive to take steps to avoid it. Tax avoidance is a very serious matter. I know from my own experience at the Treasury that a great deal of energy has to be devoted to making sure that taxes are not avoided. But, the higher the rate of tax—whether it be VAT, income tax, surtax or whatever—the greater the incentive for taxpayers to avoid it and not, in that respect at any rate, to be taxpayers at all. Therefore, again I want to know the Government's policy in that direction.
Finally, if taxation is to be restrained, it is necessary that there should be economy in public administration. There are innumerable directions in which we all want to spend public money and know that spending public money will do good. But if we comply with those demands, we shall push tax rates up to dangerous heights.
In that context, in the moment that remains to me, I beg my noble friend the Minister to say that legal aid will be cut. In the past day or two there has been the example of a German who has undertaken litigation with a company in this country and who apparently has received£½ million in legal aid. As a taxpayer, I object to contributing to that amount of legal aid and in particular to assisting the efforts of a German to litigate against a British company.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself speaking in a debate in which, compared at any rate with the galaxy—if that is the appropriate collective noun—of former Treasury Ministers who make up such a large proportion of the speakers on this occasion, I am definitely a lay person, perhaps a lay Lord, albeit one with several decades of working experience of the two particular aspects of this matter that I want to raise. Since there are only two aspects, I hope to be brief. Given the fact that each speaker has 10 minutes, I may even under-run rather than over-run the time. I hope that one day it might even be possible to auction one's under-run to one of your Lordships who wishes to be more loquacious than he is allowed.
I cannot pretend that I have fully absorbed the detail of the Inland Revenue and IFS reports. But I have no difficulty in applauding their general tone and particularly the optimism about improvement which comes through in the report of the Inland Revenue. Some of the comparative examples of rewritten New Zealand and Australian tax legislation strike one forcefully as examples of what should be aimed at whenever possible.
In the course of my browsing I found one—perhaps other noble Lords also found it—rather pleasing double entendre. In paragraph 6.8 on page 22 of the Inland Revenue background paper, which is concerned with understandability of legislation, it says,
"Many critics have argued that it is not easy for users to find their way around our present tax legislation".
Generally, it seems to me that rational people have to approve of simplification and thereby user-friendliness in every legitimate human activity. In the case of taxation there seem to me to be two principal reasons. First, a democratic one: it must be right that taxpayers as a whole accept the system of taxation as fair and rational. They cannot possibly do that wholeheartedly unless they have a reasonable understanding of it and indeed may well not accept it even if they do understand it.
There is a horrible jargon word in management speak—to "own". The various layers of management have to "own" corporate policy before they can effectively manage; taxpayers have to "own" the tax system before they will pay taxes happily and not spend excessive time trying to avoid payment. If your Lordships will forgive me, perhaps I can recount my daughter's experience. At the age of about 18, between school and university—I hope she is out of the tax net; this is around 20 years ago—she took a job at the Ideal Homes Exhibition. She came home waving around £45 in her hand and I said, rather facetiously, "I hope you are going to put aside some money to pay the tax on that". She turned round and said to me, "Daddy, what do you think you are talking about? I earned this!"
The second reason why simplification is desirable is that it should at least make some dent in the size of what is, in my view, an unnecessary industry. Fiscal advice employs an amazing number of highly paid professionals whose time could be redeployed. Given

1735
the present tax system, they could not be described as unproductive, but in any national calculation their time could be better otherwise employed.
I am well aware that it is not difficult to parade desirable simplifications without taking adequate account either of the knock-on effects or the need to replace the revenue which simplifications tend always to reduce. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will remember, but he taught me a lot about how easy it was to ignore this side of changes when I discussed with him some ideas I had on the tax system in the late 1960s. I have always been grateful to him for opening my eyes.
The two aspects I should like to raise relate to CGT. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I hope that this comes within the scope of the debate. In my view, CGT is not a satisfactory tax as it is now. However, it is too big a subject to embark on at this time except in one or two details.
CGT, at the taxpayer's marginal rate of up to 40 per cent. at the top, is a tax which can badly distort personal investment decisions. As a simple example—I know that one must be wary of simple examples—an individual buys a holding of shares for £1,000 and happily finds that, to his surprise, the price has quickly risen further than he feels is justified by the facts available to him to, let us say, £2,000. He would like to sell but that would involve him in paying somewhere between 25 and 40 per cent. of the gain in tax, leaving him with somewhere between £1,600 and £1,750 to reinvest.
Anyone who has tried to run investment portfolios for others, professionally or for himself, is aware that to find an alternative investment which will do as well from a base of £1,600 as the former will from £2,000, is something of which one dreams. To act on that belief takes a lot of confidence. There must be hundreds of thousands, possibly even more, of investment holdings which should rationally be switched but where the tax cost is such a heavy disincentive that they are left untouched.
I know that individuals can and, under the present tax regime probably should, invest through CGT-exempt vehicles such as investment or unit trusts. But the very existence of such vehicles seems to me to be clear evidence that CGT at present rates is too high and that switching investments should not be a taxable event as such. If there is one way of deterring individuals from bothering to understand and appreciate the workings of commercial undertakings, I can think of no better way than giving an incentive such as now exists to put all such decisions in the hands of a relatively small number of professional managers. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the raising of the base rate of CGT to 40 per cent. from the 30 per cent. rate then charged—already a heavy deterrent to switching—was probably intended as a simplification. In my view it remains as an awful warning of unintended disadvantageous side effects.
Simplification is bound to involve compromise. But I add my plea to that of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and others that the best simplification that could possibly be introduced would be to lower drastically the rates at which taxes are levied and to reduce equally drastically the exceptions. In the specific case of CGT that would save an enormous amount of time and money.
1736
I know that there are problems galore in all of this and the question of how to tax those whose income is made by effectively trading in shares is one of the more obvious. If we can agree that income should legitimately be taxed, however it arises, but that switching of investments should be a legitimate non-taxable event as it is for investment and unit trusts, then the compromise should lead one to a low rate of tax without exceptions. Certainly any system which attempted to determine annually what proportion of an individual's investment profits had been spent rather than reinvested would be a nightmarish step directly away from simplification.
The second point on which I should like to touch briefly—I seem to be overrunning my time already—is the current resurrection of the argument that capital gains tax should be paid at a lower rate according to the length of time an investment has been held. That would undoubtedly be something of a simplification in that it would help to allow the abolition of index linking, though one must remark that the best way of abolishing index linking is by abolishing inflation. I hesitate to criticise any move which tends to lower tax rates. But long experience has taught me that the correlation between the time an investment has been held and the social worthiness of that investment is tenuous in the extreme. I was going to say "tends towards zero" when I realised that that would not stand up.
I know that the received wisdom is that long term is good and short term is bad; that speculation is undesirable and can be logically separated—I know not how—from investment which is desirable. But those views do not stand up to dispassionate examination. All investment involves speculative analysis of prospects and, in our heart of hearts, surely, we know that. The desirable thing, it seems to me, is that investment decisions should be well informed and rationally arrived at, not that they should be judged with the criterion of how long they are held.
Occasionally, a short-term sale of an investment is the right thing to do. The price of a share can run up against all expectation to a level where the only proper response is to sell it. By so doing the investor is actually doing good, by tending to reduce unrealistic pricing in the market and helping, in however small a way, to make the market more rational. The investor does not deserve to be criticised therefore nor taxed more heavily.
As I said, a graduated CGT may well be a simplification and better than nothing. But I fear that some people kid themselves and would happily kid the public at large that there is some moral merit in holding investments for a long time. Though it is not relevant to the present debate, I am equally unhappy that the word "stakeholder" is in danger of being used in the same way as "long term". They sound good, but do not necessarily stand up to dispassionate analysis. Roll on simplification; but caveat simplificator.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, having served as one of his Ministers of State in the Treasury when my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon was Chancellor, I am delighted to support him again today. Our debate

1737
is about simpler and more user-friendly tax legislation, and rightly we concentrate today on tax. But the general principles have much wider application. Indeed, my noble and learned friend referred not only to the report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies but to the Hansard Society Commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, in which I had some hand because in those days I was chairman of the Hansard Society and persuaded him to serve. There was also the seminal report from the committee of my noble friend Lord Renton in 1975 and before that the Heap Report in 1970. So there has been a long run of these reports. The Hansard Society Commission report stated:
"The Heap Report was followed by other critical studies. In 1972 the Stow Hill Committee … recommended solutions to the problems outlined in the Heap Report. In 1973, following further comments by a Procedure Committee of the House of Commons, the Renton Committee was appointed by the Lord President of the Council 'to review the form in which Public Bills are drafted'; it reported in 1975, making 81 detailed and technical recommendations for change. The sorry fact is that despite these critical but constructive reports almost nothing has been done to improve the situation".
Some improvements had been made. The revenue departments had consulted more widely, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said. The draft clauses of significant parts of tax legislation had been published during the early 1980s, as described by my noble friend Lord Rees. But the major reform for which all of us have been waiting so long has at long last been given real impetus and prominence in the Inland Revenue's plans for tax simplification which were published last December. I am delighted to give a warm welcome to those proposals.
As is made clear in those reports, there is scope for simplifying the language of the law. The examples given in the report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and in the appendices to the Inland Revenue report are striking. How could anyone not want to see this kind of change being made? There is also scope for improving and simplifying the policy content of tax legislation. I shall not repeat many of the comments that have been made except to note that recently in the United States the fashionable thing was Mr. Forbes and his flat tax, which was designed to do away with many of the complexities. It seems to have had a fairly limited life and has gone into the ground, though it may be resurrected for the Republican platform for this year's presidential election.
I am delighted that the Inland Revenue report makes it clear that both aspects are now to be addressed. One recognises that much of the complexity of the law arises from the pursuit of fairness, and the elimination of present complexities will almost certainly give rise to greater inequalities and inequities in the way taxes fall. A proper balance has to be struck and no doubt this will be extremely difficult to achieve. The Inland Revenue's plans and proposals deserve every encouragement. They are in tune with the plans for self-assessment. If one thinks just of self-assessment of capital gains and what we have heard of today, simplification on that front will be helpful for those people who are making gains of more than £6,000 a year, because under that figure a blanket opt-out or relief is available under existing provisions. I hope that real progress will be made on
1738
the re-writing programme set out in the Inland Revenue report—re-writing over about five years most of the primary legislation on Inland Revenue taxes in simpler and more user-friendly language which will be easier for everyone to understand. What a delightful and welcome prospect that is.
I want to say a few words about explanatory memoranda. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Hansard Society Commission argued for a much greater use of explanatory memoranda. The Inland Revenue report concludes rather more cautiously, but certainly not discouragingly, that progress could be made on that front. I agree that there would be implications for other areas of UK legislation. One has only to look at some of the complexities concerning local government finance or our social services to realise that explanatory memoranda would have a part to play.
I should like to see a much wider use of explanatory memoranda. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that it is more sensible for reference to be made at a later stage to explanatory memoranda than to what appears in Hansard. I remember only too well my first intervention as a new Minister at the Treasury on the Finance Bill in the very early hours of the morning on a subject about which I knew absolutely nothing but on which I had a marvellously thick book of briefing from the Inland Revenue. I appropriately read out the response to some detailed points that had been made by one of the Opposition spokesmen who stood up afterwards to say how well I had dealt with the point he had raised and welcomed my first intervention in Finance Bill Committees. However, I discovered from my private office afterwards that I had read out the wrong reply to the amendment. Clearly, it made not the slightest bit of difference but it underlines the point that with some of the very complex provisions of Finance Bills very few of those speaking on them really understand the detail. I therefore welcome very much what is being proposed.
I was disappointed by the Government's response to our debate on "the legislative process" which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in December 1994. I am now greatly encouraged by the Inland Revenue's plan, The Path to Tax Simplification. I wish it well.
Finally, I endorse and commend two of the final points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. He spoke of using the Special Standing Committee procedure on matters of tax legislation and also of the possible future role of this House perhaps in a joint committee of that kind. I think that such a combination, together with the efforts that are now to be made by the Inland Revenue with the support of the Government and the Chancellor, could lead to a considerable advance in the simplification of our tax legislation. It is something surely that in all parts of the House we would warmly welcome.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for initiating this debate today, a debate which is a valuable start to what must be a fairly long process. I was interested to hear my noble

1739
friend Lord Hayhoe admit that in his first appearance on a Finance Bill Committee he read the wrong brief at a very late hour. As I suspect that I was probably chairman of that committee I hope that I was not guilty of allowing him to talk out of order. Be that as it may, it shows the need for simplification so that even Ministers may have a chance to understand what they are saying.
The Path to Tax Simplification discloses the quite horrifying figures of increases in the total amount of tax law in the 18 years between 1952 and 1970. What was, in 1952, 1,076 pages, in the next 18 years became 3,119 pages: in the past seven years it has become 3,483 pages.
We must all welcome the initiative taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to simplify the tax legislation for the benefit of businesses and taxpayers generally. Reform is not going to be easy, as I believe nearly every speaker this afternoon has said. It certainly will not be quick. It is forecast that a complete rewrite will take around five years. I am not surprised, but this massive task is only worth undertaking if it is to be done thoroughly and with full consultation.
The Inland Revenue has, most welcomely, already made a start in its document The Path to Tax Simplification, which happily concludes—to fortify the thoughts of most of us this afternoon—that it is satisfied that a rewrite is technically feasible and that its benefits will substantially outweigh the cost—a note of optimism not usually shown by the Inland Revenue.
Today we are not, of course, discussing taxation policy, but rather the language and form in which taxation law is written and presented. As the Tax Law Review Committee tells us on page 5 of its report,
"Frequently, you cannot see even the broad outline of the picture without solving the puzzle. To this extent the legislation is written in an impenetrable style with no way in … But sometimes the puzzle is insoluble and the legislation is then incomprehensible".
The difficulties in understanding tax legislation arise partly in its wording and layout and partly also in the pattern of its intent, for every aspect of a subject is sought to be covered. It has not been good enough, and nor will it ever be in my view, to lay down the law simply as a general principle or intention. The detail has had to be spelt out. Consequently, as Bennion is quoted as arguing in the TLRC report,
"in the UK we prefer to be ruled by a democratic legislature which passes Acts after full, public debate and which weighs and argues over almost every word in almost every Act".
Frankly, too often, this is simply not true. I have served on a number of Finance Bill Committees both as a Back-Bencher and as chairman. Too often, the more complicated the clauses, the less difficulty the Government have had in getting them through. I say immediately that I make one notable exception. When I first became an MP in 1960, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I hope that I may say "my noble and learned friend" because he was a constituent of mine for a number of years—played a leading part in the preparation of the 1960 Act. That Bill contained some very complicated clauses on anti-avoidance. I have looked them up. They were widely debated, but clarity was not an obvious result.
1740
I do not in any way blame my noble and learned friend for that. The Treasury had clearly looked at them and put the brief firmly on his knees so that he would have to deal with them.
Anti-avoidance is a matter which has not been looked at yet, as we have been told, but in fact it will be looked at as something entirely separate. I am sure that that is right. It is a field where specialists in the Inland Revenue battle with taxation specialists in the private sector. Sometimes a lack of clarity results in uncertainty, and that in itself may, it is hoped, deter attempts at avoidance. But sometimes, as has been said this afternoon, a lack of clarity is the result of a lack of clear instructions to the legal draftsman. All that raises the question as to whether notes and explanations attached to legislation should be encouraged.
The modern custom of providing Notes on Clauses has been very successful. It has been helpful not only to committee members, but also to the poor old committee chairman who, in another place, has to have a good understanding of what is the subject of debate to keep the debate in order. I believe that such notes, or other notes made in some other way, along with ministerial comments made during the passage of Bills, should be available to the courts should litigation arise at a future date. I say that because those notes and the explanations given by Ministers must have been a part of the reasoning by which Parliament passed the legislation in the first place.
The TLRC report suggests that there should be a project team drawn from various disciplines. Chapter 7 states,
"The main function of the rewrite would be to improve the clarity, comprehensibility and accessibility of the legislation".
I entirely agree with that, and I entirely agree that the resultant Bill would be a Finance Bill and therefore that it would not go before a Committee of your Lordships' House. Nonetheless, the report suggests that any such rewritten proposals should be referred to a specially created independent review body, which would report on the proposed legislation prior to its introduction into Parliament. Such a review body, it says, would be comprised of tax practitioners and hence represent a formalised consultation.
Whether the rewrite is done by a project team, as described by the TLRC, or by the Inland Revenue, I accept that outside consultations must take place and since the objective is not to raise money, but
"to improve the clarity, comprehensibility and accessibility of the legislation",
we should seriously consider ourselves being involved at some stage in the consultation process. It must be borne in mind that the results of this rewrite are bound to have a significant effect on legislation far wider than financial legislation. Indeed, why are we having this debate today if we have not a proper and valid interest in what is being proposed? I believe that our interest should be maintained throughout the period of the rewrite and our views made available to the review body.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, mentioned in opening this debate, I am, very much to my surprise, a member of the Tax Law Review Committee. I sit on this committee in a state of considerable trepidation as I am surrounded by persons who are extremely experienced and expert in the field. They are judges, accountants of the highest calibre and legal advisers, and a very formidable body it is. However, it includes two or three chosen ignoramuses—I speak for myself; the others are not ignoramuses, of course—who have no such qualifications. I assume that we are there in order to look at what is being considered from a political point of view, because several of the members are MPs—and that is why I made the qualification that I did a moment ago. But we look at the issues even more from the point of view of what we would now have to call the person on the Clapham bus, because if there is any legislation which directly affects every citizen in the country it is tax legislation. It affects them in the most sensitive place, namely their pockets, and therefore it is important that the ordinary taxpayer's point of view should be considered when changes in the tax system are being discussed.
From the point of view of the taxpayer—even more importantly with the coming into force of self-assessment—the three matters that must govern all tax legislation and reviews of tax legislation are clarity, certainty and democratic control. Nobody can possibly disagree that the present legislation is almost impossible to understand. I am reinforced in that by the fact that the most eminent of the people who sit on this committee from time to time confess that they do not understand it and that it takes them an interminable time—which is wasted time—to find their way through the present legislation. There is no question but that it needs to be clarified.
One welcomes the decision to try to rewrite the tax legislation in plain English. Those of us who are concerned with trying to write plain English know that this is no easy task. To write about an extremely complicated matter in plain English and to make it accurate at the same time is very difficult. Five years is not too long for such an undertaking. As I listen to the discussions in the committee, it occurs to me from time to time that in the desire to achieve clarity, accuracy and therefore certainty may be sacrificed. Certainty is vitally important. Before people embark on any expenditure, or any activity, they want to know what the tax liability will be. They must be able to find out within the legislation how tax will impinge upon them.
While I very much welcome the determination to rewrite the legislation in plain English, I enter the caveat that there is a considerable risk that in so doing we may lose certainty, which is important from the point of view of every taxpayer in this country. There is a tendency in the discussions to believe that everything will be fine if one gets it more or less right. That description of the discussions is perhaps a little unkind, but I do not believe that that is good enough from the point of view of the taxpayer. It has to be exactly right. The overworked expression, "The devil is in the detail",
1742
applies pre-eminently to tax. One may well be caught out in a plan on which one embarks because of a detail of taxation that has not been entirely clear. Much as the rewriting of the legislation in plain English is to be welcomed, the need to get it absolutely accurate must not in any circumstances be sacrificed.
A suggestion has been made—which has been accepted only in modified form—that the legislation should be written in purposive terms and that the detail should be left to regulations. Here the parliamentarian in me is very much stirred. Noble Lords have often complained about the tendency in modern legislation to leave matters of importance to regulations. Your Lordships' House has been extremely vigorous in ensuring that that does not happen more than it absolutely must. But I suggest that in the field of taxation this practice may be particularly dangerous if regulations are not subject to detailed and rigorous scrutiny.
It has been suggested that a Special Standing Committee should be set up to go through the regulations and vet them and that they should come back to Parliament for final sanction. That democratic sanction is very important. We must be on our guard against making it simply a rubber stamp. It has already been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, that that is too much the case at the present time. The reform will be very imperfect if that continues. After all, the basis of Parliament is that there is no taxation without representation. If our representatives do not have a real input into the scrutiny and an opportunity to object, however good the committee may be that has gone through it, we shall not achieve what we should achieve and the safeguards for the taxpayer will not be adequate.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for initiating this important and interesting debate. His role extends to the presidency of the Tax Law Review Committee, whose interim report has been the kernel of this afternoon's debate. Both in his speech and in his foreword to the interim report, the noble and learned Lord has demonstrated his knowledge of the subject, commitment to reform and his customary frankness in admitting lack of progress in this direction in all the years that he was (in the words of his noble friend Lord Cockfield) one of the guilty parties.
The noble and learned Lord might have said that he had wrestled for too long with the obstacles to the production of a comprehensible, efficient and modern framework for tax legislation. But on this side of the House, we might derive two conclusions from the admissions of the noble and learned Lord. First, over the past 17 years the Conservative Government have not slayed all of the dragons—not even the right ones—and may have shied away from the dragons with the longest tails and most toxic breath.
Secondly, in a more bipartisan spirit, the task of reforming both the existing body of tax legislation and the future legislative process is a formidable one. The noble and learned Lord's speech and recommendations

1743
are a positive and valuable contribution to building the momentum that has been absent in the past, alongside the Inland Revenue's uncharacteristically positive document and the excellent interim report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, whose work over the past 20-odd years is something of which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, can be justifiably proud—awake or asleep! The increased recognition on the Government's part of the deficiencies in the status quo, and the cautious start now being made to address this, are also welcome; but inevitably the burden of taking this forward will in large part fall, along with so much else, on the next government.
The importance of action to improve the clarity and consistency of tax legislation cannot be over-estimated. This has been recognised by my honourable friend the Shadow Chief Secretary, notably in his speech in May of last year. The interim report points out in Section 1.29 that the estimated burden of the present inefficiencies and inadequacies amounts to £10 billion, of which as much as £7 billion falls directly on the taxpayer as compliance costs. That is even higher than the £4 billion suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.
In terms of fairness and equity—a subject stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne—the complexity and opaqueness of the present position unduly penalises the less well-off. Sophisticated professional advice of the kind needed to navigate through these murky waters inevitably is affordable by and hence available to, only the wealthier individuals and larger companies. Above all, the overwhelming complexity which arises from faults in the underlying policies, overlaid with the effect of excessively detailed drafting to create intended clarity, comprehensiveness and certainty, produces a system in which action taken on both a macro and a micro-economic basis can become so distorted that the intended effect can be blunted or negated, while setting off a whole series of after-shocks and knock-ons in unexpected areas.
Although the main thrust of today's debate and of the interim review—and even more so, that of the Inland Revenue's report—is in the area of language, and the form of tax legislation, it is, as other noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, have argued, unavoidable that the substance of tax policy has to be considered at the same time.
The analysis in the interim report of the implications of operating under common law rather than the civil law which prevails elsewhere in much of Europe is, speaking as a very unlearned Lord, illuminating; the consequences of building, higgledy-piggledy, uneven brick by odd-shaped flint, on a 19th century structure, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, are only too clearly demonstrated; but we must ask at the same time whether the fundamental tax policies of the past 17 years—or even of the past 150 years—have sought to emphasise simplicity and efficiency whenever possible?
Of course the world has become more complex, none more so in the areas of foreign exchange and financial instruments, wherein some of the most fiendishly
1744
difficult and incomprehensible tax legislation has been introduced in recent years. The proposed rewriting of existing legislation will in time reveal how much of that legislative complexity was necessary.
But what is already clear is that, despite the Government's regular pronouncements on removing special tax allowances and the like (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, laid claim to that while he was Chancellor) we have been presented with a continuing stream of special schemes—"ripping little wheezes"—with the consequential increase in legislative complexity on the one hand, and economic distortions on the other: Business Start Up Schemes changed to Business Enterprise Schemes, which changed to Enterprise Investment Schemes, with hundreds of clauses of legislation over 15 years. The legislative effect has been burdensome and the economic effect—well, my Lords, the Exchequer has financed fine wine, classic cars, residential property, but precious few productive businesses, certainly in comparison to the tax revenue forgone.
These Benches therefore wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in his advocacy of lower taxes and no tax shelters, with the important condition that the lower taxation is fairly applied, not concentrated upon those who currently benefit from the tax shelters which abound.
I return to the narrower but vital issue of tax legislation and the related parliamentary procedure and scrutiny. We on these Benches also give our strong support to the key recommendations of the Tax Law Review Committee, in terms of plain language, the use of explanatory memoranda, and a rewrite of existing legislation, starting with that relating to the taxation of income.
Even if the Minister's own understanding of tax and other complex issues is such that Hansard's record of his contributions will be a model of clarity and usefulness, I most strongly support the general advocacy by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, of explanatory memoranda, in preference to the deliberations of the Minister's less clear-headed colleagues.
On these Benches, we look forward to the accelerating progress of tax simplification—form and substance alike—under the strong direction of the Minister and his colleagues—and of their successors.
5.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. I stand to sum it up with trepidation. It seems to me that I come at the end of what could be described as a stream of penitent Chancellors, Chief Secretaries, Financial Secretaries and Ministers of State at the Treasury attempting to explain why they did not do what they thought they ought to do when they held office. It has been a kind of mea culpa all afternoon. I felt at one stage that I should perhaps rush to the Bishops' Bench and absolve them all from their responsibilities for that.
There is appropriateness in the day chosen by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, because the other place is this day dealing with the

1745
Report stage of the Finance Bill. Sometime within the next few weeks your Lordships will have an opportunity, I suspect, to have a Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill when it wends its way to us. I do not believe that I should be saying anything too controversial if I doubt whether it will be a good example of clarity when I come to explain to your Lordships some of the parts of the Finance Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the Minister then ensure that it does not come on a Friday before a bank holiday this year?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I can give the noble and learned Lord the assurance that it will not come on a bank holiday.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe has given us the opportunity to discuss three documents which are really two reports: one from the Tax Law Review Committee and the other from the Inland Revenue. The proposal contained in both those documents, and agreed to by every Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken, is to rewrite primary tax legislation to make it clearer and more user friendly, which is an important and interesting suggestion, as has been demonstrated by today's debate.
In recent years the complexity of tax legislation and the criticism of that complexity have been growing. In part, it concerns the complexity of the underlying rules. There are a number of reasons for that. The tax system has to cope with an ever more complex modern world, while continuing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, to give certainty and equitable treatment to taxpayers.
There has also been criticism of the way those complicated rules are expressed. Many argue that the style involves complicated syntax, words with special legal meanings, long sentences and archaic or ambiguous language. Much tax legislation is also very difficult because it has been drafted to cover every conceivable situation.
From his position as one-time chairman of Finance Bill Committees, my noble friend Lord Shaw suggested that the more complicated a clause, the easier it was for the Government to get it through and that that may not have been entirely a good thing when it came to the proper scrutiny of legislation.
Against that background, a key event was the setting up in late 1994 of the Tax Law Review Committee, whose role my noble and learned friend Lord Howe has described. A number of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, are involved in it.
In parallel, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury asked the Inland Revenue to look at the options for the simplification of tax legislation. That exercise was given added impetus by Section 160 of the Finance Act 1995, which required that a report be laid before Parliament by the end of the year. In the event, the two reports were published within a few weeks of each other: the TLRC's on 23rd November and the Revenue's on 12th December.
1746
There were many similarities in the conclusions reached by the report both as to the reasons for tax law being so complex and on the practical scope for simplifying it. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe has described the TLRC's work. I need not repeat what he has said, but I should like to say a little more about the Revenue's report. The Revenue's findings were set out in The Path to Tax Simplification and an accompanying background paper. The report was based upon extensive study and consultation.
The main conclusion is that all the primary tax legislation covering Inland Revenue taxes (almost 6,000 pages) should be rewritten to make it clearer and more user friendly. That proposal was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement last November in another place. That announcement has been widely welcomed on all sides.
As my noble friend Lord Shaw said, this is a major project. It is also an all-or-nothing venture. It would create a nonsense to rewrite only a fraction of this legislation, leaving the rest of it untouched. To rewrite 6,000 pages of legislation will take about five years and involve some 40 highly skilled and professional staff. This is a measure of the priority which is being given to this project and of the Revenue's commitment and determination to do it and do it well. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, welcomed that determination. My noble friend Lord Hayhoe described it as a delightful and welcome prospect. In so far as taxation is ever a delightful and welcome prospect, I am grateful to him for his remarks.
Perhaps I may say something about what the rewrite would involve. There is no single technique which, if applied across the board, would solve problems arising from the way tax law is currently structured and expressed. The Revenue is therefore examining a package of techniques which, used together, will produce simpler legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that certainty was important. I am not entirely sure that the complicated way in which we have dealt with the matter over the years has brought certainty. Dare I suggest that, if it had done so, Finance Bills would not have had to revisit tax legislation in previous Finance Bills in order to make the position clearer, to close loopholes and to catch those not caught who were originally intended to be caught—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when I asked for certainty in the rewrite I was not implying that there was already certainty; on the contrary.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. I had thought that the noble Baroness was doing so, but I am pleased to hear that she is with me and other speakers in this respect.
The first of these techniques we wish to look at is plain language; using simpler and clearer words and sentences to make tax legislation more accessible. The noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, put it well in saying that people should feel that they own the tax system and that

1747
they might accept it better if they understood it better. My noble friend Lord Rees indicated the need for clarity and certainty to help taxpayers to understand.
The Revenue is also looking at the overall structure of the tax code. A better structure and order, possibly accompanied by a new numbering system, could help to make the tax code easier to understand. Various signposting techniques might also be helpful such as explicit cross-referencing, clearer headings and so on. More radical suggestions, such as using flow charts, graphics and notes to the legislation, are also being assessed.
Changes could be made in the ways in which definitions are used so as to make it easier for users of tax legislation to identify them. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe drew to our attention the five-page submission he received when he suggested that the words to be defined might appear in italics. We believe that the defined terms could be printed in a different typeface. I notice that in the examples given in the report italics are used for all the words which are subsequently defined.
It will he necessary to examine carefully the legal effect of all of those techniques in order to ensure that they do not inadvertently cause uncertainty and inaccuracy. The look and style of legislation also affects the ease with which it can be used and is a matter for Parliament, not for the Revenue. However, I welcome the fact that thought is being put into that area, as do all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. All those techniques may have a role to play in making tax legislation simpler and more user-friendly and the Revenue proposes that they should operate as a package. The Revenue is of course aware of the importance of a coherent structure to all this in order to ensure that old style and new style legislation do not co-exist in the same provisions.
The rewritten law would not of course be new law. Apart from some minor changes to simplify the tax regime, it would be the same law expressed in a clearer and more user-friendly way. Major policy reforms have always been a Budget matter and will remain so. The rewrite will not hinder reforms; indeed, by making existing law easier it will assist the policy reform process. The subject of the debate and the two reports is the reform of the way in which legislation is set out and reforming existing law. It is not about reforming certain aspects of policy underlying the tax law.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, drew attention to the difficulty that one has in understanding the capital gains tax legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, read out explanations and the tax legislation and he made his point well because he lost me quite quickly. At the risk of bringing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to his feet, perhaps I may say that I should have preferred the algebra which was attacked in a previous piece of legislation that I took through the House. Algebra might have been a good deal easier than the explanation which the noble and learned Lord read out.
1748
The noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, referred to the distortions which can be caused to those who have to make investment decisions by application of the capital gains tax laws. Those matters are not the subject of this debate and this particular issue, although if the law were written more clearly they would be easier to understand and to deal with or would be more clearly seen as requiring reform and change. Therefore, one must separate reforming the principles, the policy behind the tax law, and reforming the way in which legislation is expressed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friends Lord Hayhoe and Lord Cockfield spoke of the Government being secretive as they devise the Finance Bill. The Revenue's report deals with that point. The amount of consultation on the Finance Bill has increased significantly, as my noble friend Lord Hayhoe pointed out. The Revenue's report proposes that that should be built on by making even more legislation available in draft and by developing a code of practice on consultation to ensure that everyone involved is aware of best practice. That would be a major step forward as regards new legislation but not as regards the rewrite of existing legislation.
Many noble Lords, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, mentioned explanatory memoranda and their usefulness in considering the purpose of the legislation. The Government are already publishing notes on clauses in order to give brief explanations of individual Finance Bill clauses and schedules. The Revenue's report proposes that they should be expanded to give more information on the Government's intentions and the impact of the measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, suggested that perhaps referring to reports in Hansard of what a Minister said is not the most reliable way of backing up what the Government mean. I understand the point because a few years ago I was horrified to discover that, as a result of the Pepper v. Hart decision, remarks made in 1985 during the Committee stage of a Bill were to be prayed in aid in court in defining what the Government meant. As that was a serious matter involving salmon poaching I was concerned that my definitions would hold water, or not hold fish, as the case may be. I am happy to say that my definitions stood up in court, but I was given pause for thought in realising that what I said perhaps off the cuff in Committee would be prayed in aid in a court some years later. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that it is preferable that explanatory memoranda are used in court cases rather than the words of the Minister at the Dispatch Box perhaps attempting to answer on the hoof clever and not so clever questions posed by the Opposition. Therefore, there is something to be said for explanatory memoranda and I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between the reports of the Inland Revenue and the TLRC in that regard.
Another point was raised which overlapped policy and the reports' request for simplification of the legislation rather than the policy itself. It was made in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Cockfield. It was the issue of tax avoidance. I believe that the noble and

1749
learned Lord stated that one-sixth of legislation deals with avoidance and that it can be most complicated. I understood him to suggest that we should not have so much legislation and that it should be left to the courts to judge against the simple principle that any transaction whose dominant purpose is for tax evasion is illegal if it is used for that purpose. I hope that I have understood him correctly. I shall certainly draw that to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends at the Treasury who have responsibility for those matters. It may be on the same basis that the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, since the noble Lord quoted me, perhaps I may just put that right. I said that it was void for that purpose but valid for all others. It would not be illegal.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I should not draw my words to the attention of my friends in the Treasury but rather the Hansard quote, which will be exact. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is right that that is what he said. I managed to note down just a small part of it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, took up the point made by my noble friend Lord Cockfield about "ripping wheezes". I was rather worried that the noble Viscount thought that the phrase referred only to some of the business undertaken by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. The originator of the phrase was the late Lord Lever who suggested to the 1974–79 Labour Government a number of "ripping wheezes" to get round some of the serious financial problems that they had. I read about that with pleasure during the Christmas Recess in an autobiography coming from a member of the government of that time. But I believe that we all agree that we should not base our tax legislation on how many "ripping wheezes" we can find. We should base it much more soundly than that. I am sure that the noble Viscount and I agree about that entirely.
Before I leave the policy principles, perhaps I may refer to an issue raised a number of times by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He seems to object to parts of the Civil Service being dispersed around this country. He seems to feel that all Inland Revenue matters should be dealt with by people in London and the south-east of England in their friendly neighbourhood offices, so to speak.
Slightly later in his speech he also encouraged me to look for economy in public administration. Partly for the sake of economy in public administration and partly based on the principle of attempting to bring jobs to the most seriously disadvantaged parts of the country, for many years now governments of both political complexions have attempted to disperse jobs around the country. Many of the Inland Revenue jobs which have been dispersed are very valuable in the local economies where they are based; for example, in Glasgow. Jobs in my department, the Department of Social Security, have been resited in, for example, the Blackpool area in order to provide important employment opportunities there. The Contributions Agency is based in Newcastle.
1750
I do not subscribe to the view that everything should be based in London and the south-east of England because the majority of people live there. Both for the integrity of the Union and for economy in public administration, to quote my noble friend, it is foolish to base everything in the most expensive part of the country; for example, as regards rent, property and labour costs. Therefore, I am afraid that my noble friend will not be surprised to hear once again that I disagree with him profoundly about the point that he made in relation to the relocation of Inland Revenue offices.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his reply. Of course, he has no doubt deliberately over-stated what I said. I did not say that all the tax collection machinery should be in the south of England. But I did suggest that to remove the Inland Revenue and so on from an area where a large proportion of the population lives was making the tax system much more oppressive because people could not make quick personal contact with those who interpret the law and interpret what are their liabilities.
It is a fact, which my noble friend has now admitted, that the Government have deliberately moved the Inland Revenue, thereby adding to the costs of administration and to the difficulties of taxpayers in a large section of the country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that it has in any way added to the difficulties. It has made good sense for the Union and for economy of administration. I do not believe that many people need or want to visit their local tax office. They either want to communicate with it as little as possible or communicate by telephone or letter. I do not believe that it is nearly the problem that both today and in the past my noble friend has made it out to be.
I turn to the point of the two reports; namely, the simplification of tax legislation. The Revenue will not carry out that work alone or in isolation. The widest possible consultation is essential in order to ensure that genuine user-friendly legislation is produced by the rewrite. The Revenue consulted widely with the professions and business when preparing its report and is committed to maintaining that approach. There will also be close consultation and involvement of parliamentary counsel.
It is clear that there will be a formal consultation procedure for the long-term project. The Revenue will discuss the options informally with the representative bodies in the next few months. The Revenue also intends for the final rewrite team to include recruits from the private sector to provide a different and useful viewpoint on that work.
The next major stage in the rewrite project will be the publication of a consultative document later this year. That will give more details on the proposals and seek views of interested parties on the way forward. It will cover such areas as the case for restructuring for the Taxes Acts, drafting styles, priorities for rewriting and consultation arrangements.
The Government have already begun work to consider the various procedural options available. One option which it is clear even at this stage is not available

1751
is the consolidation procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, drew our attention to paragraph 3.6 in the Inland Revenue's summary. This is because the wording of the legislation will be changed and some minor policy changes will be involved.
In his introductory speech my noble and learned friend Lord Howe suggested a Special Standing Committee of both Houses. We shall have to give attention to how Parliament as a whole deals with the changed legislation as it is brought forward. I am grateful to your Lordships for the suggestions which have been made on how Parliament should be involved. I am grateful also for the suggestion that this House should be involved in consideration of those matters. Because of constitutional arrangements, we are not involved in the consideration of finance matters, but your Lordships have made a good point that we could have a useful role to play in looking at the changes which that rewrite will bring forward.
It will be helpful to have a better idea of how the rewrite is developing and what the rewritten legislation will look like before making a final decision on the most sensible procedures to use in Parliament. There should be very important benefits for business and taxpayers from the project. The overall reaction of the representative bodies, and your Lordships this afternoon, is that quite clearly they see that the benefits should substantially outweigh the costs. The benefit to all users will come from tax law which is easier to understand and can be grasped more quickly. There should also be benefits to taxpayers who use professional advice or guidance material from the improvements in advice from practitioners and the Revenue. The benefits will be of particular importance under the system of self-assessment which starts in April 1997. This system will place more responsibility for getting their tax affairs right on the 9 million or so people it will cover.
The project will contribute to the Government's deregulation initiative aimed at reducing the costs to business of complying with legislation. It will also contribute to the Inland Revenue's continuing efforts to improve customer service.
In conclusion, there is clearly a lot of work being done, and needing to be done, and it will take time to get it right. The first tranche of rewritten legislation should be ready around the end of 1997. It is a major task, but this project is clearly a worthwhile one which deserves the widespread support it has attracted, and I am pleased to see that that widespread support was echoed from all parts of your Lordships' House this afternoon.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, in closing the debate, I thank all noble Lords who have joined in the proceedings and in particular those who have extended their thanks to me for initiating the debate. I particularly appreciated the generosity of the language used by two of the most—if I may borrow the adjective—Jurassic ex-Treasury Ministers who joined in the debate; namely, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble and
1752
learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. They were very generous in their remarks about me and I appreciated the wisdom that they brought to our proceedings.
As always, I enjoyed the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. He did not disappoint me because, as usual in our many discussions, he was able to refer to his experience in dealing with the management of taxes dating back to World War I, World War II and the Korean War. My noble friend has never been lacking in depth of experience of that kind. In fact, my noble friend was in an unusually Elysian mode for him. He talked almost hopefully about the prospect of our being able to achieve such a simple, allowance-free low tax system. I entirely agree with my noble friend about its desirability. I also very much value the help that he gave me in trying to move in that direction in the simplifications that we did make; for example, in abolishing the reduced rate ban, which was reversed some time later.
However, we struggled in vain to challenge the principle of mortgage interest relief, which is an allowance of huge size with huge complications, because it is relatively popular. I was also struck by my noble friend's visionary insight into the world in which we might actually tolerate a general anti-avoidance provision of the kind visualised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Indeed, it would be marvellous if public opinion reached the point where such a provision became tolerable. But I hesitate to believe that it will be with us very quickly.
I recollect the occasion when the then chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was giving evidence to the committee in the other place which deals with Treasury and Civil Service matters. He was asked the rather telling question, "Tell me Sir Lawrence"—for that was his name—"do you pay your window cleaner in cash?". He was compelled to answer that in the way in which I suspect all of us would be obliged to do. Nevertheless, that is the right objective to set ourselves.
Two of the non-Treasury Ministers—the minority taking part in the debate—were in fact my noble friend Lord Ashburton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who both focused on capital gains tax. It is now far too long a time since I last wrestled with the subject for me to begin contending with them on the detail. My noble friend Lord Ashburton is only relatively innocent when compared with former Treasury Ministers, but, as a former chairman of a merchant bank, a former chairman of an insurance company and a former chairman of our large oil company, he is quite a sophisticated fellow. He drew from CGT two points: first, that our noble friend Lord Lawson had got it wrong by simplification; and, secondly, he put forward proposals to improve the situation—the graduation of CGT—which would have added greatly to its complexity. It was a remarkable but nevertheless stimulating and interesting contribution.
The point that I would prefer to take from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, relates to his experience in chairing the Jellicoe Committees which

1753
have been functioning in this House over the past two or three years. He has played a pioneering role in that respect. I believe that those committees represent the shadow of what we would need to construct, embracing Members of both Houses. I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Shaw was one of several speakers who emphasised the desirability of engaging Members of your Lordships' House in that joint task for the future.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and my noble friend Lord Hayhoe also endorsed—as, indeed, did the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—the idea of a special Standing Committee as being the right vehicle for tackling the matter. I very much hope that that central point will be taken on board. I believe that it was endorsed by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, in a speech, if I may say so without undue condescension, of high quality from the Front Bench of the party opposite in summing up such a debate.
However, I am glad to say that it did not match the quality that we have long since come to expect from my noble friend the Minister who wound up the debate. I was struck by my noble friend's modesty and I share his instinct in preferring reference to be made to explanatory memoranda rather than to speeches made by Ministers. I particularly welcome, as I am sure the whole House did, the firmness of his commitment on behalf of the Government to proceed with the matter with the seriousness and the urgency that it deserves.
I am delighted with the welcome given to the proposition. I beg leave, not before time, to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tax, Benefits and the Family
6.25 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky rose to call attention to the effectiveness of the current tax and benefit system in supporting the family structure; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that the debate which I have the honour to open comes at a turning point in the fortunes of the family. For two decades opinion makers have been proclaiming the family to be economically obsolete and politically incorrect. But suddenly politicians on all sides have at least started to pay lip service to the value of the family. I believe that the time has now come to translate those words into action.
People do not all agree about what the family is. There are many kinds of families and we are told that we must not be judgmental about different lifestyles. I make no apology for saying that the family structure most in need of support today is the traditional, mainly one-earner family. That is not because other forms of family life do not deserve respect, but because it is the traditional family which is and has been under the greatest threat and whose disappearance, or even further weakening, would inflict the greatest losses on society. Putting it simply,
1754
well-functioning labour markets and strong families are the best guarantee of a free society and a limited government, as the East Asian economies show us.
If family networks are weakened, expenditure on social security will become uncontrollable and the increased taxes needed to pay for it will undermine families still further. We would then not have a welfare state of the familiar kind but a state on which a large fraction of the population would depend from cradle to grave. Such a state would be far more repressive than the most oppressive of traditional families.
I also believe that supporters of the traditional family have public opinion on their side. Attitude surveys show that most young people want and expect to get married and to have children. Indeed, 64 per cent. of women believe that being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay. Over 60 per cent. of men and women believe that the mother should stay at home when there is a child under school age.
Despite that support, evidence of family breakdown is striking and alarming. Fewer people are getting married and more are getting divorced; fewer children are being born to married couples, more to unmarried mothers. More and more children are being brought up in lone-parent households. The trend in all those areas has become dramatic in the past 25 years.
I shall not bombard your Lordships with figures, but one set of statistics is particularly striking. In Henry VIII's time, church registers recorded that 4.4 per cent. of births were to single mothers. When our present Queen Elizabeth came to the throne in 1953 the percentage was almost identical—namely, 4.8 per cent. In the intervening 400 years the percentage had moved within a very narrow range. Even in 1976, only 9 per cent. of children were born out of wedlock. By 1993 one birth in every three—over 30 per cent.—was outside marriage. In absolute numbers, 217,000 of the 674,000 births registered that year were out of wedlock, the vast majority to never-married mothers—children for whom the father, as Charles Murray put it,
"will be a fleeting presence in their lives or missing altogether".
With a 13 per cent. increase a year in births to unmarried mothers, the majority of our children will be born out of wedlock in 20 years' time. A feminist Utopia or a social nightmare?
I suggest it will be the latter, for three reasons. First, lone-parent households are poorer than most two-parent households. Seventy per cent. of lone parents obtain all or most of their income from public assistance, whereas only 12.5 per cent. of families headed by a couple are on income support. Lone parenthood has become the chief cause of poverty.
Secondly, illegitimate children and children from broken homes get a much poorer start in life than children of married couples except at the highest income levels. They have higher mortality and sickness rates, are more likely to be abused, do less well in schools and are more likely to turn to crime. One-half to two-thirds of prison inmates come from broken homes or never-married parents. Illegitimacy is the best predictor of childhood and adult failure, the single most important cause of a self-perpetuating and expanding underclass.
A high proportion of these children become wards of the state, supported by public funds from cradle to grave, in and out of custody. Again, research confirms what common sense has long known: children flourish best in loving, stable and committed families; a father, especially, is an indispensable role model for young males.
Finally, there is the budgetary cost of all this. The cost to the social security budget of lone parents comes to £9.4 billion a year, an increase of 200 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79, and equivalent to £1,500 in tax for every working family. That does not include the indirect costs of lifelong care and surveillance, the wasted human capital, the physical and moral degradation which show up in the law and order budget, the health budget, the education budget and so on.
In considering how to try to retrieve this situation, it is important to ask what has caused it. Some causes of family breakdown reflect general changes in society. Of these, the foremost is the increased earning opportunities for women, which both raise the opportunity cost to them of having children and reduce the gains from co-operation. The less specialised the roles of men and women become the less sense does the family make as an economic institution, a partnership to rear children. Two-earner families have fewer children and are more likely to divorce than one-earner families. This trend, of course, is likely to continue, and it would be foolish to deny the gains it has brought to many women.
Another cause of this breakdown which is, perhaps, more special to the last 20 years, goes under the gradiose title of "depletion of the marriageable male pool". This chiefly affects the family structure at the lower end of the income scale. The basic idea here is that males become superfluous except as casual lovers unless they can provide women with the resources they require for rearing children. However, the employability as well as earning power of brawn has been steadily declining relative to brain. Since the 1960s Britain has lost 3 million relatively well paid full-time jobs for semi-skilled and unskilled male factory workers, with a corresponding decline in the labour force participation rate of men. There has also been a large increase in the inequality of male earnings, leaving many unskilled men with wages below the level of income support. Women are faced with a reduced pool of useful husbands; not surprisingly, an increasing number of them choose to marry the state.
Getting young unskilled males back into work must be a priority for any government seriously concerned to protect the family, not least because it will relieve the pressure on women to take wretchedly paid part-time jobs as an alternative to child rearing. I am not at all sure how this can be done. It is a very difficult problem because, in many cases, we are dealing not just with economic casualties, but with social casualties—young people who lack not only skills but also motivation. We need to consider very seriously the use of the state as an employer of last resort. Might it not be reasonable to incur the short-term economic costs of creating or
1756
subsidising jobs which, strictly speaking, do not pay in order to prevent the much greater costs of complete family breakdown at the lower end of the income scale?
Faced with these general trends to family breakdown, the least we can ask of government is that they do not give them a helping hand. However, in two respects, I suggest, government have done just that.
The first is by what Patricia Morgan has aptly called the "legal disestablishment of marriage". As a result of changes in the divorce laws, marriage has been transformed from a binding contract into one which can be terminated at will, a fact which is reflected in the explosion in the divorce rate. Do we really believe that what both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have called "the bedrock of society" is not entitled to legal protection against the pressures of modern life and against the selfishness of human behaviour?
I shall not say anything tonight about the Family Law Bill, except to regret that it was felt necessary to have a Bill at all at this moment. It would have been much better to wait for five or 10 years to allow the growing pro-family sentiment to crystallise.
Secondly—and here I come to the heart and conclusion of my speech—the tax and benefit system operated by governments since the 1970s has progressively reduced the fiscal advantages of having children in traditional families, while enhancing the attraction of single parenthood to women with poor earning opportunities. It gives two-earner families a higher net income than one-earner families, even when both types of families earn the same before tax. It gives a married couple with two children less take-home pay than a lone parent with two children earning the same before tax. It makes a lone parent with two small children who works part time better off than a family in which the father works full time but at a low wage.
A lone mother who works 20 hours a week at £5 an hour ends up with a net income, when family credit is added, of £188 a week; a married father of two small children who works 30 hours a week at the same wage takes home £142. If you raise the gains from lone parenting relative to the gains of marriage, it is hardly surprising that you get an increase in the number of lone parents and a decrease in the number of marriages.
The details of all this are fiendishly complicated, but the outline is clear enough. Although tax rates have gone down since 1979, taxes have started to bite much lower down the income scale for families with children, largely because of the withering away of dependants' allowances, coupled with increases in national insurance and local taxes, while the Government at the same time have been improving the means-tested benefits package available to lone mothers. The net result of these changes has been to leave low-waged traditional families too rich to gain from means-tested benefits, but too poor to gain from general tax cuts; it has left most lone mothers too poor to escape poverty, but too rich to marry low-waged men. Support for lone parent families increases their number, while the supply of intact families falls as resources are transferred away from them.
The only remedy favoured by all political parties is to force more and more lone mothers into the labour market, where they drive down the wages, or increase the unemployment, of low-skilled men, thus making them even less eligible as marriage partners. This in turn increases the pressure to provide subsidised child care. As Martin Woolf has written:
"The state would then provide the child-care, which is what women offered in traditional families, while the working mother would play the traditional male role".
Is this what we want?
How can we break this chain of perverse effects? As a first step governments should ensure that all changes in taxes and benefits should be explicitly considered from the point of view of their impact on families and should be accompanied by a family impact statement. Within this framework we should begin to shift tax and social security benefits towards the family, and particularly towards the father within the family.
I return to my starting point. We stand at a fork in the road. We can either do nothing and watch the social life of large parts of our society replicate that of the black ghettos of the United States, or we can start to translate words in favour of families into deeds in favour of families. If we have the courage to do the second, I believe public opinion will be overwhelmingly on our side. I also believe we shall be occupying the moral high ground. After years of welcoming every symptom of family breakdown as a sign of progress, we return to the basic realisation enshrined in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that,
"Everyone has the right to marry and found a family. The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and by the state".
I beg to move for Papers.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on this occasion I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, first, for introducing this important debate about tax and the family and, secondly, for giving me the opportunity of reminding your Lordships that since April 1993 there have been 22 tax changes affecting a typical family, all but one of which have been tax increases. These have resulted in a total increase in the family's tax bill of £668.25 a year, and that from a Government that promised no tax increases, and claim to be committed to helping the family.
I should like to consider how these tax rises have affected the family. In doing so, I do not wish in any way to criticise single parents. Single parents are equally valuable as members of society as married parents, but the Motion on the Order Paper refers to "the family" and therefore I shall stick to using that term.
In April 1993 there was the first of five alterations to the married couple's allowance. It has not been uprated in line with inflation in any of the three Budgets since then, and has been restricted first to 20 per cent., and then to 15 per cent. That means that since April 1993 our average family has been £202.50 worse off per year.
1758
The interesting thing about the married couple's allowance is that since the previous Budget the allowance has in fact become a tax credit. Noble Lords will have seen it as a new item on their tax codes; namely, "allowance restriction". During the time that the married couple's allowance has been frozen and then restricted, by contrast the single person's allowance has been marginally increased. Perhaps this is what drew Patricia Morgan, who published a paper in January last year about the family and tax, to say,
"The state is making it abundantly clear that it is not prepared to support a man's efforts to provide for a family and does not recognise his costs when his wife cares for his children".
According to Monday's Daily Express, next Saturday the Prime Minister is to introduce a scheme described as,
"a plan to bolster the family. It will offer tax incentives to encourage mothers to stay at home and look after the children instead of going out to work…In his Budget Speech in March 1990 when Chancellor, Mr Major said … 'we have always made it clear that it is not for the Government to encourage or discourage women with children to go out to work'".
Is this going to be another U-turn?
I shall quickly pass over the tax increases on vehicle excise duty and fuel duties, which of course affect our average family. I come to the reduction in mortgage interest relief in April 1994 to 20 per cent., with a further reduction to 15 per cent. a year later. That adds £240 to our typical family's tax bill.
I do not need to explain to your Lordships that the most important element in supporting the family structure is a home in which to live. This is another U-turn in government policy, from using the tax system to encourage home ownership to discouraging it by reducing mortgage interest relief. It has resulted in making home buying more expensive and has helped the slump in the housing market. Apart from contributing to insecurity, this has also resulted in a powerful disincentive to move. That has always seemed to me a curious policy for a Government which are constantly telling us how important it is to have a flexible labour market. Surely an important element of a flexible labour market would be to enable families to move easily in order to find work, or to move with their employers. Yet the tax system now puts difficulties in their way.
The next tax change to hit the family structure was in April 1994 with VAT on domestic fuel. That added £65.99 to the costs of our typical family. In the past the Government argued that VAT was made less regressive because the essentials of family life were zero-rated. That is why food, children's clothing, public transport, books and education, and domestic fuel were all zero-rated. The Prime Minister himself promised on several occasions that that would remain so. Indeed, when the European Commission asked for VAT to be charged on some fringe items of food, to their credit the Government objected vigorously. Then, in complete contrast, they imposed VAT on domestic fuel. I remind your Lordships that without Labour's opposition the tax would have been levied at 17.5 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. This is not only contrary to the Government's promises but is directly aimed at the family. It is indiscriminate and hits the poorest families hardest.

1759
The next tax rise to hit our typical family arrived in October 1994 when the Government introduced a tax on insuring the contents and structure of our homes. That added £5.14 to the tax paid by our typical family. That is hardly a factor which contributes to the support of families.
Car insurance tax then went up, and the following month so did fuel duties. Then we had the airport tax. All these taxes have affected family mobility.
Then last October we had a new tax on mortgage protection insurance policies. It is either a demonstration of extreme cynicism or of the fact that the Treasury or the Inland Revenue just do not talk to the Social Security Department that the Minister's department can remove mortgage protection from the benefits system and exhort people to protect their mortgages themselves by taking out an insurance policy, and at the same time cheerfully see a tax imposed on that insurance policy.
In November 1995 we had fuel duties increased by 2.3p above inflation, which added another £35 to our typical family. But as the election approaches there is a tax reduction on the horizon. From next month we should have a 1p basic rate cut in tax which would benefit our typical family by £179.95. However, I should add that prescription charges and school meals have gone up. Council tax is also going up, and all these will affect our average family.
What has been the effect of all this on children? In recent years the benefits system has certainly tried to target children but, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, told us, little has been clone by the tax system to take into account the costs of bringing up children. As Patricia Morgan said, the tax system now penalises married couples with children. Is that why more children than ever are now living in poverty? According to the Child Poverty Action Group, one in three children were living in poverty in 1992–93, compared with one in 10 in 1979. It is couples with children who account for the largest group in poverty and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, single parents, with 37 per cent. of those in poverty falling into that group in 1992–93. To help them escape from this poverty, families need child care. At present the only tax incentive for child care is tax relief when an employer provides workplace nurseries. This tax relief was announced by John Major when he was Chancellor in March 1990 and he said that he had introduced it to,
"help the labour market to work better".
If this tax allowance is designed to help the labour market to work better, why is it only limited to nurseries or play schemes at the workplace? Employees may find it hard to transport their children to a nursery at their own workplace, especially if the parent commutes into a city centre. Also, very few employers are in a position to provide that benefit. Small businesses certainly would find it difficult to set up nurseries.
This litany of increasing tax burdens on the family clearly demonstrates that the Government's words supporting the family have not been carried out. I welcome the call by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, to put those words into action; otherwise, in practice we shall have a clear case of saying one thing and doing another.
6.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for providing the opportunity for this debate. The family and family life are the bedrock of society. Anything that undermines the family undermines society itself. I am sure that every Member of the House would agree with that.
The General Synod Board for Social Responsibility produced a report recently called Something to Celebrate. The media attention focused on some perhaps rather unwise comments in it on cohabitation, which led to the rest of the report being totally overlooked. However, in answer to the question: "What do families need in social and economic terms in order to thrive and fulfil their caring roles?", one requirement which the report highlighted related to the essential material needs of families: a secure and reliable income, secure housing, access to education and health care, and special help which may be needed at extraordinary times such as chronic illness or family conflict.
I do not believe that total security and upholding and support of family life in this country can simply depend upon legislation. They depend on a great many other factors which include the Church, the culture in which we live, public perceptions and many other matters. I recognise that legislation—the law—has a substantial part to play.
We need to see whether we can define what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred to the traditional family. I wish to articulate that a little further. The traditional family is the tradition of the Judaeo-Christian history, which is our past. I am sure that noble Lords will expect me to say this. The traditional family is that which consists of a man and a woman, husband and wife, who are committed to each other for life in love and who, as part of their loving of each other, are committed also to bringing up children within their family.
The roles played by both the father and the mother are vital. I believe that their roles, even in the traditional family, are changing and I have no quarrel with the change. Greater father involvement in upbringing and greater mother involvement in wage earning seem to me to be the way that life is now, until the children are brought up, leave home and found families of their own, within the context of an extended family which consists of aunts, uncles, grandparents and so forth. When it works, that is the best model that we can conceivably have. Though there are times when it certainly does not, when it does work it is the most secure bedrock that society can require.
I say that that is in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, because it is. I believe it is also God-given and is the best response to the deepest needs of our human nature. The fact that it exists very much within those terms in other major faith traditions than our own is an indication that that is true.
But—and there is a but—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, focused on the family structure and at the beginning he referred to other alternatives and other models. I do not believe that we can simply ignore the

1761
other alternatives and models, whatever we might think about them in terms of moral judgments. We live in a mixed society today. All family structures where parents or parent and children live together are families. Some of the family structures are consequential on the breakdown of the traditional model in their own circumstances; some are experimental. Cohabitation has become a much greater factor in our social life, sometimes cohabitation with total commitment of the couple to each other. I suppose one could say that it is common law marriage. Some family structures are experimental, some are serial. I do not wish to uphold those as a model in any sense. Some are the result of breakdown or death.
The Church of England Children's Society sought in a paper last year to define what there might be in common to all examples, to see whether, as a society, we could go forward. The society came up with five points which I will list: disruption and insecurity are always unhelpful; inadequate living standards are damaging to families; extended family links should be fostered and encouraged; men's parental responsibility should be given greater emphasis; families should be enabled to help themselves. Noble Lords might feel that the list is thin, but it has been worked out and all would have it in common. If legislation enabled that to occur across the whole spectrum, society would be better off than it is.
My concern is that, although I uphold vehemently and vigorously the Judaeo-Christian tradition of marriage, I am well aware that what we are talking about at root is the well-being and welfare of children. Large numbers of children are now born outside marriage, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said. Thirty two per cent. of births take place outside marriage; 1.8 million children live in single parent families. Many of those women—and 90 per cent. are women—are not in that situation because they wish to be, but because circumstances have forced it upon them. Whatever one might think about the morality of the mother's position—and each individual case must be considered in its own right—the children are never responsible for it.
Anxieties have been expressed to me which will come out further in the course of the debate about the legislation as it stands or as it is proposed, and its effects upon the children outside the traditional standards of marriage. Concern is expressed about the Social Fund mechanism and its current inadequacies, about married couple's allowances and housing benefit proposals. The particular concern expressed to me is about the proposals to freeze the levels of lone parent and one parent premiums. If they are frozen and if there is any inflation at all, there will be a reduction in benefits. I know that the House is sensitive to the subtleties of what faces us. I believe that we need legislation that supports the traditional structure, and if anything undermines that traditional structure or fails to support it or encourage it to grow, it needs close examination, but not at the cost, I plead, of support for children who are brought up outside that structure.
1762
One of the greatest Archbishops of Canterbury this century, William Temple, talking at the end of the Second World War about social arrangements, suggested that the society we then needed to build was one that suggested fellowship rather than rivalry. I suggest that that is still true today.
7 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for introducing this very important debate. I might almost say that it is one of the most important debates that we have had for a very long time. I believe that central to our society today is a real concern about the breakdown of marriage and the family, to which the tax/benefit system has in itself made a contribution. My noble friend made that very clear indeed.
This debate follows logically from our many discussions on the Family Law Bill. My views on that Bill are well known. Certainly they have not changed in the course of the debates. Whatever our differences, there is broad agreement right across the political spectrum that the breakdown of marriage and the traditional family—the high divorce rate, now running at some 42 per cent. of marriages and the number of births out of wedlock, now over 30 per cent.ߞhas had disastrous effects on the whole fabric of society. Having listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I hope that he shares that general view, although I was not clear whether he felt quite as strongly as I do.
During the course of our debates on the Family Law Bill, I said that I considered most unhelpful the statement by the Law Commission that the high rate of divorce and births out of marriage was not having any effect on the fabric of society. The evidence is quite to the contrary. It is there for everybody to see who cares to look at it. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky gave examples. Anyone who teaches knows perfectly well that the high divorce rate, the high number of single-parent families, does have, and has had, a very marked effect in the education system. To put it absolutely at its lowest, the cost of counselling services required to help the children is money out of the education budget. It is not being spent directly on education at all.
My noble friend Lady Elles quoted on at least two occasions during the course of debates on the Family Law Bill the evidence from the Home Office that the large numbers of (as it usually is) young men aged between about 16 and 22 who commit crimes are nearly all from broken homes. A great deal of research evidence shows that it is the children of divorced and separated parents, of single mothers, who have worse health, do less well at school, are less likely to be able to get a job, take to crime and, finally, repeat the pattern of a broken marriage. Very few people dispute those facts. As a society, we are paying an immensely high price—some £9 billion—supporting this state of affairs. If we pause to think of other desirable objectives in our society on which we might spend just a portion of that money, we see what a terrible situation we have brought ourselves to. As we know, all this has happened within a generation, stemming from the 1960s. No one knows

1763
where it will end unless this trend is halted and reversed. We are in uncharted waters. Quite a number of people think that the number of divorces will equal the number of marriages in a very short time.
I believe that one of the purposes of law on social matters should be to buttress marriage. I have said so on many occasions. In preparation for this debate I looked again at the book by Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family? It is quite clear from what she says that the tax/benefit system has helped lone mothers and their children, and has disadvantaged married couples with children. Indeed, the majority of lone parents depend on welfare help of one sort or another and are usually considered to be the poorest families.
However, I believe it is true—the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made this point—that couples with children outnumber lone parent families in the lowest income groups. At the same time, the burden of taxation has increasingly been shifted onto married parents to support, through the tax system, single parents. The traditional concept of the family wage has to a large extent been abandoned, together with the recognition that taxation should be related to the number of dependants on a particular income. The very elaborate means-tested and selective benefits that have taken its place are almost entirely for the benefit of lone parents.
I believe that that trend should be halted and reversed. I cannot believe that it was ever the intention of Parliament, however this may have come about, that so much legislation in the tax/benefit world seems to have failed to draw a distinction between marriage and cohabitation; that married families should in fact be disadvantaged vis-à-vis those of single parents, and that this has continued for some time. Can my noble friend who is to reply to the debate tell us whether the interdepartmental working party on marriage has had anything to say about the way in which the tax/benefit system has operated in this way?
We have had much talk of reconciliation. It would be helpful to know whether there has been any research into the effects of the lack of money on married couples, particularly at the birth of the first child, and whether that has been a contributory cause of divorce. The pattern of women's lives is that they work until they have their first child and then take a career break. Curiously, the effect of the tax/benefit system has not necessarily been to enhance the opportunities for women. It has made it much more difficult for the woman who wishes to stay at home and bring up her child to do so.
I do not want in any way to be seen as someone who is trying to punish one-parent families. There are single parents who, against all the odds, do very well. But all law sends out a signal, and the signal of tax law is very clear: you are financially better off if you are not married than if you are married. And it appears to be a message that is being listened to. A lot of young people simply say: why marry at all?
I was pleased that the last Budget made an attempt to redress what has been a trend for a very long time. We have lower income tax. The married couple's allowance has been increased. We had the removal, referred to by
1764
the right reverend Prelate, of the discrimination in favour of lone parents that has come from the one-parent benefit and the lone parent premium. Whatever may be said about that, is it right that lone parents should have more money than the married couple? That is the question that we need to address. I was pleased to see that that, too, is being put right, as well as such matters as the doubling of the level of capital disregard from £8,000 to £16,000 for those who have to go into long-term care.
I very much hope that that trend will be continued in future Budgets. I say that because I believe we are on the verge of an unprecedented social experiment. So far as I know, there has never been an open, democratic society that has not been based on the family. There has never been a society of any sort that has not been based on the family.
We are creating now a society in which, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky pointed out, men are becoming peripheral. That is creating daunting problems for us. Quite apart from the complications of the labour market, there are fewer male role models for boys and less adult supervision of children, particularly by men, which leads to more indiscipline. Most dangerous of all, through the tax/benefit system, the state is moving in as the provider of the missing parent's functions. The traditional father is rapidly being replaced by the state. The state takes on the functions of the father, particularly as the provider of the income, and then moves on to take over the nurturing functions of families.
What conclusions can be drawn? I believe that the state should treat married parents as well as it treats single parents. That should be the first objective of the tax system in that regard. That ought to be a top priority for a future Budget. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister can assure us on that point when he comes to wind up.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for this debate, which is in every way a suitable adjunct to our deliberations on the Family Law Bill. We are also indebted to him for the moving and informative speech with which he introduced the debate, though I am bound to say that, as he developed his argument, I heard it with increasing concern for the welfare of our society.
It is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who gave so valiant a lead on the Family Law Bill, in which the tide of parliamentary opinion on the whole was against the integrity of the family, notwithstanding that lip service was paid to it. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made it clear that he was talking about the traditional family; that is to say, as I understand it, a husband and wife joining together with promises to live together exclusively during their joint lives, with the object in general of raising a family. As such it is also a primary agent for sociologists considering the welfare of society.
I suppose that most Members of your Lordships' House attach some importance to tradition. The reason is that tradition is generally the fruit of a process of

1765
reasoning, part of which may have disappeared from society's memory; it is the result of a series of experiences which may have vanished from the communal sense. But they can be recovered. So far as traditional marriage is concerned, a great deal was recovered on the Family Law Bill and more has already been recovered this evening.
Of course, the right reverend Prelate was right to say that legislation cannot do everything. Indeed, it cannot operate by itself. Other things are required, if we are to restore the faith and cohesion of our society.
I speak with diffidence in the presence of a historian of the eminence of the noble Lord who introduced the debate. But there is the striking example in history of the Emperor Augustus, who inherited a completely demoralised society and, by patient and detailed adjustments, much legislative and some not, reconstituted and affirmed it, so that it lasted to the general benefit for another 400 years and, indeed, bequeathed its spirit to the Papacy, the Holy Roman Empire and, more recently to the Concert of Europe.
There is a good deal that can be done by legislation, some of it outside the scope of this debate. Three Law Commission Bills are outstanding, dealing with matrimonial property. They translate into legislative terms the promise that was made at marriage to share worldly goods. It seems a matter of profound shame that the Government, during the past four or five years, have devoted themselves to a measure relating to the dissolution of marriage, while leaving those Law Commission proposals waiting—it is 15 years now and we are told that it will be another three years before they can be taken on.
There is also devolution of property on death. The Scottish system is much more user-friendly—I am sure that the noble Lord will bear me out—and much more family-friendly than our own, but nothing has been done there.
This debate valuably concentrates our minds on the fiscal and social security systems. Before venturing to make one or two specific proposals, perhaps I may make two general points. The first is that discrimination in favour of the family can always be made to look as though it is discrimination against those outside it. Discrimination in favour of married people living together can be made out to be discrimination against cohabitants without marriage.
The second point is that there is no doubt, and we must face the fact, that fiscal purists—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is present—dislike the system of allowances because it operates particularly to the advantage of those who least need it, perhaps because it operates on marginal rates of tax. Similarly with social security, the purists will say that social security is designed to relieve need. Once one goes outside that to relieve those whose needs are not immediate, one is wasting the taxpayers' money.
1766
We must recognise the force of those arguments. The answer to them is the one that is being given in this debate: that the family is a fundamental unit of society and society is entitled, even at the cost of fiscal purity, to discriminate in favour of the family.
Having said that, perhaps I may mention one or two other matters. I know that the married couples' allowance is not popular with the Inland Revenue, for the reasons that I gave. Nevertheless, also for the reasons that I ventured to give, it is justifiable that we improve it further. It went back for some years; it was improved at the last Budget but not so as to restore its former value.
The second fiscal measure I wish to mention is the substitution of a succession duty in place of an inheritance tax—a succession duty which favours the family specifically in comparison with those outside. The third measure is capital transfer tax. At present that favours the family in that transfer to a spouse is excluded from capital transfer tax. Remembering that the family is not just two persons, but those two and their children, should we not also make the same tax concessions on the capital transfer tax to transfers in favour of children?
I have completed my time. What I would have said about social security has already been said better than I could possibly put it, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Therefore I shall merely end as I began. We are justified in discriminating in favour of the family even at the cost of fiscal purity.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, not only for introducing this debate, but also for choosing this specific subject and the way in which he introduced it. After so many weeks of debate in this House on the Family Law Bill, and after hearing so many different views, it was a great pleasure to hear what he had to say about the family and his concept of the family in society today. I am sure that he evoked many feelings of support from what he said.
We are well aware that the cost of benefits to the taxpayer is increasing annually, from around £30 billion in 1971 to over £90 billion recently or, as it is often described, £15 per day from every person in work. The Secretary of State's initiatives in considering methods of controlling expenditure while retaining the fundamental purpose of welfare—this was repeated by various noble Lords—to alleviate poverty and assist those who need financial support are to be welcomed. It is paradoxical that, as the country's standard of living and wealth increases, poverty also seems to increase relatively so that around half the population live in households dependent on one of the means-tested benefits. That surely cannot be right.
There are a great many issues involved—whether benefits are or should be means tested; at what levels they should be introduced and to whom; the great difficulty of discontinuing one form of assistance without being sure of genuine suitable alternatives; above all, how to move from dependency to self-support or to avoid the poverty trap; the changes in life expectancy and the question of income support.

1767
In recent weeks we have had the opportunity to debate at some length the position of the family in today's society and I do not intend to cover that ground again. Problems of family structure cannot be isolated from the question of the range of benefits and taxes that we are considering this evening. For example, it has been said that it is not unemployment which is the biggest burden on the benefit system, which is often assumed; it is single parenthood whose annual claims amount to £8 billion a year and are the major cause of family poverty. The same author of those words, the honourable Member for Birkenhead, Mr. Frank Field—who I am sure is widely respected in this House and in another place for the work he has done for many years—in his book Making Welfare Work, said,
"No system of welfare can be independent of values. Is it right for example that young never married mothers should gain additional income support premiums when few if any voters hold that such behaviour is acceptable, let alone rewardable?"
It should be emphasised that this is not a party matter; it is the way we view the way in which poverty can be relieved and how we can best help those who need that relief. Yet the figures in his book show an escalation. In 1971 there were 571,000 single parents, of whom 90,000 never married; and in 1993 there were 1.4 million single mothers, of whom 490,000 never married; and, in all, they were responsible for 2.3 million children. It is not the parent or deserted parent that we are discussing; it is the effect on the children. Many noble Lords have emphasised that that is what we are considering—how we can help the children of disadvantaged parents.
Is there any difference in the tax treatment of married couples which might act as encouragement to the young to get married and establish a home together? My noble friend Lord Skidelsky gave some examples. The House of Commons Third Report, Review of Expenditure on Social Security, Session 1994–95 Annex A, does not give much encouragement. It says that a married couple with one child of three years old, with a gross weekly income of £100, after rent and council tax are left with £112.92; a lone parent with one child aged three, with the same relevant reductions, has a net income of £115.40. Again, with a gross weekly income of £140, a married couple is left with £114.14 and a single parent is left with £118.26.
That surely does not make sense. Although there is only one adult to be fed and clothed, in the latter case there is a one-parent benefit paid to lone parents as well as child benefit. That can add up to £6.15 a week extra. The lone parent also has, tax advantages in that he or she is entitled to the additional personal allowance, rendering the tax position equal to that of a one-earner couple. The lone parent has further benefit compared with the married couple, paying 75 per cent. of the council tax, whereas the married couple pays 100 per cent.
From that comparison between the tax and benefit treatment of lone parents and married couples, there is little incentive, at any rate on financial grounds, to marry. This year's increase in the tax allowance for married couples, raised from £1,720 for 1995–96 to £1,790 for 1996–97—which is to be welcomed, of
1768
course—applies equally to the lone parent in the form of additional personal allowance. The discrepancies in the figures therefore remain.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky quoted from a study by Dr. Patricia Morgan, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, who kindly allowed me to quote from some of the things she has written. The conclusion to which she came from the figures quoted by my noble friend was that,
"At every wage level a lone parent has more than two adults and two children even if she is not claiming child care costs, and far more when she does. There is nothing for the support of a second parent providing the child care in the two parent family. Instead, the family earner has less for more people!"
She continued,
"When a lone parent claims for child care costs, she gets more for part time work than a family breadwinner gets for full time work … All the father's income goes against the family's entitlements, but everything the lone parent's boyfriends provide is extra".
That is a clear indictment of the balance between tax and benefits relating to single parents and also with regard to married couples. The tax regime clearly does not help married couples. If we want support for the family, regardless of measures being applied to benefits, the tax system must be more positive. In saying that, I am not decrying the benefits that the single parent receives; I am trying to emphasise the need for married couples to have better tax treatment.
Can anything be learnt from other European Union countries where the divorce rate is lower and the number of illegitimate children is also lower? If we look at some of the figures, some comparisons may stimulate my noble friend the Minister into taking some positive action. Income tax and social security as a percentage of gross salary (£17,000 or equivalent) taking global figures, in the US is 12 per cent.; Japan, 15 per cent.; and Switzerland, 16 per cent.; yet the income tax and social security as a percentage of gross salary in the UK for married couples is 26 per cent.
In each of those three countries, unemployment is considerably lower than in the United. Kingdom, and while not being able to pin down the cause, it could well be a greater incentive to come out of the dependency syndrome if tax burdens were lighter and thresholds for the imposition of tax were raised. In France income tax is geared to help the family. Deductions for health insurance and other social security contributions are allowed. Although on a different system, the quotient is two for a married couple, regardless of whether the wife earns, and one unit for a child.
We had a debate recently on the elderly, so I will not repeat what was then said except to draw attention to the question of inheritance tax, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly referred. It causes so much despair to the elderly who have put their life savings into a house and then have to sell it to be able to pay for residential care. After all, grandparents and parents are still part of the family, whatever age they may be. One has to consider the whole range of ages of the family. It is suggested that the seven-year rule should not apply in those cases where the family home is left to the descendants of the owner, so that he or she can enjoy remaining at home

1769
without having to enter a residential home. There are more than a quarter of a million people in residential homes. They could stay in their own homes with the comfort of their spouses and with home help.
I should like to set out two or three measures which I should like to see considered in order to alter the tax burden on married couples. The personal allowance should be double that of a single person, where the wife does not earn. This could also encourage her to stay at home while her children are below school age. The family allowance for children should be reinstated, increasing according to age, as expenditure increases. How I agree with the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that tax purity is not always the best reason for changing and helping families. There should also be changes in inheritance tax, either by abolition or by exemption on passing the family home to direct descendants. There should be encouragement for personal tax exempt savings schemes—possibly a lump sum exemption on marriage, with limitation on size and on date of withdrawal of the contributor. Finally, to help those who have become dependent on benefits, the tax threshold should be raised on taking up work. The margin of gain at present does not seem to encourage the taking up of work. This syndrome must be broken and would be possible with a tax threshold higher than the personal allowance for the first year in work, or some other equal period.
It is appreciated that each country has its own traditions and problems, and it is to the credit of this Government that unemployment is lower than most western European industrialised countries, as well as people in Britain having put aside nearly £600 million for their retirement. If the distant future for the national debt, according to the OECD, is encouraging, there is nevertheless urgent need for encouragement to be given to families in the immediate future.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing this Motion and I have learnt much from the other speeches made so far. I have one quibble with the Motion. It refers to,
"the effectiveness of the current tax and benefit system in supporting the family structure".
It should refer to the "ineffectiveness". There is no dispute about that. I understand that the noble Lord, apart from natural courtesy and gentleness, has to be better behaved on the Tory Benches than I can allow myself to be from the Cross Benches.
In the short time available to me I do not wish to qualify all I have to say. I wish to declare some missionary truths as they have struck me not only recently but in watching the developing situation of the welfare state since I taught this subject back in the Scottish university of St. Andrews 40 years ago. Then there were high hopes in the wake of Beveridge that we could solve all the pre-war problems of want, hunger, idleness and so forth. With social benefits now roaring towards £100 billion, those high hopes of post-war reformers have been totally shattered. Multiplying
1770
benefits have not only failed to usher in the millennium or satisfy the general social aspirations; they have had unmistakeably a perverse effect: they have aggravated the problem by attracting ever more claimants.
This perversity of outcome is no accident. Indeed, market economists used to distinguish between what they called the income effect and the price effect of a subsidy. Thus when the Government offer cash or free services to help particular groups of people judged to be deserving, the direct, immediate and intended effect is to raise the real incomes of the recipients. Alas, inevitably, at the same time the indirect longer term unintended effect is to offer an inducement for other people to put themselves in the position of beneficiaries enjoying these new subsidies. If sceptics doubt that, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, might confirm from his great knowledge that such a sensitive observer as Lord Keynes acknowledged that even the inadequate and derisory dole of the 1930s had some effect in diminishing the incentive to work. In a radio discussion reproduced in the Listener in 1930 Keynes, talking to Lord Stamp, acknowledges that,
"the existence of the dole undoubtedly diminishes the pressure on the individual man to accept a rate of wages or a kind of employment which is not just what he wants or what he is used to".
These effects at the margin of decision, of people going for jobs or not going for jobs, switch people into totally the wrong direction and those marginal changes build up to massive redirections in lifestyles and employment.
In economic terms, if you offer a higher price for the unemployed, you will get a larger amount of unemployment. That is what Keynes taught. He called it voluntary unemployment. He did not wish to stand in judgment. That was just an effect that these subsidies had. If you offer a higher price for single parent families, you will get more single parent families. That is a matter of ordinary common sense. I do not regard the cost of £9.4 billion a year as the major cost to our society of this development. I regard the main cost to our society as the effect on children. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has told us about presenting young children, the victims of this system, with the prospect on average of much worse life chances in employment and education and of future delinquency and so on. It is on the children that the handicaps are visited.
A number of speakers have quoted from a study, Farewell to the Family? by Patricia Morgan of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Some statistics have already been deployed so I shall add just two or three others from this splendid volume, priced £9 while stocks last. Of all families with dependent children, lone mothers and fathers, excluding widows, increased two-and-a-half fold, from 7 per cent. in 1971 to 18 per cent. in 1991; while the proportion of the total population living in single parent families increased fourfold, from 2.5 per cent. in 1961 to 10 per cent. in 1991.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that single parent families also suffer disproportionately from poverty. According to Patricia Morgan, that is not exactly the position. In the bottom decile of income distribution in 1991, pensioners accounted for 11 per cent., single and married persons without

1771
children accounted for 30 per cent. and single parent families with children accounted for only 11 per cent. Couples with children—theirs is the burden and the handicap—accounted for 49 per cent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, would it not be more helpful for the noble Lord to remind the House of the proportion of households that each of those types of family represent and then see what proportion they contribute to poverty? As a result, I believe that the noble Lord will find that the number of lone parents is about 6 per cent. of the population but 11 per cent. of those in poverty. That is the key statistic of which the noble Lord needs to remind us.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, that not does disturb the facts that I have laid before the House; namely, that couples with children represent 49 per cent. of the lower decile, whereas single parents with children represent only 11 per cent.
There is not sufficient time to deploy one of the major forces that operates here, as in so many other sectors of our economic and social policy. Professors Tullock and Buchanan in America developed a marvellous analysis of what they call "public choice" or the economic analysis of politics, in which they show the way in which our famed democracy can be so easily corrupted by the influence of pressure groups. They show how single-issue lobbies have a disproportionate weight in influencing government because they are concentrating single-mindedly their effort on particular demands that they wish to have satisfied. Against that concerted, orchestrated and persistent pressure, there is no counter-pressure from the general body of taxpayers and citizens who are in the end going to pay the price, so one has all the time pressure towards expanding government in the benefits that explicitly suit minorities.
In the long run there is no solution unless we restore the public philosophy of limited government and a presumption against the automatic enlargement of government to meet every problem. Buchanan and Tullock in America have shown how that presumption would have to be entrenched in some kind of constitutional deal to stop politicians constantly yielding to the temptation to buy votes by offering taxpayers' money to these persistent pressure groups.
I turn briefly to remedies. I make no apology for saying that we should shift the tax/benefit bias back at least to neutrality, if not in favour of married couples with families. It is wholly preposterous that my preferred family choice and that of many other noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently is handicapped and disadvantaged through the tax system. In the earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, urged that we should reduce income tax and the loopholes and, I am adding, raise the starting point to allow gross income to he reflected in higher take-home pay. Another figure from Patricia Morgan shows that in 1950 a married man with a wife and two children had to earn average manual earnings before starting to pay income tax. Today, tax begins to be deducted from earnings at one-third of average manual earnings.
1772
If there were time I would argue that even the restoration of child adoption would make some contribution to rescuing children from some of the disadvantages which they suffer in these families. We should tackle the entitlement mentality that has grown. I recall my noble friend Lord Jakobovits, when we were debating the Family Law Bill, arguing that in Jewish families divorce was less common, although all the social pressures were the same as on the rest of the community, but he said that the stigma prevented Jewish families yielding to that pressure. Stigma is only the other side of pride in independence. That becomes caricatured as a stigma if we prefer independence to dependency on government.
The last refuge of a noble mind is to propose a Royal Commission. I very much supported the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her time in office, turning her face against Royal Commissions. They have been too easily resorted to by government for passing the buck to others. But I urge that we have a Royal Commission on the subject of the respective roles of the state and voluntary agencies in the future of the family. One of the most neglected publications in my lifetime has been Lord Beveridge's third volume on voluntary action. The other two volumes were on social insurance and full employment. The right reverend Prelate said that if we could stress the role that the Church and other voluntary organisations could play in helping to redress the position of the family, that would be a great advantage.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue and also for giving such a comprehensive review of what is actually quite a narrow and technical subject. He gave a wonderfully comprehensive introduction to it.
I believe that what we are discussing tonight—and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned it—is an extremely important subject. Yet I believe that all too often, because of the sheer complexity of our tax and benefits systems, that complexity serves to disguise what is really happening and what incentives are created, and discourages those like myself who are amateurs in this field, from seriously looking at the matter. So we are really indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
I also believe that one cannot approach this subject from the point of view of neutrality; one must have some starting point. I would like to make explicit my starting point, which is that I believe we have to recognise the benefits which are conferred on our society by the traditional family; that is, husband and wife who accept responsibility in marriage for bringing up their children. We should no longer be indifferent as to whether the norm for family life in this country is the traditional family or what has come to be called "the mother-child unit".
I say that because a growing body of research evidence is using different methods, such as longitudinal studies, cohort studies and clinical studies, which are

1773
drawn from samples of children of different ages, and from research work in different countries, but which reach similar conclusions. The relationships involved in these research studies are complex, and I acknowledge that. What I find extraordinary is that the conclusions are clear and have a great deal in common. They are that divorce has a serious and a long-lasting impact on children and that lone parenthood, regardless of the socio-economic status of the mother—and I in no way want to criticise any lone parent in any way this evening—has a damaging effect on the wellbeing of children.
To put the same point positively, children of parents who follow the traditional norm are significantly advantaged with respect to self-esteem, health, educational performance in school, employment and long-lasting personal relationships, and are less likely to commit crime or to become deviant.
I was very impressed by the foreword to an excellent study on this subject—and not by Patricia Morgan this time. It was published by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The foreword is by Professor Halsey of the University of Oxford, a great authority in this area as well as someone who has been a life-long socialist. In assessing the evidence he said,
"The children of parents who do not follow the traditional norm, (i.e., personal, active and long term responsibility for the children they generate) are thereby disadvantaged in many major aspects of living a successful life. The evidence all points in the same direction, is formidable and tallies with common sense".
Therefore, my starting point for asking the question in terms of this Motion, as to the effectiveness of the current tax and benefits system, is this research evidence which comes out conclusively in defence of the traditional family.
Despite the growing body of evidence, the tax and benefits system fails to support the traditional family structure. I believe that it creates the wrong incentives. I give two examples. First, the tax and benefits system encourages fatherless families. For a given level of earnings, a married couple with children receive less income than a lone parent with the same number of children. That cannot be right. We do not have a level playing field in that respect. If one takes into account the research evidence, one may well conclude that the playing field should be tilted through fiscal and benefits policy in favour of the traditional family.
Secondly, our tax and benefits system discriminates against those mothers who, for whatever reason, wish to stay at home and have a particular relationship with their children. A one-earner couple with two children pay more in tax and national insurance than a two-earner couple with two children on the same gross income. The numbers are impressive. Forty-eight per cent. of all mothers of children under the age of five, 29 per cent. of all mothers with children aged between five and 10 and 22 per cent. of all mothers with children aged between 11 and 15 stay at home. That is a total of two and a half million mothers.
We discriminate against people who believe in the traditional family and want to develop the relationships and give up work for however short or long a period of
1774
time. I do not suggest that taxes and benefits are the most important factor that is taken into account in making decisions in this area, but they are one factor that impacts most seriously on low-paid, hard-working married men with families.
The tax and benefits system is also a powerful symbol in our society. It embodies our values and sense of fairness. I believe that the present system sends out negative messages. Over recent decades the family has been treated, not as a unit in which people are dependent on each other, but as a set of people with individual needs who just happen to live under the same roof. This started with the introduction of family allowance which was paid to the mother because the father could not be trusted. He might simply fritter it away in the pub. Next, the child tax allowance was withdrawn. Major support for children was then provided through child benefit, income support and family credit. At the same time, the married couple's allowance was frozen until the last Budget. We then moved to a system of separate and independent taxation of husband and wife.
What messages do we give our society as a result of all these changes to the tax and benefits system? I suggest three. First, fathers are totally marginalised in the family. Irresponsible fathers are hounded by the CSA, but responsible fathers who work hard to look after their families receive no recognition whatever either through tax allowances or benefits. Secondly, those who earn income are not helped to support the family; rather, the benefits come from the state. Our tax and benefits system has made children the responsibility of the state, not the family. If there is a problem the Government will deal with it, not help the family itself to deal with it. Thirdly, there is an individualism that pervades this approach which is particularly reflected in the reform of personal taxation which I believe is destructive of community.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky said that we had to put words into action. The problem that the family faces today is not simply that of changing values but that the tax and benefits system drives the trend that we see. We can do something about that. We must be prepared to change structures. If the existing inequities continue I cannot see why the trend will not continue. Children in single parent families must not be made to suffer. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right to say that they must not be punished. But if we simply address short-term poverty, we will never create a long-term structure to solve the problem. Therefore, we must be prepared to change the structures.
In conclusion, I make two proposals: first, the reintroduction of child tax allowances; and, secondly, the adoption of the proposal, contained in an eloquent Government White Paper in 1986, for personal transferable tax allowances. I believe that both would strengthen the family.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for initiating this debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss these important matters.

1775
Central to government's understanding of how an individual relates to his community are the virtues that that individual develops, the values he learns and the relationships which he builds within the family. The traditional family develops an individual identity and teaches self-reliance and personal responsibility for oneself and others. Today, the family is not, as Neil Kinnock claimed, "changing" but it is in danger of disintegrating.
Some families never start properly because mothers and fathers do not make a commitment to one another before they have children. Increasingly, it is recognised that children are safer and more likely to develop and flourish within the traditional family. Some talk in an ill-defined way about "community", yet if we look for a major cause of crime, a key reason for educational failings and an explanation as to why the social security budget grows so quickly, we should consider the decay of family life and particularly the marriage bond.
Cultural forces power the decaying pattern of family life. Nonetheless, let us not be guilty of abetting these malign cultural forces hut turn to every corner of public policy to ensure that the traditional family, centred on marriage, is not disadvantaged. At the very least, the Government should call for fair treatment for marriage. Some argue that there should be incentives for those who get married and remain married. After all, marriage is a public commitment as well as a private relationship. The Government should support marriage in every reasonable way, remembering that frequently it is the taxpayer who bears the cost when marriage fails.
Despite claims to the contrary, the Government's policies tend to undermine the family, as rising numbers of one-parent families, divorces, out-of-wedlock births and the increasing popularity of cohabitation testify. At any given level of earnings, the lone parent will derive a higher income than a married man with the same number of children. As a result of the child care allowance, which was introduced in October 1994, a lone parent with two small children can work for 20 hours at £4 per hour and end up with a net income of just under £164 after rent and tax. A married father of two small children who works for 40 hours at the same hourly rate takes home just under £131.
The situation has been aggravated by the destabilisation of male employment. Joblessness correlates with an unmarried status for men, and becoming unemployed increases the chance of divorce. For all practical purposes, the mother/child unit is the family type for which family policy is designed. The two-parent family is discriminated against. Being brought up in broken, incomplete, or reconstituted families has serious detrimental effects upon the health, education and delinquency of children.
I turn now to the married couples' allowance. The indexation provision for that allowance is to be welcomed. At the time of the introduction of independent taxation in 1990, the married couples' allowance was set at £1,720. It was given at the taxpayer's marginal rate of tax—either 25 per cent. or 40 per cent. Since then, the rate at which it is given has been cut: first to 20 per cent., and then to 15 per cent.,
1776
as was explained to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. That amount has been frozen. It has taken £2 billion out of family budgets—on average, £3.30 a week for each family. The indexation increase this year is the first change. Meanwhile, for comparison, the personal allowance has been raised from £3,005 in 1990 to a proposed £3,765 for the coming year—an increase of over 25 per cent. It is still allowed at the taxpayer's marginal rate.
That shift in allowances has had a marked effect upon the relative tax burden of families and single people. As a result of the changes in allowances since 1990, including those proposed in the Finance Bill, the annual tax bill of a married couple with one earner will have gone down by £42 since 1990, while that of a cohabiting couple with two earners and no children, will have gone down by £365 a year. That follows a continuous shift of the tax burden on to families since 1964. For example, a single earner married couple with two children under 11 on average earnings was then paying 8 per cent. of its income in tax. Today, after allowing for the shift from child tax allowance to child benefit, the figure is 22 per cent. Most other taxpayers have seen their tax bills rise, but by far less.
Hitherto, governments have recognised that the tax system should take account of the special relationship which exists within marriage; for example, the 1986 Green Paper on personal taxation stated:
"The Government reject the view that the tax system should pay no regard to the special relationship which exist within marriage".
Before the Budget, the Prime Minister said:
"The Government believe that married couples should receive recognition in the tax system".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/95; col. 547.]
Marriage requires men and women to make a long-term commitment to each other and to their children. It provides the best means for children to have a loving, stable, and committed environment within which to grow. That is not to suggest that marriages are without their problems or that many cohabitees and lone parents do not bring up their children excellently; but research shows that children whose parents separate are more likely overall to have adverse education, health, and behaviour problems than children whose parents stay together.
Even with a high divorce rate, cohabitational arrangements last a far shorter time than marriages. There is also research evidence to show that children who live in a lone-parent family do less well in educational terms, and that married couples live longer, have healthier lives, and suffer less stress and mental illness than single, widowed or divorced parents.
The looser ties of co-habitation may well provide less support for caring for elderly parents than the shared responsibilities and commitments provided through marriage. In short, marriage is the foundation for a stable and cohesive society. As Cardinal Basil Hume, the Archbishop of Westminster, at the Philip Lawrence Memorial Mass said:
"if we lament, and rightly so, violence in our streets and much else that is wrong, then let our society look to the quality of family life in the nation and to the serious commitment which the marriage bond should be".

1777
I end by saying how important it is to ensure that the tax and benefit system supports the family and buttresses marriage in our society.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for moving for Papers on this important issue, thus giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate. The Motion calls attention to the effectiveness of the current tax and benefit system in supporting the family structure.
It is a fact of life that charities are being called upon increasingly to provide support facilities for disabled people and their families. That important aspect of the charities' work is being undertaken following a recession which has not merely increased need but has substantially reduced the giving to charitable causes.
As government move away from the statutory provision of services, assistance for disabled people is being provided increasingly by charitable organisations. Charities can charge central and local government for the services which they undertake, but in many cases the fees paid do not match the costs of services being provided.
The Government recognise the importance of the charitable sector, and have introduced various measures to increase giving to charities, including payroll giving and gift aid. The Government have moved in the right direction, but sadly what has been given with one hand has been taken away by the other. For instance, a reduction of one penny in the pound means that charities have less tax to reclaim. That may seem a trifling amount, but it has been estimated that it could cost Oxfam as much as £150,000 a year. The previous Budget cost charities, including those helping disabled people, in excess of £5 million overall.
What is the answer? How can we help the people in our community who most need assistance? What more can be done to support a family whose breadwinner is disabled and is currently being assisted by one of the many charities which together raise many billions of pounds each year? One of the most significant ways to help, particularly the service-providing charities, would be to introduce relief from irrecoverable VAT. Charities are hit severely by irrecoverable VAT. Recent research has demonstrated that charities are losing over £350 million a year in VAT.
The imposition of VAT is governed by EU law (the sixth directive). Because charities provide mainly exempt services or services (at below cost, at no cost, or at no charge) which are outside the scope of VAT, they are unable to recover the VAT associated with the purchases needed to provide those services.
The problem is unique to charities. Local authorities providing the same services do not have to pay any VAT on their expenditure, and commercial organisations are allowed to recover the associated VAT. They are not as seriously affected by VAT as are charities. The most badly affected groups are those providing services—the very charities upon which the Government are now depending. Charities which raise money and do not
1778
spend it benefit from concessions on giving and do not have the same problem with VAT. It is precisely those most useful in the community which are penalised.
What is the solution to the VAT problem? With the introduction of a simple grant-in-aid scheme by which charities could reclaim VAT incurred on their non-business expenditure, the level of grant could be varied by the Government in recognition of economic constraints, but any percentage—let us say 25 per cent.—would most significantly reduce VAT and mean that an additional £75 million was available for charitable spending. Such a scheme operates most successfully in Canada, where charities are automatically eligible for a refund of 50 per cent. of general sales tax at the end of the financial year.
It is not as though any grants would be taken as profit; they would be ploughed back into providing existing services. By limiting any scheme to non-business expenditure, any concerns about fraud are overcome. The European Commission has only recently reiterated its view that such a scheme is perfectly permissible under EU law. The introduction of grant-in-aid mechanisms would not, in overall public expenditure terms, cost the Government a great deal and the return in terms of additional targeted and cost-effective services would be considerable.
The Government have argued that it is preferable to encourage giving rather than offering indiscriminate VAT relief and have introduced a number of concessions accordingly. However, that fails to take account of the current environment in which charities operate. As the reduction in the basic tax rate continues, measures to encourage charitable giving are no longer sufficient. The Treasury estimated that the measures introduced in the March 1993 Budget would benefit charities by £30 million. However, that did not compensate charities for the total loss in income of £130 million as a result of other Budget measures. Unfortunately, the trend has continued and each of the recent Budgets has eroded the position of charities still further.
The recent recession has resulted in a falling off in voluntary giving. Charities are therefore facing significantly higher demands for their services at the same time as coping with a reduction in income. Furthermore, measures to encourage giving do not benefit all charities because some services, albeit vital for their recipients, are not as easily "sold" to the public as others.
Despite the concessions, there is a significant imbalance in the way in which the current tax regime impacts on the sector. Those organisation which do not provide services do not have a significant VAT burden but those which are service providers are penalised because the amount they receive in tax reliefs is often far outweighed in the amount they pay in irrecoverable VAT.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words about Europe. Charities have been fearful that the imposition of VAT on fuel and power could be seen as the start of the gradual dismantling of zero rates. That would have disastrous effects on charities. Previous research

1779
indicates that a complete loss of zero rates would result in the trebling of VAT bills paid by charities. The Government must stand firm on the retention of existing zero rates in forthcoming EU negotiations on the permanent VAT system. They must not give away what they have achieved in previous negotiations with their European partners, which they have spent many years negotiating.
It would also be helpful if the Government could seek a solution to this problem at a European level, possibly through encouraging the Commission and other member states to review the position of charities under the sixth directive, which is in any event being redrafted as part of the work towards a permanent VAT regime.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it has been a most interesting debate and I believe that I speak for all Members in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing it tonight.
Essentially, it has been a debate about the effectiveness of the welfare state and I believe that, therefore, it has been a deeply uncomfortable debate for all of us, wherever we sit in the House. Why? First, social security expenditure has risen remorselessly. It is now one-third of all public expenditure. However, I believe that we all accept that DSS expenditure is largely a response to problems generated outside the social security system—for instance, high unemployment, the lack of decent childcare and the deregulated housing market—and that therefore a solution to those problems also lies elsewhere. But far from the tax and benefits structure mitigating those problems, since 1979 we have seen inequality widen and poverty deepen. Today one child in three under the age of five in Britain is in a family on income support. One-quarter of Europe's poor live in Britain. I do not know which is the more shaming statistic.
However, whereas in the past poverty was the unwelcome property of sickness or old age it is now increasingly the fate of families. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, gave some figures. For example, pensioners make up about one-fifth of the population but only about one-tenth of those defined as poor. The same is true of couples without children. Those people who make up about three-fifths of the population represent only about two-fifths of those who are poor.
However, the reverse is true for those with children, whether they are in two or one parent families. Those families are disproportionately poor. They represent about two-fifths of our households and about three-fifths of our poor. As the new CPAC guide, Poverty, the Facts, shows, children make a family and families with children are disproportionately poor. Our welfare state, our tax and benefits system, has failed those families.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury reminded us, families come in many shapes and sizes. Today the two parent family is still the case for approximately seven out of 10 children but increasingly the number of children come from families in which the parents cohabit, are separated or divorced, have remarried or re-partnered or have remained lone
1780
parents. They are all families. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was right in saying that children are much better off in families with their two natural parents. However, from these Benches I vigorously resist the arguments by implication or explicitly from the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Harris, that we should seek to strengthen so-called traditional families by making the children in non-traditional families poorer. It is the combination of single parenthood and poverty which gives many of those children the bad start which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, rightly and dramatically described to us.
Why have we failed those families? Whether they are two or one parent families, why increasingly are they in poverty? First, we have failed them in the labour market. I was surprised that so little was made of that point tonight. Only one British worker in three now works the nine-to-five day five days a week on which the secure mortgage, the secure income, the secure pension and the secure family rests. Outside that group of workers are those in part-time work, contract work, temporary hours work, zero hours work, weekend work and shift work. They are the new casual army of reserve labour, in and out of the labour market as the employer determines, carrying all the economic risks and uncertainties on their shoulders. One cannot build a secure family on insecure work. In addition, there are the unemployed. During the past five years 40 per cent. of people have been unemployed. Today, one million children are in families without a breadwinner.
We all accept that much of what I have described is global. However, the consequences for our society have been made worse by the policies deliberately adopted by the Government. The Government have deregulated the labour market, scrapped wages councils, withdrawn employment protection and seen wages fall. They are then surprised when the lean, mean, insecure, competitive individuals of the labour market do not become the responsible family men caring for others that we all wish to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, is right that if there is individualism in the labour economy it is difficult to expect social responsibility in the domestic economy. Divorce damages, but so does the divorce that the Government have helped to preside over; namely, the divorce between individualistic behaviour to make a living and the behaviour that we all recognise is necessary to live a family life.
Just as the Government encourage a labour market made up of self-seeking individuals but want society somehow to be made up of responsible families, so we see the same moral schizophrenia when it comes to tax and benefit structures. My noble friend Lord Haskel made the point very well that the Government have raised taxes but have raised them in such a way that they fall most heavily on the poor and on families and, as I have tried to suggest, increasingly, they are the same people.
As regards direct taxes, we have seen a cut in the top rate of tax. Half of all the tax cuts enjoyed since 1979 have been enjoyed by just the top 10 per cent. of the population. But by cutting the top rates of tax and

1781
reducing the rates within the bands but not increasing personal allowances to keep the poorest out of tax and by freezing the married man's allowance, those measures have all hurt families and in particular, poor families.
Add to that a child benefit which has not even kept pace with prices let alone earnings, together with national insurance which is capped at just over £20,000, which is therefore regressive in its effect on families; and add beyond that a taxation burden which is felt increasingly through indirect taxes such as VAT on fuel, which cannot be discretionary for families because they have to spend to survive; and we can see how the tax burden has damaged families and increasingly helped to put them into poverty.
If we look at the tax structure over the past 10 years, who has gained and who has lost? Those who have gained are people with above average earnings. It is those who are single and employed, those without children and those in work. They have done quite nicely. But those who have lost out under our tax structure in the past 10 or 15 years are those with below average earnings, married couples, people with children and especially the unemployed. If you are married with children and unemployed, you have footed the biggest bill of all.
That list of winners and losers is not accidental. It has been constructed by the Government and the price has been paid by families who are poor. In other words, the tax system is increasingly wiping the concept of the family out of the Inland Revenue computer. To avoid taxing a two-earner family as though it is a one-earner family, the Government have ended up with a far worse anomaly: a one-earner family is treated as though it is a single person. That is absurd.
The inequities of the tax system, as many noble Lords have said this evening, have been reinforced by the perversities of the benefit system. Means-testing is increasingly replacing insured benefits. For example, JSA has replaced unemployment benefit and has cut the contributory insured period. The result of that is to damage families. If any member of the family tries to help himself, he is penalised. Let us take family credit as an example. If a family man with two children earns £3.75 per hour, whether he works 16 or 40 hours per week, he is only £5 better off. If any member of the family—for example, the wife—obtains a part-time job, her husband loses benefit pound for pound. There is a marginal tax rate of 100 per cent. if you are poor while for the best off it is reduced to 40 per cent. Means-testing damages families, increases poverty, extends dependency, reduces family savings, discourages families from working and probably encourages fraud.
Cruellest of all has been what has happened to the housing market and the role that the Government have played in that. As my noble friend Lord Haskel rightly said, mortgage payers who lose their jobs will no longer receive income support. Therefore, those who are most likely to lose their jobs and who are least likely to have
1782
insurance face repossession. There are 1,000 repossessions per week with devastating consequences for the family.
As regards rented housing, the Government first deregulated rents and extended the dependency of families on housing benefit and then capped housing benefit in a landlords' market, thus ensuring that the poorest families will be evicted for arrears. Having made them dependent, they then make them homeless. Add to that the new Housing Bill which your Lordships will soon be debating and we shall find that families unable to pay mortgages and unable to pay rents will suffer an itinerant life of temporary tenancies. Many a family will not survive.
Can we not do better than that? The Government utter platitudes about family life while their labour market policies, tax structure and benefit system batter those very same families. The state cannot make families strong or happy but it can do the opposite. It can increase their insecurity and put them under stress. I believe that that is what the state has done.
Families need a fairer tax system than we have, stronger employment policies and a statutory minimum wage. They need also a welfare-to-work strategy which emphasises training and child care together with an intelligent and not perverse benefit system. Such an agenda for families is not beyond the wit of government to devise. That is what the next Labour Government will offer.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, by and large this debate has followed the course of the last debate until, perhaps, it came to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; namely, a certain amount of cross-party general agreement. The two debates are not unrelated and I may refer some of your Lordships to the previous debate when I answer some of the points raised in this debate.
I think that nobody disagrees with the proposition that the family is of crucial social significance. For the majority of people, the family is the focus of their emotions and aspirations. It is where they learn to distinguish between right and wrong. It is where they learn to experience and give love and to grow up, we hope, in a happy and loving relationship.
Families pass on the experiences of previous generations to new generations. In doing so, they equip the new generation to live in society. It is the main channel through which the cultural, religious and moral values of society are transmitted from one generation to the next, and it provides the fundamental building block for our society. I do not think that anybody who took part in the debate disagrees at all with that.
My noble friend Lady Young asked me specifically about the inter-departmental committee on marriage and what it is doing. That group has been carrying out a review of the support services available to married couples. It is a major piece of work to identify which services are required by married couples and to map out the services currently available. That will allow us to ensure that we are making the best use of resources by

1783
providing the right support to married couples experiencing difficulties or, indeed, the right advice and preparation for young couples considering marriage. I am sure that my noble friend and other noble Lords will agree that that is an important piece of work.
The past few decades have seen major changes in the structure and stability of family life. Those rightly concern your Lordships and they concern the Government too. There have been increases in the rate of divorce and increases in the number of children born out of wedlock. More than 2 million children are brought up in lone-parent families and many more as members of step families. Those are worrying developments. But do not let us become too involved with our worry beads because there are two points that we should bear in mind.
First, the majority of parents raise their children in unified families and two out of three marriages stay united. Secondly, the changes seen here are not unique to the United Kingdom. Similar changes are occurring worldwide in countries with very different tax and benefit systems and very different social and economic policies.
I suspect that the suggestion that the tax and benefit system is very much the cause of the trend that we have seen is perhaps not true. Indeed, that memorable phase of the 1960s which some noble Lords will remember—namely, that the civilised society is a permissive society—has a great deal more to do with the problems that we have been discussing this evening.
I thought that I would look at the most recent statistics on lone-parent families. They show divorce in 35 per cent. of cases; separated from marriage in 22 per cent. of cases; and 42 per cent. never married. But of that 42 per cent., 24 per cent. are separated from cohabitation and 18 per cent. have never lived as a couple. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky when opening the debate and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Elles, referred to the relative stability of births over a very long period. I do not think that the example of Henry VIII was a good one. My recollection is that his view of the sanctity of marriage was loose even by today's standards. While the statistics are interesting—and I have quoted some which show the same trend—one has to be a little careful when judging statistics from today (when we collect them rather carefully) with those from previous years.
After all, when we match the statistics for conceptions out of wedlock, we may well bring into our consideration the rather more old-fashioned view than today of the so-called shotgun marriage when the subsequent birth after marriage disguised the fact that it was actually conception out of wedlock. I started with Henry VIII; perhaps I may commend to your Lordships as night-time reading a book by the great Scottish poet, Robert Burns, as an example of how such things were organised not just in rural Scotland but also in rural Britain in the 18th century. I suspect that we get a little upset by the figures that we see today when we compare them with what we believe was an idyllic position previously. It was perhaps not quite as idyllic as we would like to think. But that does not get us away from the fact that it causes problems.
1784
I believe that those problems were well defined by my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach when he said that children of parents following traditional norms are significantly advantaged over a range of factors in comparison with other children. There is absolutely no doubt about it. If one were to give a child advice before it was born, one would advise it to be born into a stable, married family relationship. While I am not saying that it is all disaster the other way, the odds are very much more in favour of that child than they are as regards all the alternatives.
I turn away now from that issue, although I may wish to return to it later. I move on to the position of the tax/benefit system which is the bedrock of tonight's debate. Although I have already said that I do not believe that people marry or do not marry because of the tax system, or that people get divorced or do not get divorced because of the tax system—indeed, read for tax: benefit system—I appreciate that there are some strange anomalies which make it look as if the state is either neutral or not actually giving marriage the tick of approval that some noble Lords believe it ought to have.
As a Government, we believe firmly that the tax burden is too high for all types of families. We are committed to reducing it as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, has made absolutely clear. Indeed, I should like to challenge the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in that respect. I do not want to spend my speech arguing with her, but I should like to remind the noble Baroness, as she rails against the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers, that the latter paid 35 per cent. of all tax paid in 1978–79. If one listens to the noble Baroness, one might think that that group was actually paying less tax today. However, that is not so. Those people are actually paying 45 per cent. of all tax paid today. Therefore, we have the interesting phenomenon, which is worldwide, that as you reduce the burden of taxes on the better off, they actually produce more tax for the Exchequer and more tax for the spending departments in Whitehall, such as the Department of Social Security.
The noble Baroness should be more careful about following that line of argument. Equally, as regards the noble Baroness's suggestion that an unemployed married man with children has lost out most of all in the changes over the past 15 or 16 years, perhaps I may point out to her that the average income of such a man with two children has increased by around 20 per cent. since 1979, after allowing for inflation. I believe that that counters the view of the noble Baroness that we have particularly penalised that group of men by the tax and benefit system.
As I said, I do not believe that manipulating the tax system will prevent those social consequences. I believe that they have much more to do with the way that society has changed. I referred to the civilised society and the permissive society. I believe that that kind of view has meant that one's responsibilities are just those which one chooses to take and that if one has made that choice one can lay it down quite happily if one wishes to do so. Those factors are much more important as regards the social problems that we are seeing.

1785
At this point I should like to mention the speech made by my noble friend Lord Zouche of Haryngworth. He has taken me a little away from the normal part of my response but it is only fair to respond to him. I note what my noble friend said about charities. I accept that a reduction of 25 per cent. to 24 per cent. means a decrease in what charities receive as regards the advantages in tax giving. However, I am afraid that that is not a terribly good argument against, for example, not reducing the tax; and I could say that, when tax was increased, the opposite happened.
As far as concerns VAT, I should simply commend my noble friend to read the report of the last debate on tax simplification. I believe that his suggestion would make the system more complex. The general view of the last debate was that we should be trying to go in the opposite direction.
I do not necessarily believe that the Government are in a pivotal position when it comes to encouraging the continuation of marriage and the responsibilities of family. I wonder whether I dare say to the right reverend Prelate that I believe there are a number of other organisations, including the Church, which have a major responsibility to signal to the public, and to the world at large, in a clear way what their position is in—as the right reverend Prelate correctly said—the Judeo-Christian tradition. I sometimes think, not just in his Church but in all the Churches, including my own Church, the Church of Scotland, that I do not hear the signal as clearly as I would like. However, I welcome it when I do hear it. I believe that it should be said loudly and clearly.
The Government must deal with family life as it is when we come to supporting families rather than as we would like it to be. We should then look at how we can support the family. We can make it clear that the major responsibility for children rests on their parents, not on the taxpayer. We believe that parents are responsible—that is, both parents—and that taxpayers should only be involved if the parents do not have the means to support their own children. That responsibility continues even if, sadly, the parents no longer live together. The Child Support Agency was established to implement that principle. Interestingly enough, the difficulties facing the agency have come about because many parents—by and large, I am ashamed to say, men—are not willing to accept the responsibility of family life. As a Government we should try to create the economic and social conditions in which families can grow and develop.
I believe that we have done the latter, although there is always plenty more that we can do. For example, my noble friend Lady Young said to me accusingly that the tax system no longer takes account of the number of dependants. That is true, but we have changed the tax system to the child benefit system. The child benefit system gives support to families regardless of whether or not they pay tax. It gives it directly to the mother. I do not want to continue in that respect, but I feel quite strongly that the advantages of the child benefit system
1786
are quite considerable as against the tax system where the benefit went to the father and was not always, I regret to say, passed on to the mother.
My noble friend's other point was about the first child and, of course, we recognise that the first child is the more or the most expensive, depending on how many children you end up having. We recognise that because child benefit is higher for the first child than it is for the subsequent children. We have helped in that way and, indeed, average incomes have increased in real terms for all family types since 1979. Married couples with children enjoy an average increase in income of some 39 per cent. over inflation.
It is true, and some of your Lordships have pointed it out, as did the noble Baroness, that high unemployment and high rates of lone parenthood certainly co-exist in the same geographical area. It is important that we tackle the problems of joblessness and welfare dependency for their own sakes and not just because of the impact they have on families. If we have improvements in family stability as a result, that will be an added bonus. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, drew my attention to this aspect of Government policy. We have announced over the last two or three Budgets a comprehensive package of work incentives. We have made further improvements to in-work benefits so that people can have an even greater return from working—£10 extra in family credit if you work for more than 30 hours. We are attempting to smooth the transition from benefit to work by easing the gaps in income and speeding up the payment of benefits, such as housing benefit and family credit. We are encouraging employers to provide more jobs, particularly for people with few skills and those who have been unemployed for two years or more. We are piloting new ways of helping low-paid people in work who do not qualify for family credit because they do not actually have children. We are doing all that.
My noble friends Lord Skidelsky and Lady Elles, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross all quoted extensively from Patricia Morgan's book, which I read with concern, I must say, but one has to be a little cautious about it because the figures quoted by my noble friends were constructed on the assumption that the lone parent receives assistance with child care costs of £40 per week which, of course, the married man does not incur. My noble friend Lord Ashburton made that point, but I am afraid that I do not think he carried it to its logical conclusion. When the child care costs she has to pay are knocked off her net income so that the disposal income of the lone parent and the couple are truly comparable, I believe my noble friends would find that the gain from working is similar for both types of household.
My right honourable friend Peter Lilley announced last November that changes in social security benefits would be implemented which would narrow any residual gap. We accept that it is wrong for a lone parent to take home a greater income from the same gross earnings than a couple with an extra adult to support—three mouths against two mouths. However, we have to accept that child care costs need to be met if we are to

1787
encourage lone parents to go to work, which is the one very clear way in which they can improve their standard of living and their children's standard of living. We will continue to support families to work if they are able to do so and we have particular measures in place—family credit, for example—which encourage couples with children to work and, if their earnings are low, do not allow them to fall into the unemployment trap or the benefit trap and simply make it not worth their while to go back to work. I believe that we have done that.
It is an interesting fact that the majority of couples who need family credit need it for only one six-month spell to help them over temporary problems. Two-thirds of the couples leave family credit for markedly improved financial circumstance reasons—i.e. higher earnings. That is an important point to underline to your Lordships.
Of course we recognise the difficulties of lone parents and we believe that we have to help them. We want to see an improved incentive to work, as I have mentioned; secondly, we want to ensure that they receive regular maintenance from the absent parent, as I have mentioned; thirdly, we do want to ensure that the benefits system is even-handed. The right approach is, therefore, neither to penalise them nor to promote them. That is why we announced last November a restructuring of the benefits system to emphasise that point. Of course we have now frozen one-parent benefit and lone parent benefit. In actual fact, in all the calculations I have seen on the Patricia Morgan point, it is one-parent benefit and lone parent benefit which causes the diversion. That is the actual arithmetical reason for the diversion. Therefore, by deciding to freeze it, we will erode the differential and we will take away what my noble friend Baroness Young indicated was a signal in some way that we value lone parents' children higher in the benefits system than we value married couples' children. That certainly is not the Government's intention and that is certainly one inference that people can draw.
We are very much committed to helping and encouraging married couples. I say to my noble friend Lord Ashburton and others: married couples have considerable advantages in the tax system. My noble friends may want them to have more. A married couple would pay around £5 a week less in tax than most single people on similar incomes. Married couples, of course, are treated more favourably for inheritance tax, transfer tax and capital gains tax reasons. A married couple can shift money from the husband to the wife so that she can use her personal allowances and her lower tax bands, and she can do that without taxation.
Of course, I will draw these points and all the others to the attention of my friends in the Treasury and my other friends in the Department of Social Security. I take on board the point about passing on to one's children, but I certainly believe that there are considerable advantages to marriage. Indeed, one key advantage that I came across recently in my study of pensions is that in the case of a cohabiting couple or, as they are called in the north east, a "bidey-in" couple, if something happens to the man—the man dies—then the woman is not considered to be his widow and does not receive a pension, whereas the married lady does, rightly, receive a pension. That is a
1788
distinction which perhaps is lost on a lot of people until the awful event happens, but it is something we should underline.
We are committed to ensuring that the tax/benefit system supports family life and encourages and sustains the two-parent traditional families. I believe that that is important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that you do not need to discriminate against the one in order to discriminate in favour of the other.
We have had an interesting and useful debate. All the debates on a Wednesday afternoon in which I am involved start off by seeming to be another chore, but end up by being extremely useful. They add to my knowledge and add to the admiration I have for your Lordships for the width and breadth of experience which you bring to all these debates. This one this afternoon was no exception.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all those who have taken part in an interesting and thoughtful debate. I draw a lot of comfort from what was said because I do not think that we could have had a debate in these terms five years ago. I believe that we have made progress. All noble Lords who took part recognise that the decline of the family is a serious problem and threatens social disaster if it is allowed to continue without something being done about it.
Everyone has agreed that the tax/benefit system as it now operates has contributed to the decline by sending out the wrong incentives, although noble Lords disagree about how central a part it has played in that decline, as compared to more general economic and social forces. All noble Lords have agreed that we can do something to make the tax/benefit system more family friendly.
Some interesting suggestions emerged which I hope will not be lost. I note in particular the importance of higher tax thresholds; the introduction of transferable tax allowances; and equal fiscal treatment for married and unmarried parents. One not mentioned, incidentally, which I think is worth considering, is income splitting, which would give equality between one-earner and two-earner families which does not exist at the moment.
There was a little disagreement, as was to be expected, about what we mean by the family. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is a variety of family styles. He believed, I think, that the Judaeo-Christian concept of the family was in retreat. I do not know whether he thought it was in permanent retreat. I wonder whether he took sufficient account of the possibility that policy legislation, including the tax/benefit system and the way we work it, might alter the balance as it now exists and reverse the trend.
I wish to thank the Minister in particular for his participation. He was generous enough to say that he enjoys these debates. He has been doubly worked today. I wonder how he was able to disentangle himself so successfully from one tax debate and make a completely different speech on the second tax debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Civil Aviation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.52 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I wish to start the debate by giving a little background to why I am introducing this Bill today. A little over a year ago my attention was drawn to a number of serious offences that had taken place on foreign registered aircraft landing in this country. These included the attempted rape of a stewardess on a flight from Hong Kong, a serious assault on a flight service director on a Qantas flight from Australia and a fight among three British passengers on a Royal Air Maroc flight to Manchester which resulted in grievous bodily harm. In each case when the aircraft landed here the police were unable to take action because the incidents took place on foreign registered aircraft outside United Kingdom airspace.
These matters have been drawn to my attention by the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, BAR-UK, which represents almost 90 airlines, all but six of them foreign airlines, flying to and from this country, which are of course vulnerable to the loophole in the law which this Bill would stop. Qantas had earlier commissioned a legal opinion on the subject by Mr. Robert Webb QC, Mr. David Hart and my noble friend Lord Hacking, who I am sure will say more about this in his speech later.
The Bill before your Lordships this evening has been prepared for me by BAR-UK, and it has the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Air Transport Users Committee, which is the statutory consumer protection body set up by the Civil Aviation Authority, the airport companies BAA plc and Manchester Airport, British Airways and the Police Federation.
During my Question in the House a year ago, my noble friend Lady Blatch undertook to look into the matter and in due course the Home Office published a note reviewing the position. In it it posed a number of questions: first, is there a gap in the criminal law, and is it a serious gap—are serious offenders getting away? Secondly, are there a sufficient number of incidents each year in which offenders escape justice for action to be necessary; and, lastly, if action is required what measures can be taken?
On the first point, I quote from the Home Office paper, paragraph 25:
"Unless the offence takes place on a British-registered aircraft, on a foreign-registered aircraft in UK airspace, or on a foreign registered aircraft outside UK airspace where the safety of the aircraft is endangered, our police and courts have no authority to take action against the perpetrator. Serious physical and sexual assaults against members of the cabin crew or passengers may be committed with impunity unless the state of registration of the aircraft decides to instigate extradition proceedings. Even if it decides to do so the police here can only detain the alleged offender until such time as they establish that an offence has not been committed within UK jurisdiction; this may not allow enough time to arrange for issue of a provisional warrant of arrest pending extradition. Not only may serious offenders therefore escape justice but the victim(s) of the offence will not be afforded any protection under the law".
That I believe makes the case for me.
1790
On the second point, the number of incidents, a survey was undertaken during September and October last year. This showed some 10 incidents on aircraft landing at Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester. Of these, four occurred on British aircraft, two leading to charges and two to cautions. One of those charged was sent to gaol for assault. Six took place on foreign aircraft, including cases of drunkenness and abusive behaviour, spitting at the crew and assaulting passengers and crew. In each of these cases the aircraft was met by the police but they were powerless to act. I believe these and the incidents that I have already described demonstrate that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
This is a particular problem for this country. I was somewhat amused to read in paragraph 31 of the Home Office paper the description of Heathrow as,
"probably the UK's busiest airport with a large number of scheduled flights by foreign airlines".
Heathrow is not,
"probably the UK's busiest airport";
it is easily the UK's busiest airport, with some 52 million passengers a year, rising at 6 per cent. a year. It is the busiest international airport in the world, with 82 foreign airlines operating at it, which I suspect is a world record, and with an average of some 550 arrivals a day.
On the third question, if action is required, what measures can be taken, I believe this Bill provides the best solution; that is, to amend Section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which deals with the application of criminal law to British controlled aircraft, to cover UK-bound foreign aircraft. I am well aware that we are talking here about extra-territorial jurisdiction, and that is an issue that has received much attention recently.
I would say that this country already exercises extra-territorial jurisdiction, and has done for many years in a number of areas. Slavery, piracy and war crimes are examples. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1995 which consolidated the old 1894 Act, British subjects, not being crew members, on foreign ships and foreigners on British ships may be tried in this country if they commit offences which would have been offences if they had occurred in the UK. The Aviation Security Act 1982 has given jurisdiction to the UK courts over hijacking and other offences committed on or in relation to aircraft in flight, wherever they are and whatever their country of registration. But these provisions apply only to conduct which destroys, damages or endangers the safety of the aircraft, or may do so. With a few exceptions, if the aircraft is not harmed or put at risk, the courts have no jurisdiction over the sort of cases I have described.
We are out of step with the rest of the world. Many countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, France, and Belgium, already have similar jurisdiction. The laws in France and Belgium include the commendably simple formula that if the aircraft lands in those countries after the offence, the offenders may be charged and prosecuted.
Far from creating difficulties with other countries, the Bill would bring us into line with much of the rest of the world. Legal advice has confirmed that there would

1791
be no conflict with the treaties. The Tokyo convention on crime on board aircraft expressly states that it is not to exclude criminal jurisdiction under national law.
At the most recent meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Kuala Lumpur last October, the following resolution was adopted:
"Whereas offences continue to be committed against passengers and crew on board aircraft without states being able to take effective legal action in certain circumstances against the perpetrators when the aircraft lands;
The 51st Annual General Meeting calls upon States to take all steps necessary in order to enable the exercise of full jurisdiction over all offences committed outside their airspace on board aircraft operating to and from their territories".
Therefore, unlike some measures on extra-territorial jurisdiction, I believe that the Bill would be popular throughout the world, not just in this country.
The Government have announced a review of the law on extra-territorial jurisdiction which would cover crimes on foreign aircraft, but only by UK nationals. This could result in an anomalous situation if British but not foreign participants in an affray on the aircraft were to be prosecuted. Incidentally, that might make an interesting story for the tabloid press if it ever happened like that.
The proposals to extend the jurisdiction of our courts to deal with sexual and other offences abroad which were recently debated in this House have drawn attention to the practical difficulties of prosecuting those committing offences abroad where it may be impractical to get victims and other witnesses to give evidence in court here. Those difficulties would not apply to crimes on aircraft where all the parties are present in the UK immediately after the commission of the offence. The overseas airlines in membership of BAR-UK have given me an assurance that in appropriate cases their staff will come to this country to give evidence in court later.
I acknowledge the need for clarity as to what offences would be caught by the Bill. The solution proposed is simple. The Bill would give our courts jurisdiction over crimes on foreign aircraft which actually arrive in the UK. This would apply whether the arrival were scheduled or not. Thai: is necessary, for example, to cover the case where a foreign aircraft makes an unscheduled stop to put off a violent passenger. Conversely, where a flight has several stops, only offences committed on the last leg before arrival in the UK would be covered by the Bill.
Proper control over bringing prosecutions would be exercised in England and Wales by the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose consent would be required to proceedings, just as it is where offences are committed on British controlled aircraft. The law allows suspects to be arrested and detained while the DPP's consent is sought. That in practice is often obtained within hours.
I hope that I have demonstrated the need for the Bill, that it would work and that we need it now. The police are, I know, frustrated by their inability to act in the cases I have described. It goes against all their professional instincts and training. For other passengers on a flight, it can be an alarming and frightening experience to witness violence or worse, with no means
1792
of escape. But, above all, for the victims of the crime it must be heartbreaking to find out that even when the police have met the plane on landing they are powerless to act and the offender will get off scot-free. I hope your Lordships will support the Bill. As noble Lords know, most Second Reading speeches end with that phrase, but for a Private Member's Bill it is absolutely essential that it be supported by all sides of the House. I very much hope that that will be the case this evening.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, from these Benches this short, commendably clear and necessary Bill has our support. We are satisfied that there is a real problem which is causing growing disquiet about our law among overseas airlines flying to this country. We are satisfied that there is at present a gap in our law which, in consequence, leaves both passengers and crew members on foreign aircraft flying here in some cases without effective protection from crime committed on board, during the flight and before the aeroplane reaches British airspace. We are also satisfied that the Bill provides a means of closing the present lacuna in the law which on occasions denies that protection to airline staff and travellers alike.
This House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for outlining the need for the Bill and its provisions with such clarity and force. The present position is clearly wholly unsatisfactory. In general terms, as I understand it, the police in the UK can arrest a passenger on a foreign registered aircraft on arrival following the commission of a criminal offence committed on board during the flight only if the offence either occurred in UK airspace or involves an act of violence which endangers the actual safety of the aircraft. That last phrase is currently being interpreted by the enforcement authorities as meaning an act which interferes with the body of the aircraft—for example, damage of a kind likely to cause decompression—or an attack on a member of the flight crew who is actually in control of the plane.
Where the United Kingdom authorities do not consider that they have jurisdiction under those provisions, the alternative recourse is to the Tokyo Convention, under the provisions of which the offender may be extradited back to the country where the aeroplane is registered. But then, as the noble Lord has already indicated, difficulties arise in obtaining provisional warrants under Section 8 of the Extradition Act, both because it takes time and also because the country which has jurisdiction may take the view that the cost and trouble of extradition proceedings are disproportionate to the offence, especially if the victim is not one of its own nationals. That country can and often does decide to do nothing, sometimes even in serious cases, and then the offender escapes scot-free.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has already given two examples which have come to his notice. A third serious one came to mine. On a flight from Bahrein to Heathrow, a male passenger sexually assaulted a female

1793
passenger, then assaulted another woman and her husband for good measure, before being arrested and restrained for the rest of the flight. He was then handed over to police here, but they decided they had no jurisdiction because the offences had occurred before reaching British airspace. In that case, the best that the police here were able to do, because the man was still drunk when reaching United Kingdom airspace, was to ensure that he was taken before a court for being drunk and disorderly, for which he received a small fine.
Offences of theft, sexual assault and violence are being committed, unhappily, with impunity in those circumstances. The problem is not likely to decrease; rather the reverse, as more people travel by air and more people use long-haul flights. It simply cannot be right that someone travelling to this country on a foreign airline can get away with impunity with sexually molesting the stewardess, punching his fellow passengers or stealing their belongings simply because he commits the offence before entering United Kingdom airspace.
Surely it is also important that Britain should play its part in seeking a general improvement in international air safety, including safety from in-flight crime, by enacting legislation such as that proposed in the Bill which is already in force elsewhere. I understand that there has already been extensive consultation and widespread support for the Bill. We should not allow crime in the air to go unpunished simply because there is a gap in our law. This Bill is a means by which that gap might be closed.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, just said, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, deserves public gratitude for having introduced this Bill to tackle a real mischief. As the noble Lord so clearly explained, the mischief is that our courts have no power to deal with crimes committed on board foreign aircraft while in flight to the United Kingdom, even when this is the first country in which the aircraft lands after the crime has been committed.
Unlike the position in Australia, Canada, the United States and other countries, Parliament has failed to extend extra-territorial jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, for example, as was stated, involving physical and sexual assault committed in foreign aircraft on scheduled flights. In the case of Canadian and United States law, the jurisdiction of their courts apparently includes incidents between passengers. Again, unlike the laws of Canada and the United States, our law does not permit prosecutions to be brought for other serious offences committed on board foreign aircraft, such as receiving stolen property or theft.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness gave graphic examples of serious incidents that have taken place on foreign flights to UK airports in the recent past. Those incidents, involving considerable disturbance to other passengers and crew and serious offences against the person, have not been able to be dealt with by our courts even though all the witnesses were present in this
1794
country in the aftermath of the crimes, and even though this was the first country in which the aircraft had landed after the crimes had been committed. Nor have the perpetrators of those crimes been extradited. The fact that the Bill has the support of the Board of Airline Representatives of the United Kingdom, of the police and of consumer organisations is cogent testimony to a pressing need for the Bill so as to provide passengers and air crew with more effective legal protection.
It is just 30 years since the publication of a third edition of the book by Shawcross and Beaumont, Air Law, to which I contributed, as one of three editors, as a young, aspiring aviation lawyer who never quite made it in that field. In that sense, I declare a professional interest, although my only experience of the criminal law in this field is in defending glamorous women pilots, one of whom flew under a bridge on the motorway on the way to Oxford in making a film. In that book, I quoted all those years ago from a splendid lecture given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I am sorry he is not in his place. It was on crime in aircraft, and was published in the journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1963. The lecture is even more relevant today than it was when it was given. I hope noble Lords will allow me to quote a passage from it. This is what the noble and learned Lord wrote:
"50 years ago the idea that aircraft might become a field for the application of the criminal law would have seemed fanciful. Even 30 years ago our legislators would have thought it premature to contemplate legislation on the subject. A dozen or so people, probably all men, flying together for an hour or two in conditions of discomfort would have hardly had either the opportunity or the vitality to be otherwise than law abiding. Now we have 100–200 people flying together, commonly for four to seven hours, at times from 12 to 15 hours. They fly in conditions of security and comfort. They have room to move about. They include both sexes. They are plentifully supplied with alcoholic stimulants…and the purely statistical chances of abnormal behaviour are obviously greatly increased. Moreover, aircraft pass rapidly over frontiers which on land may be carefully controlled. They offer great opportunities for the transfer from one country to another, possibly a thousand miles or more away, of commodities for which a high price will be paid and which cannot pass to their most profitable market by land or sea: things such as gold, drugs, diamonds, secret plans and designs. It is very tempting for passengers on these aircraft and for their crews to undertake or lend themselves as accessories to these trades. So crimes may be committed on aircraft, and aircraft may be used for unlawful activities".
Those observations by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, have even greater force today, 33 years later, when there are ever larger aircraft, many more passengers and much more frequent use of long-haul flights. The incidence of in-flight violence and other crimes on aircraft have become a real and pressing problem for the airlines, their crews and their passengers.
In that lecture the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, also pointed out that many different parties, often with differing interests, may be concerned when a crime has been committed on board an aircraft. For example, when a crime which occurs on an aircraft registered in state A while flying over state B is committed by a national of state C against a national of state D, after which the aircraft lands in state E, all five states A, B, C, D and E may claim jurisdiction; and

1795
the aircraft operator, the captain, the crew, the ground authorities and the passengers all have particular interests requiring consideration. I believe that the state in which the aircraft lands—for these purposes the UK—has as legitimate an interest in dealing with crimes committed on the aircraft as does the state in which the aircraft is registered.
I have asked myself whether there is any objection in principle to extending extra-territorial jurisdiction in the way proposed by the Bill, whether as a matter of international law and international comity or as a matter of British constitutional principle and convention. I do not consider that there is such an objection in the situations covered by this Bill.
The traditional basis for criminal jurisdiction in this country is territorial. Our courts are concerned only with conduct which is an offence against our law. The general assumption, as we all know, is that to be an offence against English law, conduct must in some degree be connected with the territory of England and Wales. In most cases that means that the conduct must occur in England or Wales. Unless the contrary appears expressly or by necessary implication, Acts of Parliament are not concerned with matters taking place beyond UK territorial limits.
But, as the noble Lord said, there are significant exceptions. Particular kinds of conduct by persons outside the territory have been made an offence under English law. If I may add to the list, that applies, for example, to crimes having an international character: hijacking, drug trafficking, terrorism, genocide or torture, where Parliament has enacted legislation to give effect to international conventions dealing with those serious transnational problems.
It is because international carriage of passengers and goods by air requires the highest standards of safety and good order that the international community has entered into the Tokyo, Hague and Montreal Conventions. But those conventions are inadequate in grappling with the problems that the Bill now raises. Luckily, the Tokyo Convention, as the noble Lord said, specifically provides that it does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. It leaves the states parties free to enact a Bill of this kind.
Another problem is that the Tokyo Convention obliges countries to take into custody only those who have been involved in a hijacking or who have committed a serious offence according to the penal code of the state of registration of the aircraft. Furthermore, they can keep such persons in custody only for such time as is reasonably necessary to enable extradition proceedings to be instituted.
It is profoundly unsatisfactory that the only safeguard that now exists is the wholly ineffective safeguard that the wrongdoer may be extradited to the state of registration of the aircraft; that is, to the state of the law of the aircraft's flag. It is wholly ineffective not only because the state of registration may he reluctant to apply for extradition, but also because by the time that extradition takes place, all the witnesses will have dispersed across the world and memories will have become stale.
1796
Furthermore, the powers and duties of states in Chapter 4 of the Tokyo Convention have not been fully incorporated into our legislation as they apparently have been in Australia and North America. The result of the failure to enact the convention more fully into our law is that there is apparently no power for UK authorities to take into custody people who have been delivered to them by the aircraft commander pursuant to the Tokyo Convention.
I saw that point in the admirable opinion written by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, Robert Webb QC and David Hart. I wrote to the noble Baroness the Minister to ask whether the Government agreed with the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on that point. I hope that she will be able to deal with that matter in her reply. I also hope that, if the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right—as, with respect, I believe that he is—that further gap in our legislation may be filled by this Bill at Committee stage.
Just as the unique circumstances of the international carriage of passengers and goods by air have caused the world's community to enact conventions dealing with threats to the safety and security of passengers and crews, so our national legislators are, in my view, fully entitled to go beyond international minimum standards and assert criminal jurisdiction over serious criminal wrongdoing recognised as culpable by the national criminal laws of all nations.
I can see that it may be desirable for the scope of the Bill to be confined to the kind of serious offences made unlawful under, for example, Australian, Canadian and United States law. But that is a matter of detail for the Committee stage. In principle, I can see no threat to international comity by asserting criminal jurisdiction concurrently with other states, notably the state of registration of the aircraft and the state of nationality of the criminal wrongdoer. I realise that that may encourage some other states, whose national legal systems are less obviously procedurally fair than is our own system, to assert a similar jurisdiction so that we, the people in this country, may find ourselves liable for similar misconduct to answer for ourselves before foreign courts; as it were, the procedurally unfair courts of Ruritania. However, I do not regard that as a major obstacle to the enactment of the Bill.
The enactment of the Bill may encourage the world community to strengthen the Tokyo Convention on similar lines. I believe that that would be an excellent result because international legislation provides the best means of tackling the menace of crimes in the international airspace, coupled always with strong and effective national measures. I therefore greatly welcome the Bill. I hope that it will have the Government's support and will be speedily enacted. Accordingly, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and that the Government will give their crucial support to it both in this House and in another place.
9.21 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, introduced this Bill. It may appear odd that a mariner with 10 years' service

1797
as a navigator in the Merchant Navy should be taking part in this aviation Second Reading; after all, I am more familiar with the Merchant Shipping Act. However, as an enthusiastic amateur, I have been a keen follower of aviation matters for many years. I intend to be brief, making only a few general observations.
It is not so long ago that aircraft could fly for a maximum of maybe three or four hours before having to land to refuel for an hour or so before taking off again. That was a not unpleasant means of long-haul travel. Nowadays, aircraft remain airborne for much longer and, despite in-flight entertainment, boredom can set in. That, combined with the effect of alcoholic beverages, can lead to a lack of consideration towards other passengers.
Presumably, because of a lack of self-control, incidents such as those already mentioned can and do occur. On short-haul flights the alcohol alone can be the catalyst. What does the pilot do if suitably worried? He can report the incident to air traffic control, who will report it to the police, who in turn may well be powerless to do anything at all. I would love to know how many times that situation arose when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was an air traffic controller.
That leads me neatly on to the Home Office note and the observation that there may be insufficient instances to warrant any action being taken. I hope that I am not being too simplistic when I say that one sexual assault or one physical attack is one sexual assault or physical attack too many. If that is being naïve, where do we draw the line? If there are very few cases, then they will take up less court time and cost less than if they were numerous. To be able to prosecute everybody who commits an offence on a foreign airline is surely preferable to letting that person go uncharged and able to repeat the offence. The court machinery of course already exists.
I shudder to think what will happen when our aircraft can fly to and from Australia without landing. Perhaps a suitable sleeping draught will be put into passengers' drinks to overcome potential problems. I support the Bill.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were kind enough to refer to a legal opinion that I wrote three years ago with Mr. Robert Webb QC and Mr. David Hart of counsel. It therefore may be of some interest to the House if I explain my involvement in this matter. I do not do so to declare a financial interest—at least not a relevant financial interest—but because I always think that one of the helpful things which your Lordships can do in coming to the House is to give the benefit of professional and other experience outside the House.
It was four years ago, in about June 1992, that Quantas Airways, which instructed then my former law firm, sought my advice about one of the incidents to which my noble friend Lord Brabazon referred. It was a very painful incident. A British passenger boarded a Quantas flight in Bangkok on a flight bound for London.
1798
He was only taken on board by the flight service director, who noticed that he showed signs of intoxication as he stood at the cabin door. Because it was the night of the Bangkok riots and because there was a great deal of uncertainty in Bangkok that night, out of kindness to a passenger Quantas took that passenger aboard.
He behaved disgracefully during the flight and culminating his appalling conduct with a "Liverpool kiss" to the flight service director. Unfortunately, the flight service director did not know what a Liverpool kiss was and certainly did not have time to avoid the vicious headbutt that was occasioned to his face. So serious was the headbutt that it damaged the nasal septum of his nose. He had serious numbness in the cheekbone and suffered cervical spine damage.
It is some time since I practised in the criminal courts—if I get this wrong I think the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will be able to help me—but I identified that offence, if it had taken place in the United Kingdom, as grievous bodily harm with intent under, if my memory serves me correctly, Section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act. I am very glad to have nods from the noble Baroness because I have not looked at that for some time.
I had to advise Quantas Airways that, regrettably, the police at London airport were correct when they refused to exercise jurisdiction over this offender. I was then instructed to institute civil proceedings, but the difficulty there was that the assailant had disappeared off—he was an oil-rigger—to Pattaya City in Thailand and service difficulties of the civil documents was such that the case had to be abandoned. It was in those circumstances that Quantas Airways generously instructed my then law firm and Mr. David Hart of counsel and Mr. Robert Webb QC to write the opinion. Therefore, it has been most satisfying that since that opinion was written in June 1993 there have been such wide consultations.
I would particularly like to refer to the Home Office memorandum of March 1995 of my noble friend the Minister which I found to be a very constructive document looking at this problem. It has also been very reassuring to find the support that has been given to the Bill—support by all the speakers in the debate. I am delighted to note that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, found no threat to international comity in Britain seeking to extend jurisdiction in the circumstances of the Bill. A number of noble Lords who are unable to be present in the House tonight have indicated to me their support for the Bill—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
It has also been nice to record the support of the BAA, Manchester Airport and the police. Congratulations should go to the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK for the initiative that it has taken and to overseas airlines for all the support they have provided. It is very nice that the managing director in Europe of Quantas Airways is present in the House

1799
tonight and that there are representatives listening to your Lordships' debate from Cathay Pacific, Austrian Airlines, United Airlines and British Airways.
Indeed, the chief executive of British Airways wrote a letter to my noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which I hope has been shown to my noble friend the Minister. In the second paragraph of that letter he wrote:
"I very much hope that the Government will support the proposed legislation. The commission of criminal offences on board aircraft is increasing, and we consider that the proposed legislation will close a loophole in the law which effectively exonerates offenders who commit crimes on board foreign registered aircraft en route to the United Kingdom".
The letter goes on to give particular reasons why British Airways itself supports this Bill.
While the number of incidents may be limited, our failure to exercise jurisdiction does cause grievous upset. Perhaps I may refer to another incident which my noble friend mentioned—the incident on a flight from Hong Kong. The airline concerned, Cathay Pacific, was so upset that it wrote to the Minister of State in these terms: we are,
"left in the invidious position of being legally unprotected against assaults by passengers when operating into the United Kingdom".
Crime, as this Bill recognises, has become an international matter. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said in the Somchai case:
"Unfortunately in this century crime has ceased to be largely local in origin and effect. Crime is now established on an international scale and the common law must face this reality".
So must statutory law, and therefore we should all be very grateful to my noble friend for introducing this Bill.
He has referred to other jurisdictions, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which exercise jurisdiction over incidents taking place in aircraft coming into their airports. I believe that the most touching reference I can make is the application of United States law which exercises, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, jurisdiction in these circumstances. Judge Jack Weinstein, a well-known Federal judge in New York, said this about American law:
"The criminal statutes at issue here afford comfort to both American and foreign passengers flying aboard foreign airlines into United States … There can be little doubt that some passengers travelling with young children might feel some added sense of security in knowing that this country was reaching out its protective arm from the point of embarkation abroad to the point of arrival in this country. While the effect on number of passengers may be slight, it is not too negligible for Congress's … concern".
That does contrast, does it not, with the anguished protest that one of our foreign airlines had to give to our Government when it felt helpless as a result of no jurisdiction being exercised when one of its air hostesses suffered a fearful attack?
I believe that this Bill provides a simple remedy and it is therefore very reassuring that my noble friend has received such good support. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised an interesting point about a deficiency in our current law relating to the Tokyo Convention and Article 13(2), as the noble Lord knows. Consideration was given by my noble friend, who was kind enough to invite me into the consultations concerning the preparation of this Bill, as to whether we could include this measure which the noble Lord,
1800
Lord Lester, suggested. It was not included for a very practical reason. It was thought that if we exercised jurisdiction and dealt with the offenders here in the United Kingdom, there was no need to take that additional step under the Tokyo Convention. Therefore, it was really a practical approach.
Perhaps I may end by pointing out the practical advantage of the measures proposed in this Bill. Years ago, when I practised in criminal matters at the Bar, I remember being instructed in affray and assault cases. The problem then was that the victim went in one direction and the witnesses went in another and the evidence became dispersed over the streets. The fact that an offence is taking place in an aircraft is an evidential dream to a prosecutor because out of that cylinder of the aircraft comes the victim, the offender and all the witnesses. They are all there ready to give evidence. As a prosecutor one cannot think of a more perfect collection of evidence. Of course, it arises out of very imperfect circumstances. We should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon for introducing this measure.
While the safety of the aircraft may not be at risk, the safety of the persons in it is certainly at risk. There is great fear among other passengers who are travelling in the aircraft to have a serious violent incident in such a small restricted area as an aeroplane. There is no escape from this very frightening experience. I am delighted that my noble friend has introduced this Bill to your Lordships' House. I hope that my noble friend will accept it and accelerate its journey on to the statute book.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I hope to be brief because so many of my points have already been well made, not least by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in his opening speech. Since leaving the Front Bench, he has developed a remarkable record in getting Private Members' Bills on to the statute book. I hope that his luck stays with him on this Bill. I share the view of all other speakers that it is a Bill of the greatest importance. Any Bill that is to do with transportation safety is a matter of the greatest importance. I believe that every speaker has used the word "safety", en passent, in his or her remarks.
The list of supporting bodies mentioned by my noble friend—I looked for the word "endorsements", but for those with driving licences, it means something else—underlines the importance that the aviation industry and related parties place upon our efforts tonight. While BARUK is essentially a body for foreign airlines, it has five or six British members. Although they are not covered by the Bill that we are discussing this evening, those airlines—our own very successful British industry—also support it. That seems to me to be of the greatest importance. That impresses me, as does the brief supplied to me by the police authorities at Manchester Airport. Recently voted the world's best airport, Manchester is at the heart of Euro 96, the European football championships. Football violence is a fact of life and is not confined to the Brits or to terra firma. The police at Manchester have experience

1801
of offences provided for under the Bill but not, alas, under the present legislation. We would do well to note the force's wish that they already had the powers which the Bill seeks to give them.
Many noble Lords have spoken of crimes of a personal nature: assault, affray, attempted rape and drunkenness. Another dimension is fire. Many airlines operate no smoking policies, including those that fly domestic sectors in the US where smoking in flight carries a penalty of up to $10,000. Much more insidious, vicious and certainly more dangerous are the asylum-seekers who, at embarkation, have survived the carrier's liability enforced (wrongly so in my view) upon all airlines flying to the United Kingdom. There are documented cases of such passengers who burn their passports and other relevant documents in flight. I have said before that the potential consequences of such activities terrify me.
Whether on-board offences are against people or property, they differ in two major respects from similar offences on the ground: one is safety; the other is that on the ground bystanders can walk away from an offence, but at 35,000 feet that is not an option.
More than 100 years ago the regulation of railways Act created the offence of endangering the safety of passengers on the railway. The powers are still used. Tonight, we are discussing the opportunity to give similar powers in respect of a specific group of aircraft. It relates perhaps to under 50 per cent. of those aircraft which arrive in this country, but it is a fairly broad band. As I and other noble Lords have said, safety must be our principal motivator. It is for that reason that I wish the Bill a happy landing.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I must first congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on introducing this Bill and on his helpful explanation of what it will achieve, and on all the support that he has received from around the Chamber.
I agree with my noble friend that it is wrong that someone should be able to escape prosecution for an offence committed on board an aircraft just because that aircraft was not registered in the United Kingdom. The Government agree that it is right that that anomaly should be addressed and the courts given jurisdiction over offences committed on a journey by air to the United Kingdom, if this country is the first place that the aircraft lands after the commission of the offence.
The Bill will require some amendment in Committee in order to ensure that the principle of dual criminality applies to offences committed on these aircraft; that is to say, that the act committed must be an offence both in this country and in the state of registration of the aircraft. In practice, I do not think that that condition will inhibit the prosecution of offenders, but it is an important principle. Our courts cannot take jurisdiction unless the act is a criminal offence in this country and should not take jurisdiction if the act is not an offence in the state of registration of the aircraft.
1802
I shall not detain your Lordships by adding to the catalogue of dreadful stories that we have heard. Suffice to say that I do not believe that they have been exaggerated. They are not occurrences which are too common, but they are common enough to give us concern.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked whether I had ever experienced while on duty in air traffic control an aircraft landing with troublesome passengers. That was not an experience which I ever had. The aeroplanes had usually one person on board and that was the pilot, who was often a test pilot. If there were any passengers, it was often a navigator, but no one more troublesome than that. I cannot say that they were not troublesome when on the ground, but certainly not in the air.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was kind enough to let me know that he was to raise the question of the implementation of Chapter 5 of the Tokyo Convention which deals with suspected offenders acting in breach of the convention. He will appreciate that questions relating to this country's compliance with its international obligations are serious ones to which we shall want to give fuller consideration than has been possible in the time available. I believe that I can reassure him in general terms. As my noble friend Lord Hacking said, Article 13 of the Tokyo Convention allows the commander of an aircraft landing in the UK to deliver to the British police any person who has committed an act on board the aircraft which would be an offence according to the law of the state of registration.
Article 13 imposes also an obligation on the UK to take delivery of that person; and a further obligation to take that person into custody, but only
"upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant".
Custody may last only
"for such time as is reasonably necessary to enable criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted".
The noble Baroness explained the difficulties with that.
In our view UK law implements that article. A person may be taken into custody on being delivered to the British police by the commander of an aircraft if the circumstances warrant it. Custody will be justified either by a provisional warrant under the Extradition Act 1989 or by the bringing of criminal proceedings, if the offence is one over which we have jurisdiction.
We do not consider that that part of the convention means that the UK must take criminal jurisdiction over all offences committed by persons who may be delivered to the British police under Article 13. Had that been the intention, the convention would have said so in Chapter 2. Moreover, the convention cannot be read as envisaging custody without the prospect of subsequent proceedings, either criminal or extradition. That would be contrary to other, more fundamental, principles of international law.
However, the effect of the Bill is to go beyond the convention by extending UK jurisdiction to offences committed on incoming aircraft. That will make it more likely that a person delivered to British police under Article 13 will be held in custody for the purpose of prosecution.

1803
Therefore, detention would be warranted if an offence was committed on a British registered aircraft or if a provisional warrant had been issued under the Extradition Act. As has already been said, the police would also detain someone who had committed an act of violence which endangered the safety of the aircraft or who had seized the aircraft, whatever the nationality of the offender or the state of registration of the aircraft. Those provisions flow from the Hague and Montreal Conventions rather than the Tokyo Convention, to which the opinion compiled by my noble friend Lord Hacking relates.
The Bill will give us jurisdiction over any offence committed on board a foreign registered aircraft landing in the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will find that explanation helpful. But, as I have already said, we wish to study his remarks carefully and will consider whether anything more is needed. At present our view is that adequate powers exist.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's clear statement but, obviously, I should like to consider it when I read it in Hansard. Before she moves on perhaps I may ask one question. The Minister raised the possibility of limiting the scope of the Bill with a requirement of double criminality. My concern is that if the law of the state of Ruritania, for example, must be ascertained before a prosecution can take place a great deal of delay may well be caused while witnesses are within the jurisdiction. Is that necessary? Have any of the other countries—for example, the United States, Canada and Australia—which have asserted territorial jurisdiction limited themselves in that way rather than sensibly saying, "Our law will apply only to serious criminal offences which we will define". Presumably all nations would find them criminal. Every nation would regard assault, battery, rape and so forth as crimes of one kind or another. Therefore, is it necessary to include the provision for reasons of international diplomacy or otherwise? Is it not self-defeating and are we not frustrating the object of the Bill by introducing such limitation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not have the information about all other countries. That is an important issue in respect of which I shall undertake work and return to the noble Lord. Dual criminality is a principle that we regard as important, other than transporting our own version of what is or what is not an offence for these purposes. All we would have to ascertain is whether an offence is an offence in another country. How the offence is dealt with in another country would not be material. It is a question of whether an act is an offence both in this country and in the country of registration. It is an important question and I wish to return to it.
I conclude by warmly welcoming the Bill and its introduction by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. On behalf of the Government, I wish it well through its remaining stages in your Lordships' House and in another place.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful for the response that the Bill has received tonight. In concluding my opening speech I said that I hoped that Members on all sides of the House would give it a rousing endorsement and that it would become law fairly quickly. However, I did not expect quite such a rousing endorsement, including that from my noble friend the Minister.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her words of support. She was right to say that existing law applies only if the safety of the aircraft is endangered and that we were all right in that regard but not as regards the type of offence that has been described tonight.
As noble Lords will know, I am a great fan of the aviation industry and I do not wish to cause too much alarm and despondency by implying that such incidents happen on every flight every day. They do not. However, there are a sufficient number to make what we are tying to do tonight worthwhile. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said how difficult it is to try to deal with the problem through extradition. Obviously, that has been difficult because it is just not happening at the moment. Therefore, that problem is self-explanatory.
I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and particularly his reminiscences of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said some 33 years ago. As the noble Lord said, aviation has moved on an enormous amount since then. The size of the aircraft has doubled and the distances which can be travelled non-stop have probably more than doubled. Nevertheless, what was said all those years ago is just as relevant today, if not more relevant than it was then. The noble and learned Lord, Lord, Lord Wilberforce, showed a great deal of foresight in saying what he did.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for his support. He brought out the point that before very long we shall have non-stop flights halfway round the world, and the opportunity for this type of incident to occur on such a flight is obviously even greater.
I referred to the opinion which my noble friend Lord Hacking, with others, prepared for Qantas. I was grateful to him for giving the background to that opinion. There is the Tokyo Convention and other measures but this provision seems to me the simplest way of dealing with the problem. To amend the Civil Aviation Act 1982 by changing just a few words is the simplest and, I hope, the best way to deal with the matter.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans was kind enough to say that in recent years, since I left the Government Front Bench in 1992, I have had some success in getting Private Members' Bills through this House. I must confess that although I have managed to get a Bill through this House every year until now, they were all government hand-out Bills which started in the other place through the ballot. Therefore, that was not too difficult. If this Bill is passed, that will be the first time that I have managed to steer through a Bill which started

1805
in this House and which was not a government hand-out. My noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip is trying to indicate that there is no such thing as a government hand-out Bill, or at least that may be what he is trying to say. He and I know better than that, as do other noble Lords.
I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and particularly to the Minister. My noble friend agreed that there is an anomaly which needs addressing. She pointed out the possibility that the Bill may need to be amended in relation to dual criminality, and there was an interesting exchange between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I am not a lawyer; if that is required in order for the Bill to reach the statute book, I am happy to take that on board.
Finally, I reiterate what I said at the end of my opening speech, to which my noble friend Lady Blatch referred. It is very frustrating for the police, witnesses and, in particular, victims of these crimes when there is no power to do anything about the crimes and the offender gets off scot free. As one noble Lord said, if I go into a pub on the way home this evening and there is a fight taking place I can walk out, but I cannot do that if I am on an aeroplane at a height of 35,000 feet. I can do nothing in that situation. I hope that this Bill will go some way towards addressing that problem.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could I intervene? In his speech he referred to dual criminality and indicated that he would be happy to include such a provision if that enabled the Bill to pass through both Houses of Parliament. I wonder whether my noble friend and my noble friend the Minister could consider that issue more carefully. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, put his finger on the difficulty. I have examined the laws of Canada, Australia, and of the United States of America. I can tell your Lordships that none of those laws has a dual criminality requirement. I venture to suggest that that would be an unwise inclusion in the Bill. It would be very much better to rely upon our own law.
After all, the invitation has been made to us by overseas airlines, and effectively by overseas countries, in order to help them. To add the extra complication of having to apply the laws of other countries as well as our own is, in my view, unnecessary. Perhaps my noble friend would also comment on the fact that there is already protection in the system under the Bill; namely, that no prosecutions can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions? That prevents the prospect of the trivial type of offences coming in. Therefore, that mechanism is already available. I wonder whether my noble friends would agree to reconsider the principle of dual criminality.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I had not in fact thought about dual criminality; indeed, it was suggested by my noble friend the Minister. I merely said, perhaps naïvely, that if that was what was required to get the Bill through, then I would be happy to accept it. However, it is a Committee point. If amendments are tabled at that stage, then obviously that would be the time to debate the issue.
1806
I take the point that my noble friend Lord Hacking made that, at the beginning of the whole process, it is up to the police to decide whether to take action and that, following on from there, it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to do so. Indeed, action will not happen on its own; it is up to the relevant authorities, when the aircraft lands, to decide whether to take matters forward. That is a most important point. As I said, that is a matter which we can discuss in Committee. I shall of course be in touch with my noble friend the Minister or with her advisers on the matter. We shall see what transpires as a result.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
9.57 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES(Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in employment field]:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("male").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 3. It may seem like a technical amendment but it is rather more than that. I am sure that every Member of the Committee will agree that Acts of Parliament ought rigorously to safeguard the integrity of the English language. I pointed out on Second Reading that the word "lesbian" was a tautology as the word "homosexual" embraces lesbian, so to speak. However, as I interpreted it, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, argued in effect that Acts of Parliament ought to be intelligible to the individual in the street who probably would not realise that "homo" derives from Greek and not from Latin and has nothing whatever to do with man.
Accordingly, I suggest the compromise to be found in the amendment whereby the word "lesbian" would be retained. In that case, it is essential to insert the word "male" before "homosexual" otherwise the phrasing would be nonsensical. Indeed, it would be rather like stating:
"This Act applies, firstly, to human beings and secondly to women".

1807
I am sure that women would be most insulted if that were to happen. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): I did not intend to intervene on these two amendments or, for that matter, in the next grouping of amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I made the Government's position quite clear on Second Reading. We do not believe that the Bill is either necessary or particularly desirable.
However, I should underline what the noble Lord said when moving the two amendments. If the promoters of the Bill believe that it is important, necessary or indeed desirable, obviously it is important for them to address the serious problems relating to definition and ensure that the legislation makes sense. Therefore, depending on what the noble Lord wishes to do with the amendments, I hope that those promoting the Bill will take note of what he has to say.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: This is an unnecessary amendment. I do not think there is any doubt about what the Bill means and, while the noble Lord, Lord Monson, may be correct in his grammatical arguments, we have to face the fact that language changes. Language in this area is used by people under 25 years of age; it is used with a very different set of meanings from that with which it may be used in this Chamber. I think it reasonable, in drafting a Bill, to draft it in such a way that it will be useable to those at present under 25. Therefore, this amendment is not only unnecessary, it may even be undesirable.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I share the view that has just been expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I see no reason for this amendment. I believe that the terms used in my Bill are very widely understood. Indeed, as recently as this week there was an article by a well-known counsel, David Pannick, QC, in The Times, where he actually made use of the phraseology. He says:
"Discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians"—
—note, "homosexuals and lesbians"—
"in the workplace remains common. Of course, legislation should not impose unreasonable burdens on industry. But for Parliament to do nothing would aid and abet injustice."
Throughout his article he makes use of the terms which are in my Bill. As I said earlier, they are very widely understood, and I see no reason to import into the wording of my Bill the extra word referred to in the amendment. Therefore, as the sponsor of the Bill, I do not find the amendment particularly acceptable.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his support. I am afraid I cannot say the same for the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or the noble Baroness. As for people under 25 using incorrect English, I believe we should do well to educate people and to encourage the use of correct English rather than succumb to what they happen to feel like speaking at any particular moment. Perhaps we should also educate some of our QCs, too, if they cannot speak English properly.
1808
Furthermore, my amendment does not make the clause less easy to understand, even for those who are ignorant of the slightest degree of Greek or Latin. It simply clarifies it. However, at this stage of the evening in an exceptionally thin House, there seems no point in pushing the matter to a Division. It would give a distorted result. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment while reserving the right to reintroduce it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("lesbian or bisexual") and insert ("or lesbian").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 2, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 4. These are probing amendments. At Second Reading, I questioned whether genuine bisexual orientation existed. One hundred per cent. homosexuals who are quite unable to have relations with the opposite sex fall into a different category. One has to feel sorry for them and a case could be made for outlawing discrimination against this specific group, although it would still be anomalous, as there would remain many other physical conditions against which it would remain perfectly legal to discriminate. However, bisexuality is surely a matter of choice, of taste, of convenience. The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday on page 27 described a left-wing university in California where bisexual experimentation was almost compulsory as a result of peer group pressure. The place seems to be stuck in a 1960s time-warp, the idea being to demonstrate contempt for bourgeois conventions.
At Second Reading I spoke of behaviour in single sex institutions and of the cynical bisexual sensualist to be found in the novel of Simon Raven. A few such characters exist in real life. This group cite the Ancient Greeks to justify their behaviour, but the point about the Ancient Greeks is not that they possessed an abundance of "bisexual genes" but that they did not subscribe to Judaeo-Christian morality. There were therefore no religious or cultural barriers to their having sexual relations with almost anything that moved, if they felt so inclined. The Ancient Greeks had a word for it—hedonism.
In a free society people have the right to be hedonistic or self-indulgent if they choose, but in return they should not expect the civil and criminal law to force other people to welcome them with open arms, metaphorically speaking. If, and only if, medical evidence can be produced to demonstrate that a substantial proportion of bisexuals genuinely cannot help their behaviour, then I might be prepared to change my mind, but not otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: I feel that the noble Lord by his speech hoists himself by his own petard because if people can be persuaded—if you like—into bisexual activity so easily as he suggests, it emphasises the point that perhaps many of us are possibly a little ambivalent in our sexual orientation, much more so perhaps than is commonly admitted. If that is the case, it seems to be

1809
all the more important that someone who has been labelled as bisexual should not be discriminated against in questions of employment. I found the noble Lord's argument singularly unconvincing.
Earl Russell: I noticed with interest the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on this subject at Second Reading. I very nearly challenged them then. He is, I believe, quite seriously mistaken when he queries the concept of a bisexual orientation. To argue that case I need not take him to California; I take him no further than Whitehall Palace, to the case of King James VI and I—a fairly well documented life. There is no doubt whatever of James's homosexuality. He had male lovers at various stages of his life from his teens down to his 60s, but he also had a long marriage and three children begotten in lawful wedlock. If that does not make a person bisexual, I do not know what does.
There are also a number of people of a predominantly homosexual orientation who at least once in their lives have found themselves attracted by a woman. One must consider the existence of these people and one must have a law that provides for them. If this amendment were to be carried, we would have the potentially illogical and indeed confusing situation that heterosexuals are protected from discrimination, homosexuals are protected from discrimination, but those who have experience of both ways of life are not protected at all. It gets a little like Hilaire Belloc's garden party and the people "in between" look poor and underdone and harassed and mean and horribly embarrassed. I really do not think that that is necessary. One must also consider the effect of introducing an amendment which might risk disqualifying from the protection of the Bill anyone who has had one heterosexual experience. One effect of this, of course, is that anyone who is predominantly homosexual in orientation would be deeply discouraged from attempting any heterosexual experience, which would mean that any prospect of their orientation changing—as has been known—would be very much reduced. I wonder whether that was what the noble Lord intended.
One must also consider the possibility of an employer, perhaps one suffering from a great deal of prejudice, who might search to find this single heterosexual experience to justify a dismissal which perhaps might have been undertaken purely for economic reasons. I do not know also whether the noble Lord is familiar with the case of Pepper v. Hart and its implications. It is now possible for judges to look, if there is doubt, at what was said in the House. That means that the effect of having the word "bisexual" in the Bill and then cutting it out again would be different from the effect of never having included it in the first place. The courts would see a deliberate desire to exclude, which would mean that one lot would be included, the other lot would be included and the people in between would be left to Belloc's garden party. I see no sense in that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I agree entirely with the noble Earl on this amendment. I find it unacceptable;
1810
it makes no sense whatever to me. It means that, if the Bill went through, an individual who was totally homosexual or lesbian would be covered by the protection of the new legislation, but one who was mainly heterosexual but also had orientation occasionally towards a person of the same sex would not have protection. That would be quite unacceptable and would not fall within the general feeling of the new legislation.
Oscar Wilde was bisexual—a well documented case to which I referred at Second Reading. As we know, he had male lovers but he also had a family and children. There are many cases of bisexuals and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, should believe apparently that the category does not exist. It does and we want it to have the protection of the legislation. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accused me of missing the point. With respect, I suggest that it is they who have missed the point. The fact that James I had relations with both men and women does not prove that he was a compulsive bisexual. It shows that he was self-indulgent, spoilt and hedonistic and could get away with it by virtue of being a king.
Earl Russell: Can the noble Lord tell me how he knows that?
Lord Monson: I do not know it, but suspect that, if he had not been a king but had been a serf or someone in those days of relatively low status, subject to the ecclesiastical and criminal law of the day, he could have controlled his urges, had he wished to. He did not need to because he was king.
I said that this was a probing amendment and that I was prepared to change my mind on the production of solid medical evidence to the contrary. I do not believe that we have had that solid medical evidence, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said. He did not give medical grounds for his assertion. Nevertheless, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Equal Pay Act 1970.]:
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
ARMED FORCES
(" Nothing in this Act applies to any person serving as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown or to any person employed by an association established for the purposes of Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1980.").
The noble Lord said: When one considers the hours and hours spent arguing over race relations, sex discrimination and disability legislation, it is curious that the Committee is so thin tonight when we are discussing matters of great importance. I am the last

1811
person who should move the amendment since I did not serve in the Armed Forces and never rose above the rank of lance-corporal in the school cadet corps. However, no one else has added their name to the amendment, so it falls to me to move it.
I am happy totally to trust the judgment of senior officers who say, after careful consideration, that they do not want the existing homosexual ban in the Armed Forces removed. However, I wish to make two additional points. The main purpose of the Armed Forces is not to provide employment. If it were, the case for the ban might be a little weaker. That may seem self-evident, but I well remember watching the news at the time when the task force was being despatched to the Falklands. Angry mothers were being interviewed: "My boy did not join the Army to be shot at", exclaimed one, "he joined to learn a trade". Vigorous nods of assent came from half a dozen other mothers in the background.
The purpose of the Armed Forces is not to teach a trade but to defend this country in an increasingly dangerous age. The Japanese-American professor who claims that we have now reached the end of history and can look forward to 1,000 years of peace and prosperity is talking through his hat in my opinion.
The second point is this. We hear a lot from activist homosexuals and their supporters about the disappointment and sadness homosexuals feel about being excluded from the services. I do not doubt that that is the case. But there is another side to the story.
One Saturday afternoon last November I was driving down to Kent and switched on my car radio to find a phone-in taking place on the subject of homosexuals in the Armed Forces. The most impressive caller was an intelligent and articulate young woman who told the audience that she had always wanted to join the Navy since she was a very small girl. In due course she did so, progressed very well, obtained promotion and was extremely happy in her job. Unfortunately, she then encountered a lesbian superior officer who constantly made passes and tried to get her into bed, but who was astute enough to do that when there were no witnesses present. The girl was driven to distraction. She did not want to complain, partly because of reluctance to let the side down and partly because, in the absence of witnesses, she doubted whether she would be believed. In the end, in despair she resigned, her long-hoped-for naval career at an end.
I know it would remain an offence, were this Bill to go through unamended, for an officer to make a pass at a subordinate. But that sort of incident is bound to become more frequent if the ban disappears. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that he has to press ahead with this amendment tonight. As I said at Second Reading, my Bill is essentially an employment Bill. It is intended to extend the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act to give protection to homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals. That legislation, anyway, excludes women in relation to
1812
combat duties. That presumably would apply here. Indeed, the relevant section of that Act states that nothing in the Act shall render unlawful an act done for the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown. So it is quite likely that the MoD would anyhow argue that the ban was necessary to ensure combat effectiveness.
It would be quite premature to try to include in this Bill a reference to the Armed Forces. Among other things, an attempt is being made, I understand, in the House of Commons by means of an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill. Quite apart from that, a Commons Select Committee is considering the whole issue in relation to the Armed Forces. The House of Commons will have an opportunity of making a determination on this issue in relation to the Armed Forces and not in regard to a straightforward employment Bill. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will not be pressed tonight. Quite frankly, it would be pre-empting a discussion which anyhow is taking place in another place and on which, obviously, there is quite a lot of controversy. Clearly, the other place must have the opportunity of making a determination on this major issue.
Lord Henley: I am very interested in the noble Baroness's remarks in terms of her interpretation of previous Acts and the whole interpretation of this Bill as it stands. I will certainly look very carefully at what she had to say and consult those who advise me in these matters. As the noble Baroness knows, I have considerable sympathy for an amendment of this sort. Like the noble Baroness, I hope that the noble Lord will not press it today for the reasons that he gave earlier.
That said, as I made quite clear earlier, we do not see it as either desirable or necessary that this particular Bill should reach the statute book. But in relation to this amendment we have made our position absolutely clear on a number of occasions. We should certainly not want provisions of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wishes to become part of the general law as the result of the passage of this Bill. It remains our view that homosexuality is incompatible with the special conditions of service life. I expanded on that point in some detail at Second Reading and I shall be more than happy to expand on it again at this stage, should other noble Lords wish me to do so. I shall not do so on this occasion but, if I am pressed, no doubt I shall come back to it.
Earl Russell: I am very happy to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about something. I agree with what he said about the Japanese professor who thought that he had discovered the end of history. In fact, he is an American-Japanese professor. But I agree that he is talking through his hat. I might have tried to wrap that comment up a little more, but I shall not argue with calling a spade a spade.
Lord Henley: If I might interrupt my noble kinsman, it might do him out of a job if the end of history came about.
Earl Russell: There is plenty of work left to do in all kinds of fields, including this Chamber.

1813
Like the noble Lord, I am not a member of the Armed Forces. But my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown, as is well known, was a member of the Armed Forces for quite a long time. In a speech at our party conference recently, he described how his life had been saved in battle by a gay officer who subsequently was excluded from the service because he was gay. At this time of night I am not about to start giving examples of gay people who have been extremely successful soldiers. It would be possible to keep the Chamber up all night. But there was a perfectly coherent line that in the past the Ministry of Defence could take. I agree with the line of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner; namely, that the matter is not to be settled by this Bill. But since the argument has been opened, both sides should be heard, even if only to be read in another place.
It was possible in an all male Army to argue that sex and duty did not mix. But it seems to me that the Army sold that pass as soon as it admitted women. I read in the newspaper today that in fact it is considering allowing women to take part in front-line combat. They are already allowed to sail in Royal Navy ships. It gives rise to a certain amount of trouble but I have not heard any suggestion that the trouble is insuperable.
The question is whether having homosexuals in the Armed Forces gives rise to more trouble than having men and women together in the Armed Forces. If the noble Lord's amendment is to be sustained, he has to have a reason for arguing that that is the case. I do not quite see what that reason might be. The noble Lord gave the example of a lesbian officer who kept making passes at another officer. I entirely agree with the way that he feels about that case. It was an abuse of power and should not have happened. But I am not convinced that homosexuals are in any way more given to making unwelcome advances and abusing their power in order to do so than are male heterosexuals. Were it to be proposed that male heterosexuals should be excluded from any part of the public service for that reason, I must declare an interest in the fact that I would resent such a proposal.
It seems to me that the line that we must draw is that what is an abuse is the abuse of power, the forcing of unwanted attentions, homosexual or heterosexual, and in particular the deployment of superior rank in order to do so. That is an offence whatever the sexual orientation of the one who does it and whichever sex does it. That is what we should concentrate on prohibiting.
If we were once clear as to what is the offence to which we object, we should have a better chance of creating a culture which does in fact prohibit it. I cannot see for certain anything arising through the presence of homosexuals which is on the level of the recent Tailhook Convention in the US. That resulted in the departure of an admiral from the service in circumstances in which I feel that his superiors in Washington were thinking more readily of a silver bullet than a golden handshake.
There is also the fear, regularly expressed, of living in close quarters with someone of a different sexual orientation. Again, the point stands that the culture of
1814
unwanted advances applies very much less here than it does when heterosexuals of the opposite sex are next-door. There is also a question, when one thinks about conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, of exactly what is prejudicial to good order and discipline. I recall a former colleague—and every time I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, whom I much miss, I was reminded of her. A proposal was being discussed to get younger people into a university committee. The opposing argument was that the committee was too big. This lady said, "Yes, I sympathise with that argument. The committee is too big. Maybe some of the older people ought to come off it".
If we consider the question of good order and discipline, I wonder whether the prejudice to good order and discipline would arise from homosexuals who keep themselves to themselves or from those whose vigorous intolerance makes their life there so difficult. I read on the evening paper placards this morning that in the parallel case of intolerance of difference of race the Army intends to declare war on racism. I am glad to hear that. Why does it not do it here too?
Lord Rea: I wish to make only one brief point that has not so far been mentioned. It may be the case that in a few years—five, 10, who knows?—the law will change with regard to the admission of homosexuals into the Armed Forces. If so, and the noble Lord's amendment is accepted, then this Bill, were it enacted, would have to be amended and this part of it would have to be repealed. If we do not accept the amendment, that would be completely unnecessary.
Earl Attlee: I rise and declare my interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. The hour is late and I support the approach of the noble Baroness to this amendment. However, I look forward to a detailed debate on the topic when the Armed Forces Bill comes to this Chamber. The debate will be valuable and intense and I look forward to taking part in it. But I do not think we should discuss the matter at this hour.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to all those who contributed to this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, contends that the current law protects the services in so far as combat effectiveness is concerned. But we are not only talking about front-line jobs and combat effectiveness. We are talking of jobs throughout the armed services.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that abuse of power is deplorable, whoever exercises it and of whatever sexual orientation they may be. My point was that if the ban is lifted I suspect that those incidents may happen more frequently. He suggests also that I must have a reason for the amendment. My reason is that, from everything I have read, the great majority of officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks, are against lifting the ban. I am sure that one can rely on their views. If they feel that they would be less effective as a fighting force to defend this country if the ban were lifted, we should take those views seriously.
It is late in the evening. The Committee is not representative, as I am sure Members will concede, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1815
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS
(" . Notwithstanding section 80(1) of the 1975 Act, nothing in this Act applies to employment for the purposes of a private household.").
The noble Lord said: I cannot believe that anybody will be in opposition to this amendment. Initially, employment in private households was exempted from the provisions of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. However, Section 80 of that Act permitted the Secretary of State to revoke that exemption subject to parliamentary approval.
It would seem that this exemption has been revoked where sex discrimination is concerned, although I am not quite sure when that happened. However, I submit that sexual orientation is a very different matter. I cannot believe that anyone would wish to force people to employ male or female homosexuals as nannies, au pairs, gardeners, cooks or handymen against their will or for that matter to force a homosexual couple to employ a heterosexual in their household against their will. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I oppose this amendment. What we are trying to do in the Bill is simply to extend the coverage of the Sex Discrimination Act to people who are homosexuals, lesbians or bisexuals and I see no reason to depart from that. We have already accepted what the Act says about genuine occupational qualifications. Indeed, Clause 3(2) of the Bill states:
"Sexual orientation is a genuine occupational qualification for a job only where the holder of the job provides individuals with personal services promoting, their welfare or education, or similar personal services, and those services can most effectively be provided by a person having a particular sexual orientation".
That exemption clearly covers the issues about which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be concerned. The amendment would make it legal simply to sack one's cleaner because she was suspected of being lesbian. That would be very unfair and really rather unjust and it would be an issue under which people with a particular sexual orientation were being treated less favourably than they otherwise would be. That is what the Bill is all about and I really cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Henley: Unlike the noble Baroness, I understand why the noble Lord has moved the amendment and I accept that it is a sensitive issue. I agree with the noble Lord in saying that householders' rights have to he considered alongside the general principle which underpins the Bill; namely, that there should be no discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Having said on earlier occasions—and I reiterate it now—that we do not support the Bill, I can say that we have no
1816
particular view on this matter. We do not support the Bill but I understand the concerns behind the amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
Earl Russell: I wish to take up the noble Lord's reference to children. Nothing in the Bill does anything to help paedophiles of either sexual orientation. That is a quite separate problem. There is no tolerance for them being suggested and I only wish we knew what to do with them instead of tolerating them.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his support. I am astonished by the noble Baroness's determination to leave the Bill in the state it is so that it actually intrudes into private households in this way. The exemption for genuine occupational qualifications is not really a safeguard because the clause refers to services that can be more effectively provided. I am not talking about effectiveness. A homosexual nanny may be absolutely excellent in her way but not desirable.
As for paedophiles and protecting children, there are young men of between 16 and 18 who are not strictly, by definition, children who might be affected, so I do not think that that is a valid argument.
I shall certainly return to this matter at a later stage but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
10.35 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Re-commitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Re-commitment).—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Discretion of court to deal with dog other than by destruction order]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Templeman: On the Motion that Clause I shall stand part of the Bill, I understand that this is an appropriate and courteous stage to draw the attention of the Committee to the report of the Select Committee which was appointed to consider the Bill and has done so. I understand also that the Minister is in attendance to give the views of the Home Office and the Government, which, at present at any rate, are adverse to the views

1817
expressed by the Select Committee. I must therefore spend a few minutes, even at this late hour, outlining the report of the Select Committee. The first thing I must say is how pleased we all are to see the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, back in the House this evening.
Noble Lords: Hear! hear!
Lord Templeman: Secondly, I must express the gratitude of the Select Committee for the oral and written evidence which it received, and in particular to the Home Office which provided all the statistical information on which the report is based. I must also thank the Clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan, and his staff, who were of the greatest assistance to the committee and organised us, and without whose work we would have spent longer and achieved less.
The Bill is a simple one. It does not aim to alter the law at all. What it does is this. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, if there is a breach of the provisions of Section 1 or Section 3, the owner of the dog in question has committed a criminal offence. He can be prosecuted and, on conviction, he can be sent to prison for six months or be liable to a fine of £5,000. The Bill does nothing to alter that. But the Act provides that when the owner is convicted the dog must be destroyed. It is that which the Bill proposes to alter by substituting for the draconian and mandatory requirement that the dog should be destroyed a discretion in the magistrates' or Crown court before which it comes to allow the dog to live. Apart from that, the Bill makes no alteration.
The Bill arises out of the fact that there have been cases in which the courts have chafed at the Act's mandatory requirement that the dog must be destroyed because courts, in certain circumstances, have been satisfied that it will be safe for the public if the dog is allowed to live. The most notorious case—others were brought before the House on Second Reading—involved the offence of having a pit bull terrier in public without a muzzle, but the muzzle had been taken off because the dog was choking. There have been one or two other cases where the courts have been convinced that the dog was not a danger to the public and, if they had power to do so, they would have allowed the dog to live. The Select Committee concluded that to give the courts discretion in those circumstances would not be adverse to the public interest.
There are three instances in which discretion may be exercisable. First, the Act provided that all pit bull terriers and like types should be eliminated. It did that by making it unlawful for anybody to keep a pit bull terrier unless it was registered and exempted by 30th November 1991. To gain exemption, the owner had to consent to the dog being neutered so that no progeny could result, and obey the rules relating to third-party insurance. More particularly, the owner had to ensure that as long as the dog was in public it was muzzled and kept on a lead. That provision has been successful. The committee was reluctant to do anything that might be against the policy of the Act in getting rid of pit bull terriers. There were 8,600 registered. At the end of 1994, the figure had fallen to 3,600. They have all been
1818
neutered. Therefore, as far as concerns registered dogs, they will die by natural causes by the end of the century. That has been wholly successful, and nothing in the Bill will modify that situation.
If one of those dogs which is exempted has been brought up as a pet and is docile and yet by an accident gets its muzzle off, or it is found in a public place without a muzzle or lead, the law at the moment is that the dog must be destroyed. The Bill will empower the court to allow the dog to live. But the report is mindful of the very real evils which the 1991 Act was designed to avoid. In paragraph 40 it is recommended as guidelines to magistrates—which no doubt the Home Office will draw to their attention if the Bill is passed—that discretion should be exercised to preserve the life of an exempt dog only in circumstances where the court is satisfied that the protection of the public does not require the destruction of the dog. Thus, if the owner of an exempt dog, far from complying with the Act, allows the dog to roam and takes off the muzzle and lead, without extenuating and mitigating circumstances, no doubt the magistrates will exercise their discretion by condemning the dog to death, not because it has done wrong but because the court cannot trust the owner. The discretion will be exercised if the destruction of the dog is not required because the court is satisfied that, not only is the dog docile, but the owner is responsible and that the breach has taken place by accident. The owner can still be convicted and fined or sent to prison.
I turn to the question of dogs which are not registered. It is apprehended that for a variety of reasons a good many dogs were not registered and have since been concealed. It is impossible to know how many there are. Of course, as long as they are concealed they are not a danger to the public. The minute that such a dog appears in public the fact that it has not been registered and exempted means that the owner can be prosecuted and convicted and the dog must be destroyed. The police say that there are three types of dog which may have been concealed. One is those dogs which criminals have used to terrify the police and security guards. The police believe that as a result of the Act they have disappeared entirely. They have no reason to believe that those dogs still exist. If they do, if any dog appeared from concealment and terrified the police or security guards, no doubt the magistrates would order its destruction. The discretion would not be exercised in favour of keeping that dog alive.
Similarly, there are still some dogs—not many—kept by their owners as fighting dogs. They are travellers and difficult to track down, but if they are tracked down, I cannot conceive that any magistrate would exercise discretion to maintain the life of a dog which had been trained to fight and was clearly a danger.
Then there are dogs which are kept because they are docile, notwithstanding the fact that they are pit bull terriers. They are pets and they are docile. They are concealed because their owners are attached to them, and they are terrified that if they bring them out into the open they will be ordered to be destroyed. In that case, the magistrates would have a discretion to exercise. They would have to be satisfied, as the courts were satisfied in certain instances, that the dog was docile and

1819
not a menace. Under the Bill, they would be obliged to register the dog and to have the dog neutered; in other words, the dog would be subject to the same conditions and restrictions as were imposed on dogs under the Act.
Again, we think that no harm can result, and, again, the committee has recommended that discretion should he exercised only where the court is satisfied that it can trust both the dog and the owner; in other words, it would have to be proved to the court that, notwithstanding that the dog is a pit bull terrier, and has been concealed, the attachment between the dog and the owner is such, and the evidence is such, that the court believes the owner to be responsible; that he would keep the dog muzzled and on a lead; that the dog is docile; and that the dog as well as the owner can be trusted.
In Clause 3 there is a provision which applies to all dogs, and not merely to pit bull terriers. That clause provides that if any dog is in a public place, out of control, and causes personal injury, it must be destroyed. That offence can be committed in relation to any dog. Again, the owner can be convicted of an offence, and can be punished. In addition, as the Act now stands, the dog must be destroyed.
The difficulty about having a mandatory sentence which no one has the discretion to alter is that that never allows for extraordinary and mitigating circumstances. Let us suppose, for example, that a dog is provoked. The dog's master or mistress may be attacked and the dog goes to defend its master or mistress. Or let us suppose that someone may be foolish enough to take a bone away from a dog when he was enjoying British or foreign beef. That would not be the dog's fault, and the court could be satisfied that the dog presented no danger to the public.
The committee recommends that there should be the discretion, set out in the guidelines to the magistrates, that the court should not exercise the powers proposed by the Bill unless the court were satisfied that in the result the public would be adequately protected, and that the destruction of the dog in question would be unnecessary and unfair. It is in those cases where unfairness results in the future, as it has resulted in the past, that discretion would be exercised.
The Home Office's objection, as I understand it, is that the Act was a good thing; it had a good effect on pit bull terriers. With all of that, the committee agrees. The Home Office takes the cautious view that any alteration in the Act's provisions weakens its operation. With respect, I do not agree.
Let us take the case of an exempt pit bull terrier. At the moment, if the pit bull terrier appears in public without a muzzle and without being on a lead, the dog must be destroyed. Under the Bill the magistrates would have that limited discretion to allow the dog to live.
The owner of the pit bull terrier will know that if he produces his dog in public unmuzzled and not on a lead, the magistrates have power to order its destruction. He will know that unless there is a very good excuse, the dog will be destroyed. It will be the duty of magistrates to destroy the dog in circumstances in which, in effect, the owner was flouting the law. The owner will know that it will be only in the extraordinary circumstances
1820
which I have mentioned and which could happen again—namely, that without fault of the owner, the dog has lost his muzzle or the muzzle has broken away from the lead—the magistrates have a discretion, but even so they might not exercise it. The discretion will be narrow and will be narrowly construed, and in the unanimous view of the Select Committee there will be no weakening of the provisions of the Act.
The Home Office courteously sent me a letter dated today. It stated that the Act would be weakened because the exempt dogs would not disappear at the rate now contemplated. As I have said, the number of exempt dogs fell from 8,000 to 3,000-odd by the end of 1994. All exempt dogs have been neutered and so if one or two were kept alive, they would die in the normal course of events and would die out by the end of the century, as is now provided.
The Select Committee considered that it was not contradicting the views of Parliament expressed in 1991; that the Bill does not undermine the efficacy of that Act; that it does not increase the dangers to the public; but that it would be right to have a discretion which would be exercised when fairness ever required that the dog should not be put down. Those are the views of the Select Committee which I had the honour to chair.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am under the impulse of deep emotions about this matter. I have been working hard for four years to get the public, the magistrates and the police to understand the way in which the Government of 1991 defrauded the public as regards the extent of the danger and the problems which the nation faced. Most were totally untrue and they have not been proved otherwise.
We have tried hard to get some deeper consideration of the various civilised aspects of the matter. I am sure that we are all most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and his colleagues on the Select Committee who devoted their time to the study of the problems at first hand and in detail. We are on the eve of consideration of the final outcome of the Select Committee and just prior to the Third Reading of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill tabled for next Tuesday. We are treated, as everything connected with this issue is treated by the Home Office, with the utmost contempt and indifference. We have had to put up with it for so long that in some quarters, patience is becoming very much exhausted.
I am grateful—as I am sure are all Members of the Committee—to the noble and learned Lord for the statement which he made a few moments ago. We thought that such a clear and positive line for change brought forward unanimously by the Select Committee would be sufficiently impressive to convince the public and many others that we are endeavouring to find a better answer to our dog problem than we have.
No other country in the world has in existence a mandatory dog destruction system. Other countries have found different ways to solve the problem. We were rushed into this and both Houses sacrificed their full responsibilities at the time. That left an Act of

1821
Parliament containing such excesses as those which have been described which are regarded as commonplace to our system of dog control.
However, we may have passed the point at which we can expect to achieve any change of circumstances this side of a general election. One cannot say how soon that may come. But I am quite sure that there are some elements in this which will have a considerable political influence. Animals and their welfare has become one of the primary considerations of the public mind. One only has to look at what is taking place at present to understand how deeply people feel about those matters. Before very long, there will be a moral wave of great force and intensity sweeping over the country which demands that we find a different answer to the uncivilised way in which we are conducting our affairs and relations with other species.
Therefore, I am profoundly grateful to be here to listen to the noble and learned Lord. I hope that many people will be influenced by what he said. I also thank other members of the Select Committee and, in particular, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. We shall persevere so far as we can in order to have this change brought about. That is all I have to say. I hope that I shall speak again on Tuesday when we shall have the Third Reading debate. We shall see what happens.
10.59 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: I know that I speak for those on all sides of the House—but in particular for those on these Benches—when I say that it is a real pleasure and privilege both to see and hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his place this evening.
When the Dangerous Dogs Act passed through this House in 1991, the noble Lord warned that its mandatory destruction orders would cause injustice. His words were not heeded by the Government at that time. Time has proved him right in that, as in many other respects, during his long, political career.
That the Select Committee has recommended to the Committee of this House that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should now proceed without amendment is in large measure a reflection of his tenacity and determination to correct what he perceived to be an unfair law which others now believe needs to be changed.
The depressing response from the Home Office, of which I have received information only this evening, indicates that there is still some considerable way to go. However, if it is of any reassurance to the noble Lord, he is not now a lone voice; indeed, I believe that he is no longer even in a minority. In due course, I hope and believe that this House and another place will come to admit that the noble Lord was right all along.
I had the honour of being one of those who served on the Select Committee. I would also like to pay tribute to its chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. His questioning of the witnesses who gave evidence before us was, I could not fail to notice, of an altogether gentler style than that which he customarily employs when questioning members of the Bar
1822
appearing before him in the Judicial Committee. However, he was as characteristically searching and revealing for all that. The chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord enabled the arguments of both sides to be fully and fairly presented to us and properly considered. That makes the response of the Home Office all the more disappointing.
Of course there remain serious public concerns which are reinforced each time someone, particularly a child, is attacked by a dog, concerns which we on this side all share; namely, that dangerous dogs should not be permitted to present a threat to members of the public, especially children, and that proper control should be exercised over them by their owners.
If accepted, the recommendations made by the Select Committee to the House would not, I believe, detract from the powers of the courts to order destruction of a dog in any case where it was merited; but it would, I hope, empower the courts to avoid doing so in cases where a real injustice would result to an otherwise responsible dog owner and, of course, his dog.
The written response from the Home Office makes depressing reading. It concludes that the Government do not believe that it would be right to weaken the message of the original Act. I could say a great deal about the suggestions that it makes and about the report, but I shall not do so because the report has been covered in detail by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman; and, indeed, the hour is late.
However, if that is to be the response of the noble Earl, it will be clear that the Government are not prepared to listen to the message which has come back from almost every body and organisation which is directly concerned with the legislation—for example, the vets, the magistrates, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the police, to name but a few. That message is that hard cases make bad law. This Act, whatever its intentions and whatever its benefits, has proved to be unfair in relation to parts of its application. It is also unfair because it makes no distinction between the responsible dog owner and the irresponsible one; and it makes no distinction between the dangerous dog which attacks a child and a well-behaved one which is technically in breach of the Act.
If the Government refuse to listen to that message, reinforced as it now is by the report of a Select Committee which has heard and considered a great deal of evidence and expertise in the field, the message which they send back to the country will indeed be one of weakness. To refuse to admit when you have got something wrong and then to refuse an offer to put it right—made, in this case, by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—is a classic sign of weakness, not simply in men but also, I am afraid, in this Government.
11 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have spoken on the subject on a number of occasions; and, indeed, I had the honour to introduce the Bill in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who was ill at the time. Like other speakers, I am

1823
delighted to see the noble Lord back in your Lordships' House this evening and to hear him speak with his usual vehemence on the subject. I only hope that his pessimism is something which will not be reinforced in the medium and long term.
As other speakers have said, I believe that the Government are bent upon digging in their toes on the issue. I do not know why. They seem to do so on many issues, but it appears to be just pure obstinacy on this occasion in the face of almost universal support for the views expressed both by experts and the public.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, for his excellent chairmanship of the Select Committee. I should like to thank Lord Houghton for making it possible for the Select Committee to take place and, again, to thank the noble and learned Lord for tonight giving us such an expert and concise summary, not only of his Select Committee's views but, indeed, of the problem which the Select Committee addressed.
It was on a fairly narrow issue—the issue of discretion—that the Bill was brought before your Lordships, and it was on that issue of discretion that the Select Committee deliberated. In another place another committee is looking at the wider issues in the Bill. All this will be brought to bear on the Government, and we await their reactions with interest—I cannot say with any great hope. I am looking forward to the noble Earl's reply this evening.
It has been a great privilege to read the report. Anyone who is interested in this particular Bill and the working of the Act which brought about this amendment Bill can do no better than to read the Select Committee's report. It is all in there. II: goes beyond the actual subject of discretion. If you want to know about dangerous dogs, read the Select Committee's report. The hour is late and I am hoping that the noble Earl's reply will be more cheerful than I anticipate.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and to the members of the Select Committee for their report on the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Before dealing with the substance of the report, I wish to associate myself with the comments which have been expressed about the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and say how glad I am, as my noble friends are, to see him in this place tonight.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, has explained, the committee's conclusion is that the amendment Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should pass Committee stage without amendment. In effect, the committee has supported the Bill's central proposition, that the courts should be allowed discretion in each case where the 1991 Act currently provides for mandatory destruction.
There are, broadly, three situations in which mandatory destruction applies and I shall deal with each in turn. The first is in respect of offences under Section 1(2). This relates to pit bull terriers that may well have satisfied all the requirements of the exemption scheme, but in respect of whom other offences are subsequently
1824
committed—for example, being allowed in a public place unmuzzled or off the lead. The committee has argued that allowing the court discretion in these cases would not materially affect the deterrent effect of the provisions, because owners would be reluctant to take the risk of a destruction order still being imposed. The committee suggests that the question whether or not to order destruction of the dog would be decided by reference to other factors, including the behaviour of the dog, and the risk of future harm to the public.
The Government accept that amendment of the Act as proposed by Lord Houghton's Bill might mean that it still had a deterrent effect in some instances. But it is impossible to be confident that this would be so in all cases. Even under the present law, some owners have disregarded the provisions, despite mandatory destruction. The Government are concerned that the message that the Dangerous Dogs Act had been weakened (which is how the change would inevitably be perceived) would risk a general relaxation in standards of observation of the provisions. Such a change would mean, moreover, that an owner who had ignored vital provisions of the Act—for example, that pit bulls should be muzzled, not be abandoned or not allowed to stray—could regain ownership of his animals. The Government do not believe that this is a risk which should be taken.
In regard to the second situation in which mandatory destruction applies—that is, in respect of unregistered and unlawfully held pit bull terriers—the Government cannot accept the committee's argument that allowing discretion in regard to this category would not work against Parliament's intention of eliminating pit bull terriers. They recognise that the committee has confined its recommendation (for late entry onto the Index of Exempted Dogs) to cases covered by the amendment Bill and that it has not recommended a general amnesty for non-registered dogs. Nevertheless, allowing the court to direct late entry onto the register after a conviction for ownership of a non-registered dog would mean the possibility of some new dogs being bred or brought into the country. At present anyone contemplating the importation or illicit breeding of new pit bull terriers knows that there is no way that the dogs in question may be held lawfully (that is, be entered onto the index): conviction for owning such a dog must lead inevitably to the dog's destruction. The proposals in the amendment Bill would create a chance of the position of such new dogs being legitimised.
The committee has suggested that a general amnesty would be unfair to those owners who chose to have their dogs destroyed or to comply with the exemption provisions of the Act. In the Government's view, a selective re-opening of the index, as now suggested, would be no less unfair to such owners.
Mandatory destruction applies in a third area, under Section 3 of the Act, in relation to a dog of any type which is dangerously out of control and causes injury—what the Act terms an "aggravated offence". The committee has argued that it should be left to the court to decide whether a dog should be destroyed following conviction even for these very serious types of dog incidents—on the basis that it is the court which is best

1825
placed to decide whether mitigating circumstances might apply. The committee suggested that Section 3 would still act as an incentive to responsible dog ownership because, unlike proceedings under the 1871 Act, it carries the threat of a criminal conviction. I should add that there are also significant financial and/or custodial penalties.
The Government have considered these arguments carefully. But they believe that it is likely to be as much the fact of mandatory destruction as the risk of criminal conviction that is the real deterrent in these cases. The Government do not believe that Section 3 is used lightly, given the evidence of continuing wide use of earlier statutory provisions. And they believe that the prosecuting authorities pay due regard to possible extenuating factors both in determining the provisions under which to proceed and in the course of trials if new considerations emerge. Section 3 provides that a dog which attacks while dangerously out of control should not be allowed the chance of doing so a second time. The Government believe that this principle is the correct one, and that this was the appropriate signal to send to dog owners. They do not believe it would be right to weaken the message in any way.
It will be clear from what I have said that the Government consider that the mandatory destruction order and the one-off nature of the registration scheme are matters which are integral to the provisions of the 1991 Act and to the objectives which Parliament agreed.
1826
We are grateful to the Select Committee for its thoughtful review of these provisions, and have reflected very carefully on what it has proposed. But we are not persuaded that the Act should be modified. The Act remains relevant and necessary, and the Government cannot support moves to amend it.
I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the Government have given the most careful consideration to the objectives of this Bill, in particular in the light of the recommendations made by the Select Committee which looked into this Bill. However, this is a complex matter and not one on which the Government feel they can give ground. The death of any dog is a matter of sadness. However, the safety of children and adults is of paramount concern, and the first duty of government is to protect the public.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
Presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter-past eleven o'clock.

  COMARE Report
  COMARE Report
  National Lottery: Effect on Charities
  National Lottery: Effect on Charities
  Asylum Seekers with Relatives in the UK
  Asylum Seekers with Relatives in the UK
  Mr. Festus Otono
  Mr. Festus Otono
  Immigration Casework: Computerisation
  Immigration Casework: Computerisation
  Motorway Service Areas: Access Applications
  Motorway Service Areas: Access Applications
  Export of Defence Equipment: Review
  Export of Defence Equipment: Review
  Crown Accommodation Classification and Grading Scheme
  Crown Accommodation Classification and Grading Scheme
  Hanish Islands
  Hanish Islands
  Zambian Constitution: Harare Declaration
  Zambian Constitution: Harare Declaration
  Zambia: Detention of Editors
  Zambia: Detention of Editors
  Indonesia: UK Aid
  Indonesia: UK Aid