Sitting of 28 March 1996

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

  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 18 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to press for reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [21601]
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for reform of the common agricultural policy. [21604]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I shall seek to build on the European Commission's acceptance of our view that the common agricultural policy must change by continuing to press for progressive reductions in production-linked support and the eventual removal of artificial restrictions on production.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not the Government's credibility in question in view of yesterday's export ban on British beef? What are the Minister's plans for rebuilding confidence in British beef? Will he implement the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and the National Farmers Union, which would regain the credibility of British beef? More important, any reform of the common agricultural policy would be helped if the Government made sure that they put the interests of British people first.
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that the decision by the European Union to ban, or temporarily suspend, the importation of British beef is not founded on the scientific evidence, and is therefore wrong. As our advisory committee has made absolutely plain, provided the controls are fully implemented, the risk from eating beef is extremely small or, to use ordinary language, British beef is safe.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any reform of the CAP must look closely at beef production and include long-term reassurance to the British and continental public that British beef is safe? Does he share my view that the collapse in confidence in British beef is due in part to the quite disgraceful and irresponsible scaremongering of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)?
    Mr. Hogg: Much of the hysterical reaction to the contents of the scientific committee's report has contributed to the lack of public confidence. I deeply regret that, and those who have been party to it should be ashamed of themselves.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that rural Wales faces devastation from the prospective loss of as many as 20,000 jobs because of the beef crisis? Will he confirm that it is within the Government's power to bring in an intervention scheme and that it would be possible to have a British aid scheme on that basis? Will he make an announcement about selective culling to restore confidence? When, oh when, will the Government do something? People are losing their livelihoods and the farms that they have built up over a generation while the Government seem mesmerised, like chickens in the headlights of a car.
    Mr. Hogg: There is unquestionably a lack of consumer confidence at the moment. I do not believe that it is justified because it is quite plain from what the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—SEAC—has said that, to use ordinary language, British beef is safe. There is a debate later today in which I shall set out our further thoughts. I think that they will be of assistance to the House.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Is not the situation with respect to British beef and the CAP that either British beef and British beef producers will be supported through intervention buying through the CAP or we shall have to go it alone through some form of national deficiency payments? Would not that begin to spell the end of the CAP as we know it?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the existing intervention scheme. The European Union, through its policies within the agricultural policy, should play a full part in supporting the British meat industry at this time.
    Dr. Strang: May I suggest to the Minister that, from the start, a more constructive approach should have been taken to the inevitable concern in Europe following last week's announcement on BSE and CID? Will he agree to a change in his position today? Will he assure us that his officials are talking with European Commission officials about measures that aim to get rid of BSE? Does he agree that it would be valuable to agree a package that has European support and European funding?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has called for a more constructive attitude. I assume that that is an implied rebuke for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). As to the substantive part of his question relating to talks with the European Union, I confirm that officials were in

    1151
    Brussels yesterday and are in Brussels today discussing possible ways of restoring confidence in British beef and ways in which the European Union can play a full part in providing financial assistance. I anticipate going to Brussels shortly to reinforce those discussions.

    Food and Drink Industry
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to develop export opportunities for the United Kingdom's food and drink industry. [21602]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): During the past year, and with the Government's financial support, Food From Britain has opened new representative offices in Japan and Denmark. FFB's corporate strategy for the next three years involves expanding the coverage of its existing offices and extending its services into central Europe and the middle east.
    Mr. Alexander: I am grateful for that reply but, as the export of beef is one of the most important components of the food and drink industry, is it not urgent that an emergency package of relief for farmers and the industry should be announced very soon to avoid widespread bankruptcy and unemployment? In that connection, will my hon. Friend, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, encourage British banks to be as supportive as they can of the farming industry until this crisis is sorted out?
    Mrs. Browning: We are all aware of the grave difficulties in all sectors of the industry, from the farm right through the food processing chain. I refer my hon. Friend to the comments a few moments ago of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. I hope that my hon. Friend will attend tonight's debate.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that one of the things that could transform beef export prospects is an effective and accurate live test of cattle? Will she therefore reconsider the prospects of Dr. Narang of Newcastle, my constituent, who was personally refused a research grant by the Secretary of State as recently as 21 February? Does she agree that this is not the moment to turn down any avenue of research advance that could transform the prospects of our farmers and their exports?
    Mrs. Browning: I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Dr. Narang, has been invited to give his information to SEAC for consideration, but I must point out that Dr. Narang has refused to have published in the necessary scientific journals for scientific scrutiny the research that he has done to date. When invited by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make that information available to us, he has refused to do so.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the biggest problem that has been imposed on British beef and the food industry has been imposed illegally by the European Commission, which has decided to ban British beef? It is allowed to make a decision on the basis of there being a severe hazard to health. There is no severe hazard
    1152
    to health and it accepts that. Its decision was made politically, has devastated British industry and British agriculture and is now devastating European agriculture. The only way to put this right is not to receive the European Commission's generosity, but to have legal compensation from the Europeans.
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend identifies very clearly what has happened. The scientists who advise the Commission have had all the science put in front of them, but their decision making and determination has not been based on that scientific evidence. As my hon. Friend says, that has had a dreadful effect on the British beef industry which is now spreading to the Europewide meat industry in general. I have heard what my hon. Friend has said and there is much sympathy with the points he made.
    Mr. Tyler: May 1 place on record that we Liberal Democrats believe that this is not the appropriate time for recriminations such as we have heard? Does the hon. Lady agree that the first step towards re-establishing our export position in Europe should be taken here at home? Germans will not buy British beef, regardless of any ban, if public confidence remains at such a low ebb in the United Kingdom. Has she and the Minister had time to look at the package of proposals that we put to them last night, which we hope will make a positive contribution to what is undoubtedly a very difficult situation that requires consensus across the House if we are to solve it?
    Mrs. Browning: We have received many packages of proposals from various organisations—the NFU, the food industry and other political parties, including the Liberal Democrats. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's initial comment. Making the issue party political will only damage British farmers, the British food industry, other industries and British jobs, for which those who have turned it into a party political scare must take personal responsibility. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we welcome his statement. We shall study all options and bring them forward as quickly as possible.
    Sir John Cope: Will my hon. Friend do her best to make it clear as widely as possible that farmers have confidence in British beef because they have seen the number of BSE cases come down in recent years and therefore trust what the vets and doctors say?
    Mrs. Browning: The farming community understands only too well why policy has always been—and will continue to be—based on scientific evidence available at the time. We are all aware, however, that, beyond the science, there is a need for market support. I can assure my right hon. Friend, and the farming community that he represents, that we shall take every step necessary to restore confidence as quickly as possible.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister really aware of the extent of the damage to our export opportunities that has been caused by the Government's failure to act swiftly and ruthlessly on BSE? Will she assure the House that that catalogue of delay will never be allowed to happen again?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady should study the facts. We received SEAC's scientific advice concerning the 10 CJD cases, and the necessary steps that it

    1153
    recommended, at midday last Wednesday. By 3.30 pm that day, the information was being conveyed to hon. Members. One cannot act any faster than that.
    Subsequently, of course, the scientists in Europe have taken their disgraceful decision and made recommendations that, as I have already said, were based not on science but on other issues. It is therefore necessary, now that that has happened, to try to remove the temporary ban on the export of British beef. We feel sure that that will be the first step towards restoring public confidence, which, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, begins at home.
    I sincerely hope that, as an Opposition agriculture spokesman, the hon. Lady will add her voice to those of some of her hon. Friends who recognise the danger in following the attitude of other Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in building up the scare and turning the matter into a party political brickbat competition. Too many jobs are at stake to play party politics with the industry.
    Mr. Budgen: When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said a few moments ago that the ban on exporting beef was not based on scientific evidence and was wrong, did he mean that the ban was illegal? If it is illegal, what action does he intend to take about it in the European Community?
    Mrs. Browning: The ban is not illegal in terms of the law as it stands in the European Community. My point was that, whereas in this country we make decisions based on science—one could reasonably have expected scientists in Europe to follow the same principle—other countries in the European Community have singularly failed to do so.

    Farm Workers
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the rural, agricultural and allied workers trade group of the Transport and General Workers Union to discuss employment conditions for farm workers. [21603]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): I have not yet had the opportunity to meet formally representatives of the rural, agricultural and allied workers trade group. I should be happy to do so, if they wish.
    Mr. Clapham: I am rather surprised by that answer, given that about 350 BSE-infected cows are disposed of each week. Bearing in mind the fact that there will be a greater number if there is selective slaughter and that concern has been expressed that the humane killer could spread infected brain tissue, I should have thought that the Minister would have sought the advice of the Health and Safety Executive on the protection with which workers should be provided, and ensured that he met the unions to give them the Health and Safety Executive's advice.
    Mr. Boswell: It is, of course, entirely within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive to carry out such studies and to consider any evidence laid before it. Policy responsibility for the executive rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We do, of course, take an interest in those matters and we are
    1154
    more than pleased to pass on any representations to the executive and, equally, to SEAC for expert scientific appraisal. These are serious matters which affect concerns about the health and welfare of the working population and about their employment prospects. We take those concerns seriously and we are prepared to consider any evidence, or to hold any discussions, that they feel appropriate.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets this august body, will he tell it that many farm jobs are at risk in Scotland in the prime beef-producing areas, which produce quality beef? The problem has been caused by careless talk, much of it in the House, and by action taken within Europe which means that, whatever we have, we do not have a common agricultural policy. It should be recognised that animals in Europe suffer the same ailments as animals in the United Kingdom. We want a level playing field.
    Mr. Boswell: I would be pleased to pass on those messages. We suffer at the moment from an unfortunate combination of scare tactics, for political reasons, on the part of certain hon. Members and an inappropriate and disproportionate reaction by some of our European colleagues which is not based on the science.
    Mr. Hood: More than 200,000 jobs in Scotland are at stake as a result of the BSE scare. May I remind the Minister that, when the farmers asked the Parliamentary Secretary for help last week, the only help she offered was to put good Samaritans on the other end of a helpline? Can we stop the nonsense about political opportunism? If we had accepted the statement by the Secretary of State for Health—that it was the people who were mad and not the cows—where would we have been today?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman might care to have a word with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). He is worried about the 200,000 jobs in the beef industry in Scotland, but he should be aware that she started that hare and that she was fully followed by a number of Labour Members.

    Animal Welfare
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about developments in his negotiations with his European counterparts about the welfare of animals. [21606]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Discussion of the Commission proposals for amending the European Union directive on the welfare of calves has now commenced. I have made it clear to my colleagues that the United Kingdom will continue to press for the early introduction of adequate space and dietary requirements. In addition, the Government will press at the intergovernmental conference for a protocol to be added to the treaty of Rome to place an obligation on a Council of Ministers to give full regard to considerations of animal welfare in the exercise of its powers on agriculture, transport, research and the single market.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept credit for the success of the Government's efforts to persuade other countries in the EU to consider high standards of animal welfare, in line with our own? Will he continue his efforts to press for an early end to the veal crate and its associated restrictions on space and diet? Will he seek an amendment to the treaty that would give the welfare of animals the importance that it has in this country? Presumably that would not include the unjustified slaughter of masses of cattle.
    Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Veal calf crates are an important subject, and I am glad to say that proposals are now being made by the Commission. At the moment, the time contemplated for the implementation of the new regime-12 years—is in our view far too long. We shall press for a shorter time.
    Dr. Strang: Will the Minister acknowledge that BSE is a terrible and invariably fatal disease in cattle and that, since last week, there has been concern about a link with human beings? Has he seen the letter that I sent him yesterday, setting out Labour's proposals to restore confidence in British beef, keep the BSE agent out of our food, improve the epidemiology of the disease, increase consumer awareness and make Government action more effective? Will he adopt a constructive approach to those proposed measures?
    Mr. Hogg: Of course BSE is a terrible disease; CJD is an even more terrible disease. Yes, I have seen the letter from the hon. Gentleman; he will bear in mind the fact that we are to have a debate. He asked whether I was adopting a constructive approach to the problems. The answer is yes, I am, and I shall set out my thoughts more fully in this evening's debate.

    Fish Quotas (Essex)
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the fish quotas which apply to Essex fisherman. [21607]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): The UK fish quotas are apportioned between producer organisations, the non-sector—representing vessels over 10 m in length that do not belong to producer organisations—and the under-10 m fleet. Most Essex fishermen fish against the separate allocations of quota made to the non-sector and to the under-10 m group of vessels.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that Essex fishermen are fed up with being allowed to catch only tiddlers while the rest of Europe is allowed to catch whoppers? Will he kindly bring their plight to the attention of the next Fisheries Council, so that the imbalance can be addressed and their quota of Dover sole increased?
    Mr. Baldry: I am well aware of the problems facing smaller vessels, and I am considering constructively what steps might be taken to ease their difficulties. My hon. Friend initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject yesterday morning, and I said then that I was willing to go and talk to the Essex fishermen at Leigh-on-Sea and
    1156
    to consider more carefully what we might do to help further the non-sector fishing industry of the Thames estuary.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage the British fishing fleet is over its common fisheries policy multi-annual guidance targets. [21608]
    Mr. Baldry: The UK's multi-annual guidance programme targets consist of separate tonnage and power figures for each of 10 fleet segments. They are due to be met by 31 December 1996. At 31 December 1994, the nephrops and distant water targets had been met. All other segments were short of target by varying degrees. Figures for the end of 1995 are not yet available.
    Mr. Mitchell: I should have hoped—and expected—that the Minister would take the opportunity offered by the first fishing questions for ages to ask consumers who do not want to eat beef to eat fish, because it is better for them. On the substance of his answer, is it not ludicrous that the United Kingdom—which provides two thirds of the waters in this so-called common market pool and more than three quarters of stocks—is now being asked to make the biggest reductions in its fishing fleet, particularly when a fifth of that fleet is owned by Europeans? Commissioner Bonino said that she will take quota hoppers into account when deciding reductions. Why does the Minister not meet her and ask her to live up to that promise?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman needs to sort out some of his points—some of them are good and some are awfully had. We are not being asked to make any greater reduction in our fishing effort than any other member state. If we fish against national quotas, of course it is crazy that members of other EU states can catch fish against our quota. For that reason, we have made it perfectly clear that, if appropriate, we will seek treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference to deal with the issue of quota hoppers. Of course I discussed that with the European Commissioner—she was in the UK the other day. I think that she fully understands our opposition, and our determination to deal with quota hoppers—which is what we are determined to do. I very much hope that, in the not too distant future, the Anglo-Dutch fleet, which is sailing around the North sea, will disappear.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is aware that Europe is taking emergency action to keep out our beef. Why cannot we take emergency action to keep the pillaging fishermen of Spain and elsewhere out of our waters on the grounds of an emergency in employment and conserving fishing stocks'? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
    Mr. Baldry: That is good, robust stuff, Madam Speaker. It is important to remember in all this that the House and the country will always comply with the rule of law. We will always base our decisions on law. We will, moreover, seek to base our decisions on best

    1157
    science. It is a matter of great disappointment to all hon. Members that our European colleagues have shown this week that they do not follow those policies.

    Managed Access to the Countryside
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government have taken to promote managed access to the countryside. [21609]
    Mr. Boswell: The Ministry offers a range of incentives to encourage farmers to provide increased public access.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend accept that farmers in my constituency and elsewhere welcome managed access to the countryside? What they do not welcome, however, is the hysterical approach of the right to rampage being put forward by the Labour party, which would be a licence for criminals, burglars and people who want to commit damage to go into the countryside without let or hindrance. Does my hon. Friend recall that the previous Labour policy on this subject, in 1990, was launched under the title "Out in the Country"? Does he think that this policy could more accurately be described as out to lunch?
    Mr. Boswell: I have considerable sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend. There has been wise advice on the subject from some of the Opposition's noble Friends in another place—including Baroness Mallalieu, who explained that a law would be unenforceable without the consent of farmers and landowners. As my hon. Friend implied, the policy would also impose very severe insurance, administrative and general hassle costs for the farming community. It could not proceed without consent, it is entirely the wrong way round and we will have no part of it.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) did not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) for pillaging the countryside. Has the Minister seen the representations made by the Ramblers Association following the decision announced yesterday—
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: She has done enough damage already.
    Mr. Foulkes: I know that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is suffering from mad cow disease.
    After yesterday's decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Forestry Commission's holdings, the Ramblers Association made representations to the effect that such a policy will discourage access to the forest and is, in fact, privatisation by the back door.
    Will the Minister talk to his right hon. Friend and ask him to rethink his plans for the forestry?
    Mr. Boswell: We would be happy to shift our attack from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who has perhaps already taken sufficient punishment, to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I will, of course, be delighted at any time to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
    1158
    Scotland on forestry matters, as I do frequently. I would have to tell him that the basis of any of our forestry disposals programme is to provide properly for public access. Woods that are not widely used by the public are one category, but we would not sell woods or forests that are widely used by the public without making or offering adequate provision for access, which we regard as important.

    Regional Speciality Food
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department has taken to promote regional speciality food. [21610]
    Mrs. Browning: In the past few months, two regional speciality food and drink groups have been set up with the help of Government financial assistance. Those groups have joined three other regional and several smaller groups to raise the profile of this important sector of the food industry.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that, although Norfolk is predominantly an arable county, one particular regional speciality is its excellent beef? Is she aware that Norfolk farmers are concerned because they do not want their beef businesses destroyed by a combination of press hysteria and Opposition Members who are more concerned about scoring political points than about helping those businesses? How long does it take for a post-mortem BSE test to be carried out on a slaughtered bullock or cow?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the many beef herds around the country that fall into the speciality category and are of particularly high quality. I know that Norfolk has its share of such herds.
    As for how long it takes to check a slide from the brain of a cow infected with BSE, that is not a process that can be conducted at the abattoir—the point that my hon. Friend may have had in mind. The brain has to be subject to the normal process—which takes considerable time—of being put on wax, after which a thin slide is taken for examination specifically under the microscope. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that brains are subject to such examination. My hon. Friend may believe that that test can be conducted at the slaughterhouse, but I am afraid that the methods available to us at the moment prevent an immediate test being conducted quickly.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the most important regional speciality food in Northern Ireland is obviously Ulster beef, both in terms of the employment that it provides and the value that it adds to the economy of Northern Ireland, and given the damage done to the Ulster beef industry by decisions taken in Europe, will the Minister not forget that there are other important export markets for Ulster beef outside Europe? As a matter of urgency, will she spearhead a new export drive in those other countries to promote Ulster beef?
    Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the importance of Ulster beef. Although countries outside the European Community have been caught by the worldwide recommendation, the right hon.

    1159
    Gentleman may like to know that I am making scientists available from the Ministry to speak to representatives from other countries outside the EC who have asked to come to hear the science from us, and to hear about how it has affected the trade. I am receptive, as a Minister and on behalf of the Ministry, to those countries which wish to do that. We shall enable that to happen, and we are happy to talk to attaches and ambassadors of specific countries.
    Mr. David Porter: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that another regional speciality food is North sea cod, plaice and sole? Because of the workings of the common fisheries policy, however, there is a great danger that we shall soon not be able to catch any of those off England. Will she take that message to the IGC when she considers the reform of the common fisheries policies?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has outlined to the House the work that he is doing with the industry to ensure that we get a sensible common fisheries policy, which affects his constituents and many other people around the country.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that many regional beef herds—such as Ulster beef, Scottish beef and herds from other areas—are high-quality herds with no history of BSE? Will she support some of the quality-assured schemes run by producers, and give support to those regional beef herds? Will she give some thought to the slaughter and food-processing industries where many thousands of jobs are now at risk because of the way in which the Government have handled the issue, and for no other reason?
    Mrs. Browning: When the hon. Gentleman started his question, I thought that he was going to say something of profound interest to the industry and was going to recognise the difficulties that it faces. I certainly agree that some herds, kept by specialist producers, are free of BSE. Those herds are very often raised on grass, and are not subject to the cattle feed problems that we are talking about. I can assure him that I am aware of his point and will do my best to take it into account. How disappointing it is that yet another Labour agriculture spokesman, pretending to seek a justifiable solution for a matter of grave importance throughout the country, cannot resist the temptation to add his fivepen'orth of party politicking. It is a disgrace.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend take another look at the future of Bath chaps, which are under sentence of death this week? Will she go back to SEAC and ask whether it really meant the masseter and temporal muscles to be classified as specified offal, because that will bring to an end a large industry and could result in up to 40 works closing?
    Mrs. Browning: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern for the industry in his constituency that is producing Bath chaps. The recommendation from SEAC last week was very clear, and I am sorry that I cannot give him any comforting words. SEAC has recommended that the head should be removed, and that the part of the head that may be used in the food chain is the tongue. The part of the head to which my hon. Friend referred has
    1160
    been specifically identified by SEAC as a part not to be put into the human food chain. While I sympathise with, and have every concern for, my hon. Friend's dilemma, it would be quite wrong for the Government to challenge the scientific advice that we have accepted at this Dispatch Box.

    Farm Animal Welfare
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his EC colleagues regarding the welfare of farm animals; and if he will make a statement. [21612]
    Mrs. Browning: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that many people of all political persuasions will welcome the collapse in the odious trade in live exports that has resulted from the present crisis? Is she further aware that many of us gave up eating meat some years ago—not for health reasons, but because we were unable to justify the appalling cruelty that factory farmers inflicted upon farm animals? She can restore the confidence of many of us only by persuading the EC to amend the treaty so that live animals can be treated as sentient beings and not as agricultural products.
    Mrs. Browning: My right hon. and learned Friend explained to the House today that the addition of a protocol would create a legally binding obligation, whereas amending the treaty itself would not necessarily meet the objective. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first remarks, he is free to take whatever decisions he likes about what he eats, and we all value the fact that he is able to do so. In time, however, he may well feel that his initial remarks were ill founded. There is a meat trade, and it is important that the highest standards apply—we have led the way on this—for animals reared in, and transported from, this country. We have pioneered the way in which those standards can be implemented across Europe, and that is the answer. We cannot just focus on what we do here, as what happens over the water is equally important in terms of animal welfare.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that today McDonald's is importing foreign beef products? Is she also aware that health observation in other countries throughout Europe is perhaps not so stringent as ours and that animal welfare considerations have been shown not to be of such great concern? Does she feel that McDonald's has made a great error of judgment?
    Mrs. Browning: We shall work hard to encourage McDonald's to lift its decision on British beef as quickly as possible, because that will surely give confidence to the beef market both at home and abroad. We have no intention of allowing beef from other countries to undermine our marketplace here. We are studying imports of beef carefully to see that we can be absolutely sure that they comply with the sort of assurances on British beef that we give the population of this country.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21631]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the wide welcome for the Government's endorsement of Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds thoroughly deserved, as they bring together academic study with work-related training and recognise young people's differing skills and aptitudes for reaching their full potential? Is not that belief in diversity and choice the hallmark of Conservative policy and a striking contrast to anything else on offer?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the desirability of choice and diversity being the key to raising standards in schools. I am sure that that is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out more proposals this afternoon to achieve precisely that. That is what we want for all children—our children and everyone else's as well.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that, to restore confidence in British beef, we should recognise the mistakes of the past and that contaminated meat did pass into the food chain, but that, for the future, we should take all measures that are necessary to make negligible, not just extremely small, any chance—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful. The House will come to order.
    Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    For the future, we should take whatever measures are necessary to make negligible—not just extremely small—the chance of any specified bovine offal going into any part of the food chain. What are the measures that the Prime Minister is proposing following the Cabinet meeting this morning and will they include the measures proposed by shadow Ministers, which have already won wide-ranging support throughout the industry?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need to take all the necessary public health measures. The reality is that we have always taken the action that was seen to be necessary and the advice that has been offered. In 1989, we took action that went beyond the advice that we had received. I have had an opportunity to look at the proposals that the Opposition made this morning. They are a mixture of motherhood and action that is already being taken, and they largely miss many of the matters that need to be dealt with. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with them?"]
    If the hon. Lady would like me to run through the eight points and explain why they are irrelevant, I should be happy to do so. I will find them. Here they are.
    1162
    The Opposition call for proper enforcement of controls in slaughterhouses, yet they opposed the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was designed to ensure that they were enforced. They call for a random test of the brains of cattle. That is completely irrelevant, as we have stopped all brain products that could possibly be infected from entering the food chain. They suggest that products are labelled with ingredients; that is already happening. SEAC has already looked at the safety of mechanically recovered meat and we have already taken steps to ensure its safety.
    As for the plans for a quality assurance scheme, of course we wish to ensure the quality of all beef, but there would be no question of labelling some beef as safe and allowing the sale of unsafe beef, which is what they say would mean. Their plan to ban specified bovine offal in cattle under six months overlooks the fact that SEAC specifically considered this proposal and concluded that it was unnecessary, not least because there has never been a single incidence of BSE in cattle that young. The plan for a separate—[Interruption.] The Opposition asked me what was wrong with their plans.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by an hon. Member from a sedentary position. Members must learn to listen and not bawl out from sedentary positions.
    The Prime Minister: The plan for a separate food agency would mean that matters such as this would no longer be represented round the Cabinet table but would be represented in an agency. The chief medical officer already has the support that he has asked for to carry out his duties. The reality is that our examination is much more fundamental than this public relations nonsense from the Labour party. It is considering votes; we are considering the industry and the national interest.
    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have heard anything quite so pathetic as that. Let me take two of those measures—one, random testing, was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's own committee. As for the policy in relation to abattoirs, his own scientists have said that the regulations have to be enforced. Will he confirm that, as late as last year, almost half the slaughterhouses were not up to scratch and that, although it is true that there are far fewer today, there has not yet been one completed prosecution? Is that not right?
    Will the Prime Minister please, for once, stop shirking responsibility and instead take it? In particular, will he understand that, unless he can agree proposals now with the food industry, the retailers and the consumer organisations so that we present a united front, we shall never have the Government back in control of events rather than being controlled by them?
    The Prime Minister: What is pathetic is this document. What is also pathetic is this wriggling change of policy after the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Gentleman did everything that they could to extract maximum political advantage, at the cost, potentially, of jobs, and of the national interest, in the beef industry. On his remarks about controls in slaughterhouses, the Meat Hygiene Service has an officer—in some cases more than one officer—in each and every slaughterhouse, and every single carcass is

    1163
    inspected by those hygiene officers—officers whom Opposition Members voted against when we brought the proposals before the House.
    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend assure his farmers—my farmers and farmers up and down the country—that the Government will do all that they can to avert the disaster facing British industry? In short, will the Government bring forward proposals for a selective slaughter policy to take out of the food chain the meat from cows that will be culled in any case?
    The Prime Minister: What needs to be done to ensure confidence both for the beef industry and for allied industries, in the interests of the farmers as well as public health, and the substantial range of matters that must be examined, are all under consideration at the moment. We must address specifically the question of market confidence: that means convincing our European partners and the beef outlets that beef is safe. The next step in that process will be an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later this afternoon.
    However, in the interests of the industry as a whole and of public health, it is important to deal with the matters comprehensively if we are to meet the objective of restoring confidence. Work and discussion on all the matters is going ahead—even as we meet this afternoon—in this country and in Europe. We shall carry out those discussions as speedily as possible. As soon as we are able, we shall bring comprehensive proposals before the House, but it is not in the interests of the industry for us to dribble them out piecemeal: we shall deal with the whole issue because that is the only way to restore the confidence so badly damaged so unnecessarily.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister knows very well just how many jobs and how many businesses are now at risk in what is the worst crisis to hit rural Britain for three decades or more. He knows that every delay will add to that list. I therefore assure him that, if he brings forward an urgent plan of action, designed to restore public confidence and to make the British herd BSE-free as soon as possible, based on culling and other measures, we shall support him. We shall also support every action that is designed to persuade our European partners that it is not a problem just for Britain, but a Europewide problem that requires a Europewide solution.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's latter point: it is a Europewide problem. I shall discuss the matter with our European partners in Turin tomorrow and my right hon. Friends will also discuss the matter with their European counterparts. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: 650,000 people are employed in the industry, which generates about £5 billion each year. That is why we must ensure that the proposal we bring forward is comprehensive and will work. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support as we do so.
    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be total support for his comments yesterday about the European Union ban on worldwide exports of British beef which he said was unjustifiable, unjust and should be reversed? Does the Prime Minister recognise that we do
    1164
    not wish to be bribed, by accepting the return of some of our own money, into agreeing to something that is fundamentally wrong? Is there not a case for, if not leaving the British seat vacant at the IGC tomorrow, at least saying that there will be no progress until the ruling has been overturned?
    The Prime Minister: On the basis of the scientific advice that we have received, our partners must know that the ban on British beef is totally without justification. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is having urgent discussions to outline the measures that we are taking to ensure safety. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall reinforce that point vigorously in Turin tomorrow. It is essential that decisions of that sort are taken by member states on the basis of rational judgments and of science, and not on any other basis—as I believe they were on this occasion. I shall certainly make our feelings clear tomorrow.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21632]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: What message does the Prime Minister have for his so-called Euro-sceptic friends now that he is not going to Turin to talk tough to the intergovernmental conference but is going cap in hand to beg for compensation for the measures that he knows he must now take to resurrect the British beef industry, which has suffered because of his Government's total incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I said a moment or so ago; if he did hear it, he patently did not understand it.
    We have set out our position on the intergovernmental conference, and I shall reinforce that, precisely as we have previously informed the House, in the discussions at the IGC tomorrow, but with one addition. I shall make it clear that the recent ruling on the working time directive is wholly unjustified, that we do not accept it and that we shall be seeking in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the Commission does not misuse article 118A in future.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21633]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: When my right hon. Friend goes to Turin, will he take the opportunity to impress on his fellow European leaders the absolute need to reduce business costs? Will he also ensure that there is no way in which the European social chapter—the European tax on jobs—is smuggled into this country by the back door or foisted on the British people by the back door despite our opt-out?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, and am happy to reaffirm, I am not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out, negotiated and agreed in good faith at Maastricht with our colleagues, undermined by an improper use of other treaty heads, and I shall demand changes in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that that cannot happen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    1166
    The Labour party may wish to sign up to policies that will make people unemployed—Labour Members are obviously reckless of employment, as they showed earlier this week with their statements on health matters—but we care about putting people back into jobs and we shall not accept any measures that prevent jobs being created.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 1 APRIL—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on the council tax on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 2 APRIL—Consideration in Committee of the Family Law Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 APRIL—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, including the three-hour pre-recess debate.
In the afternoon, remaining stages of the London Regional Transport Bill, followed by motions on the Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order, the Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary-related Contracted-out Schemes) Order and the Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order.
That will be followed by motions on the Special Grant Report (No. 17) and the Special Grant Report (Wales).
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 3 April to consider European Community document No. 9325/95 relating to Consumer Protection: Unit Pricing.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 16 APRIL—Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 17 APRIL—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, the 10th Opposition Day, on an Opposition motion of which the subject will be announced later.
THURSDAY 18 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill.
Motion on the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 19 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
[Wednesday 3 April: European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 9325/95, Consumer protection unit pricing. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 70-xxv (1994–95), HC 51-iii (1995–96) and HC 51-xi (1995–96).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, especially the early notification of the business in the first week after the Easter recess, but what has happened to the much-trailed statement on sentencing
1168
policy that many people were expecting by now, especially in view of all the remarks by the Home Secretary?
Secondly, in view of the Government's defeat in the Committee considering the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, will the Leader of the House tell us what the Government's response will be? Will he give us an assurance that the House will have an early indication as to when the Report stage will take place? That will be a test for Ministers, so that they can demonstrate whether they are responsive to the needs of older people and people with learning difficulties, by standing by the decision taken in Committee rather than trying to reverse it on the Floor after the Bill has come back to the House.
In view of yesterday's report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, supporting a freedom of information Act, and in view of the Government's claims about open government, will the Leader of the House provide Government time, after the Easter recess, for a debate on that subject, or will we have to wait until a Labour Government provide not only the time for a debate but legislation on the matter?
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Public Accounts Committee has, on various occasions in recent years, warned about the ill-thought-out and ill-prepared computer schemes in a number of Government Departments. Surely we should have a debate on the matter in the near future. If the report in today's The Daily Telegraph is well founded—that the proposed new Department of Social Security computer scheme will cost an extra £750 million, on top of an existing bill of £2.6 billion—clearly the Government have failed to respond to the Public Accounts Committee's criticisms. Expensive blunders of that kind keep occurring, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
Finally, I hope that it goes without saying that the Leader of the House will guarantee that, if there is any statement to be made, any change of policy or any significant future development on the bovine spongiform encephalopathy front, the House will he kept fully informed.
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for her opening kind words. On sentencing policy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary anticipates making a statement to the House before the recess. On the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will give appropriate consideration to any proceedings in Committee. I shall communicate with the House about the Report stage as and when appropriate.
The hon. Lady's next two questions concerned reports from Select Committees, including the Public Accounts Committee. At the moment, I have no plans to provide time for debate in Government time, but there are well understood opportunities for debates on Select Committee reports—which, no doubt, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and others will consider. For my part, the Government will respond to Select Committee reports in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time.

1169
Finally, I merely observe that the Government have already arranged—in the course of barely a week—a total of four statements and one debate in relation to BSE. I think that that is an assurance of our good faith in keeping in touch with the House on the matter.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will my right hon. Friend have a look at the timetable and provide some time for a debate on the Audit Commission's report on local authority performances, so that we have an opportunity to examine those performances, particularly in places such as East Sussex, which consistently performs on the wrong side of average?
Mr. Newton: It occurs to me that the debate on the council tax—which is next Monday's business; albeit not Government business—might provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend to make the point that she wishes.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Leader of the House realise that the House has not yet debated the Europol convention on European police co-operation, which has been signed by this country, but has not yet been ratified? Does he recognise that the important work that is being carried out by the police unit in The Hague against international criminals and drug traffickers will be hampered as long as ratification is delayed by the Government's concerns about the European Court of Justice? I believe that that matter ought to be debated.
Mr. Newton: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House undertake to provide an urgent and early debate on local government anarchy in central London, given that Lambeth council is now owed more than £100 million in uncollected council taxes, thus proving that socialism in action is not a soundbite, not a vision, but a nightmare?
Mr. Newton: I express the hope, Madam Speaker, that my hon. Friend will catch your eye on Monday to elaborate his views on the matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House know that the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee was first promised for 3.30 this afternoon? Now it is not to be issued until 4 o'clock. Does that mean that it is worth reading? If it is worth reading, is it not worth debating, perhaps in the week that we come back? If he cannot promise that, how about a debate on this morning's report by the Health and Safety Executive on the parlous state of the Forth bridge in my constituency?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper—or perfectly understandable—constituency point. On his first point, I cannot promise a debate in the first week back, having announced the business for that week. Although I always consider requests, I would rather do so when the report has actually been published.
Mr. John Butcher: May we have a debate shortly to unravel a mystery? Informed opinion in the manufacturing sector is telling us clearly that British engineers now have a spectacular opportunity to wipe the floor with their competitors across Europe, but the public at large do not seem aware of that opportunity. The signs of success are now remorseless. May we have a debate to help to preserve the competitiveness of British industry in the teeth of policies that may be introduced to destroy that competitiveness and load employment costs on the backs of our employers?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an important point that is relevant to many debates, and I hope that he will have opportunities to raise the matter again. I take the opportunity to congratulate his part of the country on securing the new Jaguar X200 project.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Minister tell the House that he does not intend the six EC VAT directives to be carried by the House simply by a Statutory Instrument? From 1 May, those directives will impose VAT on admission charges to all major zoos in Britain. That will damage attendance and reduce the work that our zoos do for endangered species. Given that, from Bristol to Edinburgh to Belfast, hon. Members have constituency interests, may we have an undertaking that before VAT is imposed on zoo admission charges on 1 May, there will be a full debate, in which all hon. Members who have a constituency interest can take part?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I have no plans for departing from normal procedures for dealing with such matters.
Mr. Edward Leigh: With regard to the Family Law Bill, to be discussed next Tuesday, although I thank my right hon. Friends for helping us to draft amendments, it has been a rush. May I protest at the speed at which the Committee of the whole House is sitting—just a week after considering the Bill on Second Reading? On previous occasions—notably the reform of the law on homosexuality—there was a gap of some months. Similarly, many weeks passed after the Bill was considered in the House of Lords, so that constituents could voice their concerns to Members of Parliament and there could be a proper public debate on the most important piece of social legislation for a decade. Is it necessary to have the Committee of the whole House quite so quickly after Second Reading?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for his kind remarks about the assistance that he has received from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will be aware that procedures in another place are somewhat different from those here, not least in the handling of matters in Committee. In my view at least, it is sensible that certain issues should be discussed by the whole House before the rest of the Bill receives more detailed and minute consideration in Committee. The big issues should be discussed and settled first. Although the Bill received Second Reading only at the beginning of this week, there has been a huge amount of time to consider the Bill, which has been around and well known to everybody for many months.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House noted the 1,700 redundancies announced by United Utilities? They follow the 800 previously announced, making 2,500 in all. That, coupled with the sale of three companies, including North Western Electricity's shops, will mean a further 4,400 jobs being put at risk. Does he not realise that that is partly due to the Government's failure to refer the takeover of public utilities to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade, to see whether we can have an early debate on this company's asset-stripping methods?
Mr. Newton: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which is what I imagine he would like me to do.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate an issue of great concern to my constituents and to his—the decision of Essex county council to withdraw its grant from parish councils for civic amenity sites? Is he aware that that decision is likely to lead to the closure of the Asheldham site in my constituency? As a consequence, there will be fly-tipping all over the Dengie peninsula.
Mr. Newton: Like my hon. Friend, whose constituency borders mine, I certainly regret any action that would tend to diminish the success of recycling in many parts of Essex and bring about the consequences to which he refers.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I, too, am concerned about the haste with which the Family Law Bill is to be debated next Tuesday. As the right hon. Gentleman has announced the business for the week after Easter, can he say when he hopes to announce a debate on the Northern Ireland election law Bill, so that we can debate it in good time for the elections?
Does the right hon. Gentleman share the concern of many in Northern Ireland at the fact that directions have been given to a large minority party there not to contest the election? What sort of signal for democracy does that send out?
Mr. Newton: The Bill is still in preparation, so it would be rash to schedule a debate on legislation that is not yet ready to put before the House. We are trying to get it ready as soon as possible; when it is ready, I shall arrange for a debate as soon as possible thereafter.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend give us an early opportunity to debate the pride of London? In such a debate, we could discuss the great success of the city as the business centre of Europe, and the enormous progress made in London's infrastructure. None of that would have been possible, I suspect, if, 10 years ago next week, we had not abolished the Greater London council.
Mr. Newton: We do of course from time to time look for time for a debate on London. In view of my hon. Friend's trenchant remarks. I shall of course start to look for an opportunity when he might expand on them.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House undertake to look carefully
1172
at the progress of the Noise Bill, which was expected to last for only two sittings but which has suddenly sprouted large numbers of amendments tabled by Conservative Members? Will he give an undertaking that that is not a case of the time taken to discuss a Bill being extended so as to hold up the Public Interest Disclosure Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), which is next in the queue? That would he greatly resented.
Mr. Newton: I am not familiar with every detail of the weekly proceedings in the Committee dealing with private Members' Bills, but I have no doubt that the Noise Bill, which is an important one, merits proper probing and discussion—and, where necessary, amendment.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate on the private finance initiative? During such a debate, we could raise the interesting case of the £100 million hospital project at Darenth Park in north-west Kent, which will be of immense value to people living in that part of the world. We could also highlight the fact that four major consortia have bid to participate and build the hospital, and that two of them have been invited to go forward to tender stage.
We could also draw the attention of the House to the deliberate undermining of the hospital project by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who is doing so merely to score party political points, thereby endangering the hospital project, but simultaneously refusing to pledge that any future mythical Labour Government would provide the £100 million to build the hospital.
Mr. Newton: I am glad to know that my hon. Friend's constituency looks like benefiting from the gathering success of the private finance initiative. I am sure that the whole House would share his regret if playing politics inhibited the project that he mentions.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I press the Leader of the House further on the beef crisis? He will be aware of the devastation facing many small farmers who have spent a lifetime building up their herds. They need action now, in looking not so much at who is to blame, as at what is to be done to restore confidence. Can he assure us that, if there is not a comprehensive statement in today's debate, there will be an opportunity for one tomorrow morning? In particular, will he make sure that we do not go away for the Easter recess without the farming industry knowing definitely what is to happen to restore confidence, because the industry could not understand it if we allowed a couple of weeks to go by during which time countless companies might go to the wall?
Mr. Newton: I very much welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions, about the way in which the matter is being addressed, to seek to meet those very concerns. He will also have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Government's intention to ensure that the House is kept fully and properly informed.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend previously precluded the possibility of regular

1173
ministerial statements to the House on the progress of the intergovernmental conference, which begins tomorrow. Could he instead allow, during the two weeks of business that lie ahead, an early debate on early-day motion 570, on the European Court compensation ruling and the common fisheries policy?
[That this House deplores the decision of the European Court which overrules, with retrospective effect and at great cost to the taxpayer, the Government's legislation introduced to prevent British fish quotas being caught by Spanish and other foreign owners of British registered vessels; and believes that this judgement confirms the need for the United Kingdom to give notice at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference of its intention to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy and of its determination to re-establish the supremacy of British law.]
The early-day motion was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and myself, and signed by 14 other hon. Members, and is crucial to the IGC, relating as it does to British withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and the restoration of the supremacy of British law.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware of what has been said by my right hon. Friends on that matter, in relation to the IGC. I shall not seek to add to or elaborate on that. I do not have my words from last week in front of me, but I do not recall that they were quite in the terms that my hon. Friend attributes to them—rather, it seems to me to be quite difficult to have a statement every time any kind of meeting takes place in connection with the IGC process.
Ms Ann Coffey: I would also like to urge the Leader of the House to consider having an urgent debate on the decision by United Utilities to cut 1,700 jobs. It is an extremely profitable company and it has been built on fixed prices that are paid by people in the region for electricity and water. It is not right for those companies to kick the people in the region in the face, by cutting their jobs and by creating job insecurity and uncertainty throughout the north-west.
Mr. Newton: I have already responded on that issue to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), and I shall include the hon. Lady's remarks in the information that I shall transmit to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Could my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the crippling industrial rates that are being levied on riding establishments, which are very good sources of recreation for our people and which have to compete very unfairly with non-commercial riding establishments that are often paid for out of the public purse? At the same time, could we deal with the avaricious people who seek to turn this country's attention to eating horses rather than beef? We should put a stop to any such idea immediately.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly draw the appropriate Minister's attention to my hon. Friend's remarks, and in particular to what he said about riding establishments.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House consider—notwithstanding last night's vote in which the Government scraped home by merely one, and the content of that debate—allowing time for a full debate on the environment and energy-saving measures? The Leader of the House may be aware that Pilkington in my constituency has announced 1,900 job losses worldwide. That company is greatly into energy conservation, and help in that field would help it, as well as many other companies. Is not it better to help the environment while at the same time helping the economy?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that, over a considerable period, Her Majesty's Government have put much effort into advancing the cause of the environment generally and into energy conservation. Another private Member's Bill on the subject is around and that may, in due course, provide an opportunity for further debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. John Marshall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on arranging the debate on the London Regional Transport Bill to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the demise of the Greater London council? In that debate, will it be in order to draw a distinction between the investment level then and the much higher investment level today? Will it also be in order to point out that the Northern line train project is the largest public-private finance initiative project and that it will transform conditions for many of my constituents, who from next year will travel in new trains, will see every station on the Northern line upgraded and will find that private finance has provided what the GLC failed to provide?
Mr. Newton: The question of order is of course for you, Madam Speaker, rather than for me, which you would certainly remind me of should I show signs of straying, but good points are always in order and I look forward to my hon. Friend making his good points in the debate on that transport matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Before this Government are kicked out of office, shall we have a debate about the Government's record over the whole period since they came into power in 1979? Is it not an unfortunate coincidence that the end of 17 years of Thatcherism is characterised by mad cow disease?
Mr. Newton: From the perspective of one of the people who supported the position that led to the previous Government ending with the winter of discontent, the hon. Gentleman might be unwise to promote such a debate.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Press Complaints Commission's welcome adjudication in favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and against The Sunday Times, but as The Sunday Times apparently sees fit completely to ignore the commission's recommendations in a most disgraceful way, may we have a debate on the way in which the press exercises self-regulation through the commission? Will that adjudication act as an adequate deterrent against the newspaper industry acting in that disgraceful way?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that, as Chairman of the Privileges Committee, which suggested

1175
that the PCC should revisit that matter, I have read the PCC chairman's recent letter to me with considerable interest. I cannot promise a debate, but I take careful note of my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Leader of the House intends to refer to his colleague the President of the Board of Trade the issue of United Utilities' decision to wipe out the livelihoods of another 1,700 people—on top of the 800 who have already gone—and the threat to a further 4,500 people, will he point out to him that the consequences in the north-west and in my constituency in particular will be catastrophic? Will he also point out that, almost inevitably, the public in the north-west will believe that the quality of service that they receive from a bad water company and electricity company will further deteriorate? If that is the case, surely the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but should we not also have a debate on the results of privatisation and its deleterious effects not only on jobs, but on customer service?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about privatisation. When I consider the greatly improved performance of privatised industries, in comparison with what went before, I see no reason to accept those remarks, but I shall add his representations to those conveyed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Ian Bruce: May we have an urgent debate, ideally this afternoon, if not next week, about Members' access to information in the House? I thought that the information systems in the House were extremely good until I tried to find a copy of the draft report that was referred to on Monday by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). The Library is not able to identify whether any such draft ever existed and cannot get me a copy, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot get me a copy either. I was therefore extremely grateful to the offices of the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and for Peckham when they said that they would furnish me with a copy. Unfortunately, I have since received a telephone message from the office of the hon. Member for Darlington, saying, "Apologies. Cannot find the 1978 draft report." Not only is the information not available through the normal channels, but it would appear that it is being stolen from hon. Members' offices.
Mr. Newton: That is a very interesting story. I am not sure that I can address the question, not least because it would appear that the deficiency is not in the House's information system, but somebody else's.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the Leader of the House aware that among the countless broken promises of the Government is one made on 7 September 1992 by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), to set up a public inquiry into child sex and physical abuse in north Wales children's homes? There has been persistent questioning on the matter this week. We have waited a long time—since 1992—for a public inquiry because the criminal trials and proceedings clearly had to be completed before it could be set up.
1176
Now that they have, will the Government do what they promised and set up this long-overdue and urgently required public inquiry, under a judge, with powers to subpoena all those involved—the North Wales police, and people from the Welsh Office social services inspectorate and Clwyd and Gwynedd county council social services departments—to find out exactly what went wrong during that horror saga of 10 and 15 years ago in north Wales?
Mr. Newton: There may have been lurking somewhere in that a request for a debate, but it sounded to me like a request for an inquiry directed at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I shall ensure that that request is transmitted to him.
Dr. Robert Spink: May we have an early debate specifically focused on the beef-processing industry, to ensure that it, as well as farmers, benefits from any confidence and compensation package that comes forward? The industry has laid off many people and is holding vast amounts of stock. One company in my constituency told me today that it was absolutely disgusted and very angry with the Labour party for playing politics with its jobs and business.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some important points. Although, again, the matter would be for you, Madam Speaker, I find it hard to believe that raising such matters would not be in order in the debate that I have scheduled for later today.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I suggest to the Leader of the House that if we are to debate the matters raised by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), the hon. Gentleman would do well to contact the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture? Perhaps he could ask officials, when the Committee next takes evidence from them, about the draft document to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I think that he will find that it exists.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I have not been able to get a copy.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman should ask the Committee Chairman to secure access to it.
Mr. Newton: I could not detect a remark directed to me at all lurking in that. I shall not intervene further in the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Madam Speaker: The Lord President is not on his own.
Mr. Roy Thomason: In view of my right hon. Friend's earlier reply, he has clearly noted the success of the Jaguar X200 project, which will create and protect many thousands of jobs in the west midlands. Does he agree that an early debate on the car manufacturing industry generally would be appropriate, especially as it is leading British industry's export drive so successfully?
Mr. Newton: I certainly wish to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the industry and welcoming that project, as I have already done. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate.

Points of Order
4.3 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am glad that the Leader of the House is still in his place. May I raise the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which, as hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, was due to be in the Vote Office at 3.30 pm, is apparently still not available, although we were told that it would be delayed only until 4 o'clock? That raises suspicion and causes difficulties.
Madam Speaker: I understand that it is now available; hon. Members seem already to have copies.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been sent a mass-produced letter from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), which is printed on House of Commons notepaper. I gave him notice that I intended to raise this point of order. The letter has been sent to his constituents in House of Commons envelopes and he has even put his political office address on the back. The cost of postage alone could be as much as £10,000 if the letter has been sent to every constituent. That is a flagrant abuse, and the hon. Gentleman has not even bothered to come into the Chamber. What can we do to stop this abuse by Members?
Madam Speaker: We stop it individually by insisting that, if an offence has been committed, the Member concerned has to pay. That happens in every case. If the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has the evidence, will let the Serjeant at Arms have it, he will interview the Member concerned and will find out precisely how much notepaper, postage and so on were used. If that usage is improper, the Member will be charged, as happens in every case that is raised.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the matter that I raised during questions. I know that it is your duty—a duty that you discharge well—to look after the reputation of hon. Members and of the House. You will recall that, during the emotionally charged statement on BSE, the Government were accused of being a deregulatory Government who had done away with a draft order that the Labour party had placed before the House in 1978.
I understand that the draft order had nothing to do with the inclusion of animal parts in cattle food or their exclusion from it, and I believe that that is why it is not
1178
being made available to me. Is there anything that you can do to enable me to do my job, as a Member of Parliament, of bringing up those matters and to protect the reputation of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who is clearly under a great deal of pressure from both sides of the House to come clean on the matter?
Madam Speaker: We are to have a debate on the matter and the hon. Gentleman may seek to catch my eye during it. Alternatively, when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is making her points, he may like to attempt to intervene—he has already given obvious notice of that intention—so that she can explain where the document originated and where he may obtain a copy of it. That may be the best way in which to proceed.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will take no further points of order on the matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We have had exchanges on the matter both during questions on next week's business, which were totally irrelevant, and we have had points of order that were not quite as irrelevant and with which I have dealt. I hope that the next point of order is relevant.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I hope so, Madam Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the Intelligence and Security Committee report has now become available. Glancing through it, it is clear that paragraphs 10, 32, 33 and 35 are the ones that the Government are anxious we should not be able to discuss. Will you, Madam Speaker, make it clear to the Leader of the House that we deprecate the way in which the report has been withheld? Will you express to him the hope that we shall eventually be able to discuss the report and those paragraphs in particular?
Madam Speaker: The document has little to do with the Speaker of the House; it is made available in the Vote Office for Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made his point, which is hardly a point of order and is hardly a point for the Leader of the House, who happens to be on the Treasury Bench and who has no doubt heard it for all that.

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Clause 55
  TAXABLE DISPOSALS: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 38, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
Clause 60

  LANDFILL SITES
  Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 40, line 36, leave out
  'granted under section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (waste management licences)'
  and insert
  'which is a site licence for the purposes of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (waste on land)'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15 to 18.
  4.8 pm
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: In their amendments, the Government have made minor changes to the definition of, first, landfill sites and, secondly, the landfill site operator. That was not raised in Committee, so I would be grateful if the Paymaster General will explain why it was necessary to change the definitions, and what the substantive difference is.
  The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The group of amendments is designed to ensure that there is no room for doubt as to what is and what is not a site for the purpose of the tax. They were tabled following further legal advice on the provision in the Bill as published.
  Amendment No. 14 relates to licences issued for sites in Great Britain before the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was enacted. We wish to bring in all licensed sites; hence the amendment. That is clearly in line with the purpose of the Bill, and I venture to say that it is therefore uncontroversial.
  Amendment No. 15 is designed to deal with a similar problem relating to Scottish local authority sites that operate under a resolution passed before the Environmental Protection Act was enacted. Although all Scottish local authority sites will shortly be licensed, we do not wish to create a loophole and resulting distortion for such a key area of the landfill tax provision. Our purpose in the amendment was to put that beyond doubt.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 15, in page 40, line 39, leave out 'passed'.
  No. 16, in page 41, line 4, leave out 'or'.
  No. 17, in page 41, line 7, at end insert
  'or
  (e) a licence under any provision for the time being having effect in Northern Ireland and corresponding to section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (waste management licences) is in force in relation to the land and authorises disposals in or on the land.'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Clause 61

  OPERATORS OF LANDFILL SITES
  Amendment made: No. 18, in page 41, line 16, at end insert—
  '(e) the person who is at the time concerned the holder of the licence, where section 60(e) above applies.'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Clause 65

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 13, in page 43, line 32, at end insert—
  '(aa) an order under section (Exemptions: power to vary) above which produces the result that a disposal which would otherwise not be a taxable disposal is a taxable disposal;'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Schedule 4

  LANDFILL TAX
  Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 178, line 27, leave out
  'any records made in pursuance of the regulations to be preserved'
  and insert
  'registrable persons to preserve records of a prescribed description (whether or not the records are required to be made in pursuance of regulations)'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may take Government amendment No. 20.
  Ms Primarolo: Amendment No. 19 allows for the preservation of documents other than those required by the landfill tax regulations. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would explain exactly what documents he thinks require preservation and why. Amendment No. 20 limits the ability to recover overpaid tax to a period of six years from the date of the payment rather than six years from the date of the discovery of the overpayment, as is presently proposed in schedule 4, paragraph 14(5).
  The original legislation mirrored the equivalent VAT provision, and I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would explain why he has changed his mind and suggested, in amendment No. 20, different regulations for overpayments.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The purpose of amendment No. 19 is to provide for regulations to impose a requirement on registerable persons to make records and keep such records for up to six years. It further provides that the requirements in respect of records may be set out in a published notice.
  In preparing draft regulations on the preservation of records by landfill site operators, it came to light that paragraph 2 as it stands does not enable Customs and

  1181
  Excise to require the preservation of records that the operator has not been required to make under landfill tax regulations. That means that Customs and Excise cannot require someone to preserve documents that he has received or made in the normal course of business, such as waste transfer notes, invoices and the like.
  Customs and Excise has the power to require the preservation of such records for other taxes and duties, and it is necessary for it to be able to carry out assurance audits on the basis of infrequent visits to traders. Amendment No. 19 is therefore designed to allow Customs and Excise to require the preservation of all relevant records for landfill tax. The hon. Lady can see that that is fully in line with the provisions made for other similar taxes, and is necessary for the orderly administration of the tax.
  The hon. Lady also asked about amendment No. 20. As I said in Committee, I understand that under the Bill as presently drafted the only time limit for claims where a mistake has been made by the trader is that they must be made within six years of the date when the mistake was discovered. There is no limit, however, to how far back the claims can be made. That conflicts with the principle of legal certainty and there is no justification for it.
  The amendment will bring the provisions for repayment of overpaid tax into line with the six-year time limit in paragraph 33 for customs assessments for underpayments of tax. The obligations on the taxpayer and the obligations on Customs are therefore mirrored. I mentioned that in Committee, and the amendment brings that change into effect.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 185, line 19, leave out from 'paid' to end of line 25.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 202, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 and insert—

  '(a) material undergoes a landfill disposal,

  (b) a payment falls to be made under a disposal contract relating to the material, and

  (c) after the making of the contract there is a change in the tax chargeable on the landfill disposal.

  (2) In such a case the amount of any payment mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b) above shall be adjusted, unless the disposal contract otherwise provides, so as to reflect the tax chargeable on the landfill disposal.
  (3) For the purposes of this paragraph a disposal contract relating to material is a contract providing for the disposal of the material, and it is immaterial—

  (a) when the contract was made;

  (b) whether the contract also provides for other matters;

  (c) whether the contract provides for a method of disposal and (if it does) what method it provides for.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 23 and 21.
  4.15 pm
  Ms Primarolo: I particularly want to congratulate the Paymaster General on tabling amendment No. 22, which is the same as Opposition amendment No. 38, which we tabled in Committee. We are delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has reflected on the powerful arguments we put in Committee. Although he felt unable to be persuaded at that time, having had an opportunity to read
  1182
  the Hansard report of the Committee and discuss the matter with the Confederation of British Industry, which has also published a briefing to welcome the amendment, he has had time to reflect on the unreasonableness of the landfill provisions as originally drafted. The right hon. Gentleman has now accepted that, where contracts already exist, there can he an automatic adjustment to take account of the tax.
  We are pleased that on this occasion we have been able to assist the Government in improving the legislation. We only regret that they did not take more notice of more of our amendments.
  Mr. Tim Smith: My recollection is that contracts that were signed before 29 November 1994 were a matter of concern to the Building Employers Confederation. I would also like to welcome the amendments that my right hon. Friend has proposed.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) for her kind words and I reciprocate her compliments. It was necessary for us to consult widely outside the Committee before we tabled the amendment. I am happy that it satisfies all hon. Members as well as the trade bodies to which we talked.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 23, in page 202, line 33, at end insert—
  '45A.(1) This paragraph applies where—

  (a) work is carried out under a construction contract,

  (b) as a result of the work, material undergoes a landfill disposal,

  (c) the contract makes no provision as to the disposal of such material, and

  (d) the contract was made on or before 29th November 1994 (when the proposal to create tax was announced).

  (2) In such a case the amount of any payment which falls to be made—

  (a) under the construction contract, and

  (b) in respect of the work, shall be adjusted, unless the contract otherwise provides, so as to reflect the tax (if any) chargeable on the disposal.

  (3) For the purposes of this paragraph a construction contract is a contract under which all or any of the following work is to be carried out—

  (a) the preparation of a site;

  (b) demolition;

  (c) building;

  (d) civil engineering.'.

  No. 21, in page 202, line 36, leave out
  'rent payable in respect of land provides that the amount of the rent'
  and insert
  any sum payable in respect of the use of land (whether the sum is called rent or royalty or otherwise) provides that the amount of the sum'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Clause 74

  TAXATION OF LOAN RELATIONSHIPS
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 47, line 34, at end insert—
  '(6) In the case of a debt in respect of which only credits or debits relating to interest are required to be brought into account under the provisions of this Chapter, sub-section (5) above shall not prevent any other provision of the Corporation Tax Acts from applying in relation to amounts other than interest.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 32.
  No. 51, in schedule 8, page 218, line 12, after 'If', insert `(a)'.
  No. 52, in page 218, line 14, after 'accruing,', insert
  `and
  (b) credits representing the full amount of the interest are not for any accounting period brought into account for the purposes of this Chapter in respect of the corresponding creditor relationship,
  then'.
  No. 72, in page 225, line 4, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
  No. 71, in page 225. line 10, leave out the words
  ',or one of the main purposes,'.
  No. 53, in page 226, line 29, after `period', insert ("the relevant period")'.
  No. 54, in page 226, line 32, leave out from 'security' to end of line 35 and insert
  "is available to another company at any time in that period;

  (c) for that period there is a connection between the issuing company and the other company, and

  (d) credits representing the full amount of the discount that is referable to that period are not for any accounting period brought into account for the purposes of this Chapter in respect of the corresponding creditor relationship.'.

  No. 55, in page 226, line 38, leave out from 'that' to end of line 42 and insert
  'every debit relating to the amount of the discount that is referable to the relevant period is brought into account for the accounting period in which the security is redeemed, instead of for the relevant period.
  (2A) References in this paragraph to the amount of the discount that is referable to the relevant period are references to the amount relating to the difference between—

  (a) the issue price of the security, and

  (b) the amount payable on redemption, which (apart from this paragraph) would for the relevant period be brought into account for the purposes of this Chapter in the case of the issuing company.'.

  No. 56. in page 226, line 49, leave out 'at any time' and insert 'for the relevant period'.
  No. 57, in page 227, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'one' in line 2 and insert—
  '(a) there is a time in that period or in the period of two years before the beginning of that period when'.
  No. 58, in page 227, line 4, leave out
  `at that time, or at any time in those two years'
  and insert
  `there is a time in that period or in those two years when'.
  Government amendments Nos. 38, 59 and 40.
  Mr. O'Brien: This probing amendment is designed to clarify an issue regarding loan relationships. The changes in the Finance Bill to loan relationships will impact upon many companies throughout the country. In Committee there was considerable discussion about how great that impact would be. There were also a lot of amendments because of the need to clarify the Bill. It became clear that this was an enormously complex area of law, but the amendment focuses on one aspect that, in some ways, illustrates the overall problems that face businesses with loan relationships.
  We were reassured in Committee that although this was a complex area of law, it would not cause enormous difficulties to smaller businesses because the complexities of the matter would impact mainly on larger corporations which have accountants and specialists able to deal with it. I hope that that is the case, but we have seen-as the amendment again illustrates-that there are areas of ambiguity that even a specialist might find difficult. The legislation seems to have been rushed and is often confused, and we will probably have to tidy it up in the years to come—at which time, no doubt, it will be a Labour Government who will have to do it.
  Our proposal is specific. Clause 94 of the amended Bill deals, among other things, with perfectly ordinary trade debts that are interest-bearing. Such debts are within the loan relationships regime by virtue of that clause, in that the interest is brought into that regime. If the trade debts should turn out to be bad or doubtful, it appear—unfortunately—that no relief is available for the loss in respect of the debt itself. In contrast, relief is available in respect of the interest. It is at least arguable that clause 94(5) of the amended Bill will prevent the relief from being claimed as a trading deduction in the normal way for the bad debt.
  The question whether the interaction of clauses 94 and 97 denies a trader any relief on bad trade debts was raised in Committee, and the Minister gave some explanation. To avoid ambiguity, however, it would be helpful if she would explain in further detail exactly what the Government are proposing, and that is why we tabled the amendment.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is now Labour party policy to introduce statutory interest on the debts of companies? If so, would that be subject to this legislation? Would that not be an additional complication for small businesses?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important matter. I am not sure that it is directly applicable to the amendment, but as he has raised it—and as you have allowed the intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall try to deal with it. We have received many representations from small businesses whose debts have not been paid, causing considerable cash flow problems. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has such cases in his constituency, as I have in mine. When I go to visit small business men, I can almost guarantee that that issue will be raised, and I am sure that all hon. Members agree.
  The various small business organisations have tried for a number of years to find ways of resolving the problem, and there are currently divisions of opinion within the

  1185
  small business community as to how it can be dealt with. The Government have listened to some of the organisations, and the Opposition have often listened to the same ones. We have reached somewhat different conclusions about what is needed to deal with the problem, but we accept that it is enormously important.
  Labour is consulting on charging interest in relation to debts above a certain threshold, particularly in so far as it benefits small businesses. That is certainly something that has been requested in a much broader way by a number of small business organisations. I am not sure that we can meet all their requests. As I said, there have been conflicts even within the small business community about how to deal with the matter. It is certainly important that we tackle the issue, which is what we are trying to do, initially through consultation. We are flagging up some ideas and we hope to get a positive consensus from the business community so that we can resolve and deal with the issues. In due course, the Conservative party may well come on board on those ideas. It is important that, as far as possible, there is that consensus.
  I am conscious of the fact that one small business person's bad debt is another's extension of credit. So, when dealing with such issues, one has to be careful that in benefiting one small business one does not damage the other. That is why we are conscious that there must be a threshold—perhaps the size of the business or the debt—at which we would consider charging statutory interest. It has to be done with care and with the degree of consultation necessary.
  We are starting that process now. The Labour Front-Bench team has flagged up the issue and I know that the Government Front-Bench team has also been consulting small business. As far as possible, it is important that we take it out of the argy-bargy of political debate. If we can get that sort of consensus within the business community, it will be all the better for all of us.
  I am conscious, however, that other hon. Members will want to speak on amendment No. 68 and that they have various other proposals that they want to deal with during this short debate. Our amendment makes it clear that clauses 74 and 94 would deny relief for bad trade debts. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position and provide the reassurances that we seek. If so, we might be able to end the ambiguity and doubt, which does need clearing up, and we might not need to press the amendment, which is why I flagged that up.
  The Government's adherence to the Child Support Agency syndrome illustrates the problem that has faced us throughout the debate on loan relationships. The Government get a good idea—as I said in Committee, the concept of loan relationships is enormously important and there is a broad consensus of support on both sides of the House—but, as we have found so often, with self-assessment, for example, and with yesterday's amendment on taxes for transport and so forth, they fail to consult properly and rush it into legislation, thereby undermining the chances of it succeeding as well as it could.
  After we finished the Committee stage of the Bill, I received a letter from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which continues to have certain doubts about the way in which we dealt with loan relationships. We all accept that the Government and the Minister, within the time
  1186
  constraints that they allowed themselves, have tried to consult as much as possible. On behalf of the Opposition, I would certainly concede that.
  The difficulty that the Minister and the Treasury faced was the short period that they gave themselves in which to consult. That is what has led to the difficulties and ambiguities tackled by amendment No. 68 and why we will return to the matter in years to come. That is unfortunate. I would rather that we had slightly more time to consult properly and deal with the issues. Then we might have avoided having to table late amendments to try to resolve ambiguities.
  On last-minute amendments, the Government have tabled several amendments that are being taken as part of this group. Will the Economic Secretary set out exactly what each amendment proposes, so that we can be absolutely clear about it? I think that I understand what the Government are about with them, but they are there to tidy up the Bill and it is important that everything should be laid out plainly for everyone to read.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: I join the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) in welcoming and supporting the Government's change of heart in respect of the seven amendments that I have tabled. In the debate to be found between columns 629 and 632 of the Official Report of the Committee, I highlighted the lack of symmetry under existing legislation on relief for interest and on deep discount securities.
  My amendments relate to paragraphs 2 and 17 of schedule 8. They would cure any potential mismatches that would exist where interest is taxed as being receivable but the interest accrued by the borrower would not get relief. That is a most welcome step forward by the Government which will help many businesses with their tax affairs.
  Hon. Members who were in Committee will remember that, in column 631, I related the problems that joint venture lenders sometimes have. I referred to a particular case that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary was kind enough to say she would consider further. My amendments deal with mismatches but the House may well have to return to relief for joint venture lenders, especially as regards bad debt provisions.
  The amendments relating to paragraph 17 provide that, where deep discount securities exist, relief for the discount is not deferred in the hands of the borrower when it is brought into account in the hands of the lender under corporate debt rules. They are a worthwhile tidying-up of the legislation.
  Finally, I want to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister another matter relevant to schedule 8, which is the proposal of certain building societies to take advantage of the provisions of the Building Societies Act 1986 to convert themselves into public limited companies. It is vital that the new provisions on corporate debt that we are discussing create no impediment to or penalty for that process. I hope that she will be able to confirm that

  1187
  there should not be a tax problem on the transfer of the loan relationships of a building society on conversion to a limited company.
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: Amendment No. 71 would clarify the tax avoidance provisions in schedule 8. It would remove the broadening part of the schedule, the words
  "or one of the main purposes".
  That would remove the uncertainty in interpretation by disallowing tax relief only where the obtaining of that relief was the main purpose of the transaction. In other words, as it stands, the existing phrase could cover a wide range of activities—particularly when a company enters into an ordinary loan transaction but clearly no loan transaction has been entered into except in the circumstances where tax relief would he obtainable on the interest payable under that loan. According to a strict interpretation of the current wording, the Inland Revenue could disallow the tax relief on the interest.
  The Inland Revenue could have no such intention and no reason to use the wording of the schedule to achieve that end. However, the fact that the powers exist for it to do so is causing great uncertainty in both the business and the commercial worlds. The concerns that my amendment attempts to address were raised with me by the Confederation of British Industry. It has examined the impact of the schedule and is very concerned about its potential effect on its members.
  It is true that tax avoidance definitions can be drawn very widely, and it may be that the wording is drawn no more widely than existing tax avoidance provisions. However, because of the uncertainty that it creates, I suggest that the fact that it has been done before is not a particularly good reason to continue it this time. It is important that anti-avoidance legislation is clear, simple and capable of interpretation by commerce and industry with as much certainty as possible.
  I think that the measure fits in quite well with the tax simplification measures about which the Inland Revenue is consulting. I hope that, in a spirit of simplification, my hon. Friend will accept my amendment—or, at the very least, reassure me, business and commerce that the Inland Revenue does not intend to interpret the present wording of schedule 8 in such a broad way as to attack perfectly legitimate commercial transactions that, by their very nature, have a tax element.
  Mr. Douglas French: I shall speak to amendment No. 72 standing in my name which deletes sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 13 of schedule 8. This amendment also relates to loan relationships and it addresses a matter which is of particular concern to the leasing industry—indeed, it was raised with me by the Finance and Leasing Association and by a number of its member firms.
  As they stand, the sub-paragraphs introduce a tax anti-avoidance provision that is very broad and uncertain in its application. Sub-paragraph (5) uses, and subparagraph (6) defines, a tax advantage. The definition of "tax advantage" is borrowed from the Taxes Act 1988 and I submit that it is not applicable in this different context.
  1188
  When it is used in other places, it forms part of the rules that are designed to deal with dividend stripping and similar transactions in the securities industry. They are accepted as being broad and complex and, for that reason, provision is made for a pre-transaction clearance procedure and for a special appellate body—the tribunal—which is set up to hear appeals from the special commissioners by way of a rehearing before the normal appeal by way of a case stated to the High Court. That is thought necessary in the context of the securities industry, but the Finance Bill makes no similar safeguards in the context of the leasing industry.
  Sub-paragraph (4) prohibits an interest deduction if
  "the main purpose, or one of the main purposes"
  of the loan or related transaction is the securing of a tax advantage as defined. This creates uncertainty, because it is very difficult to define a "main" purpose. If it is so difficult to define "main" purpose and no clearance procedure is provided for in the rest of the Bill, it is certain to inhibit the type of loan transactions in which members of the Finance and Leasing Association become involved.
  The subsection also covers a tax advantage obtained by any person—not only one of the parties to the loan relationship or related transaction.
  Although a lease is considered not to be a loan relationship in the definition contained in clause 75, there is frequently a loan relationship between a leasing company's parent and the leasing company to enable the lease to be financed. For example, a bank will provide finance to its leasing company to purchase assets to be leased.
  The industry fears that, as one of the purposes of a lease is to make best use of capital allowances, interest on the parent company loan might be refused as a deduction to the leasing company on tax avoidance grounds.
  To put it another way, under the subsections it can be argued that the purpose of the loan relationship is partly to enable the leasing company to claim capital allowances. The benefit of the capital allowances passes, by way of reduced charges, to the business that makes use of the equipment. The obtaining of the allowances for the benefit of the end user might be regarded as one of the "main purposes- of the loan relationship. If that were so, the leasing company would be denied a tax deduction in respect of the interest payments made to its parent.
  That is not the end of the matter. If these paragraphs were enacted, banks and leasing companies would undoubtedly endeavour to protect themselves against such a possibility by including tax warranties and an indemnity in the contract with the end user. In that way, the economic burden of these anti-avoidance provisions would be borne by bona fide businesses doing their best for the British economy and with no direct connection with, and possibly no knowledge of, the basis of the original loan relationship. That cannot be intended.
  This is a matter of very deep concern to the leasing industry, which is too important an industry to have its legitimate activities curtailed because a clause is capable of being prayed in aid to such potentially damaging effect.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he raises an interesting and important point. Will he tell us a little more about what consultation

  1189
  was undertaken by the Government about these important matters with the leasing industry, and about the results of that consultation?
  Mr. French: My contribution is based on discussions that I had personally with the director general of the Finance and Leasing Association, with his tax adviser, and with other leasing companies, including Lloyds Leasing, and RoyScot in Cheltenham near my constituency. They all use the same argument, and I am convinced that there is great merit in it. They tell me that representations have been made, as they are in the usual course of any Finance Bill, to the Treasury and to the Inland Revenue, and they are therefore very hopeful that some of the points that I am articulating on their behalf will be well received and that some response will be forthcoming from the Minister.
  Mr. Carrington: I think my hon. Friend is making a point similar to the one that I made before, but in the specific context of the leasing industry. The difficulty, as I understand it, is that the Inland Revenue has been in the habit of having its anti-avoidance provision drawn very broadly and then not applying it except when it believed that there was a genuine abuse. The point that my hon. Friend and I are making is that, in simplifying the tax regime, it would be better if the Inland Revenue were more specific about the type of avoidance it is attacking rather than taking general powers to itself.
  Mr. French: I accept that point. The leasing industry does not wish to be exposed to the risk of actions being brought against it purely because the sub-paragraphs are couched as broadly as they are. The industry would prefer a more precise definition so that, in undertaking any transactions, it can be certain that it is complying with the law as it stands—as it would wish to do—and does not have to inhibit its business on the outside chance that something it does may be interpreted, possibly on a maverick basis, unexpectedly by the Inland Revenue as contravening the Finance Bill.
  4.45 pm
  The leasing industry is an important industry, and the importance of ensuring that it has a satisfactory tax regime should not be underestimated, especially in view of the important role that the leasing industry increasingly plays in the private finance initiative. This is a matter of great importance to most members of the Finance and Leasing Association.
  I hope that, in her reply, the Minister will recognise the important role played by leasing firms and acknowledge that the need to ensure that there is no tax avoidance should be balanced with the need to ensure that legislation is not drafted so broadly that it unnecessarily inhibits legitimate business activity.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) say, because they are both worried about the broad way in which the anti-avoidance provisions are drawn.
  I raised that matter in Committee. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave it some attention, and I am hopeful that she might be able to say something reassuring on the record in due course.
  1190
  The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) complained that several Government amendments had been introduced at very short notice—indeed, on Monday. I notice that his amendment was also tabled on Monday, so we had no advantage over the Opposition.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I shall try to answer the points that have been made to me.
  I start with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). He should keep in mind the three basic principles that I repeated in Committee several times—that the tax should recognise all debits and credits, calculated according to recognised accounting methods, and the figures should follow those produced in the accounts wherever they are acceptable. That covers the points that he made.
  Subsection (5) of what is now clause 74 is intended to give reassurance that, if a loan relationship is fully within the new rules, these are comprehensive and cover all aspects of that loan relationship, but clearly, where only the interest element of the loan relationship or interest on a debt that is not a loan relationship is within the new rules, those rules can apply only to that interest. Any other elements of the debt, such as capital gains or losses, are automatically dealt with under the appropriate separate legislation.
  The point that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire made related to interest on late payment of a trade debt. Supposing that a company sold some widgets to another company for which the second company had not paid and interest was charged on that debt as a trade debt, the interest would be dealt with under the chapter II regime; the trade debt would be dealt with as a trade debt as it is at the moment. That is the principle behind current legislation; that is the principle that will be followed with the chapter II rules. Indeed, it fits in with what is now clause 94. The existing rules include all forms of interest, however they arise; the new rules cover only interest arising on loan relationships. Clause 94 sweeps up other interest not arising from loan relationships, such as interest on compensation awards and on overdue trade debts.
  One of the difficulties with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is that it creates ambiguity. I accept that he is trying to put clarity into the situation, but the amendment would create an ambiguity. For example, there are many true loan relationships that are and should be fully within the new rules, whereas in practice the only debits and credits that are required to be brought into account under the new rules relate to interest. Most straightforward loans from a bank are likely to fall into this category.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the vast majority of companies in this country have straightforward loans from banks. Therefore, they already account on an accruals basis, they are already taxed on an accruals basis and they fall within this legislation—they do not have to make any changes because the methods by which they already account and are taxed are fully covered. If he were to press his amendment and if it were part of the legislation, it would create a picture of companies shopping around old and new legislation.
  I suggest to him that the first thing that would happen is that a couple of lawyers would look at the legislation and say that the points in his amendment were covered by

  1191
  the clause before it was amended. They would seek to see why we had put a legal tautology into the Bill, and that would result in us opening up an ambiguous situation that is currently covered. The way in which it has been set out in the clause as it stands is not unusual, has not attracted much attention and better sets out the position that we are trying to ensure by this chapter and by these rules. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to push his amendment any further.
  I turn now to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg)—that is, amendments Nos. 51 to 58. He made many of these points in Committee and, on reflection, I believe that what he proposes is correct. His amendments refer to anti-avoidance measures in schedule 8, and the part of the schedule to which the amendments refer is tax relief on interest on loans between connected companies.
  In effect, my hon. Friend is seeking to change the rules as they are set out in the schedule to cover what is perhaps commercial reality. He is seeking to ensure that where two companies are connected, they are accounting on an accruals basis, with only the odd exception. The lender company A is being taxed on the interest that it is accounting as receiving, even though it has not received it. I believe that my hon. Friend's amendments—both in relation to interest and the other more complicated set of amendments—are acceptable. I urge my hon. Friends to agree with the amendments.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am interested in the fact that the Minister is accepting the amendments proposed by her hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and I entirely accept that. Did the Inland Revenue have any part in drafting the amendments? Did it approve them? The suspicion might arise in the minds of some more suspicious than I that these were Government amendments that Ministers felt—because of the level of embarrassment with these things over loan relationships—they might prefer in a Back Bencher's name. However, I am sure that that is not so.
  Mrs. Knight: This was discussed at some length in Committee and I then discussed it further with my hon. Friend. I felt that he put a good case in Committee. We have ensured that the amendments that have been drafted are legally correct—that is a perfectly sensible route to take. My hon. Friend highlighted these points in Committee and showed what could be the commercial consequence if we retained the tighter anti-avoidance provisions for companies that come within the chapter 2 provisions, and there could be some difficulties.
  As I have said so many times during the course of the Bill, where a good case is put to us—by whomever it might be—we would be remiss if we did not accept it as being good and accurate, and did not accept the amendments accordingly or, as I have done, place them where we felt it was right to do so. My hon. Friend made a point about joint venture lenders. As I said to him earlier, we believe that the provisions will work satisfactorily.
  My hon. Friend also raised the issue of building societies and their concern when they were converting to public companies. I assure my hon. Friend that Inland
  1192
  Revenue officials and I are aware of the building societies' concerns and are in correspondence with their representatives regarding conversions and takeovers. Our current understanding of the position is that there should not be a problem. It appears that the relevant transactions can be structured so as to avoid any difficulties. Although we cannot give reassurances about hypothetical situations, if real problems emerge in the future we will be happy to consider them. I hope that my hon. Friend finds that response satisfactory.
  The next points were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Gloucester (Mr. French). I hope that they do not mind me saying that their points are variations on the same theme. The Government are aware of concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friends and by others regarding the particular anti-avoidance provisions in paragraph 13. This paragraph was amended significantly in Standing Committee but, because of the concerns that my hon. Friends and others have raised, I take the opportunity to allay some of the fears that have been expressed about the anti-avoidance rules.
  Paragraph 13 of the schedule disallows tax deductions to the extent that tax avoidance is the main motive behind a loan relationship. We have been told of concerns that this could be interpreted as preventing companies from getting tax relief for legitimate financing arrangements. I am happy to offer a reassurance that this is not the intention of the legislation. The paragraph denies tax deductions on loans that are for the purpose of activities outside the charge to corporation tax. Among other things, this will ensure that United Kingdom branches of overseas companies do not get tax relief for borrowings that are for overseas activities outside the United Kingdom tax net.
  We have been asked whether financing—which, for example, is to acquire shares in companies, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, or is to pay dividends—would be affected by the paragraph. In general terms, the answer is no, but the paragraph might bite if the financing were structured in an artificial way.
  It has been suggested that structuring a company's legitimate activities to attract a tax relief could bring financing within this paragraph—some have gone so far as to suggest that the paragraph might deny any tax deduction for borrowing costs. These suggestions are clearly nonsense. A large part of what the new rules are about is ensuring that companies get tax relief for the cost of their borrowing.
  One specific point has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester—that is, borrowing by a finance leasing company to acquire assets where this is more tax efficient than the lessee investing in the assets direct. Again, I am happy to offer a reassurance. Where a company is choosing between different ways of arranging its commercial affairs, it is acceptable for it to choose the course that gives a favourable tax outcome. Where paragraph 13 will come into play is where tax avoidance is the object, or one of the main objects, of the exercise.
  Companies that enter into schemes with the primary aim of avoiding tax will inevitable be aware of that. The transactions we are aiming at are not ones which companies stumble into inadvertently. As one top tax adviser said recently, companies will know when they are into serious tax avoidance; apart from anything else, they are likely to be paying fat fees for clever tax advice and there will commonly be wads of documentation.

  1193
  The last thing I want to do, however, is set out a list of so-called acceptable or unacceptable activities. Borrowing for commercial purposes can be structured in a highly artificial way in order to avoid tax. If we said that borrowing for certain types of activity would always be okay, tax advisers would quickly take advantage and devise artificial financial arrangements simply to avoid tax. Provided that companies are funding commercial activities or investments in a commercial way, they should have nothing to fear. If they opt for artificial, tax-driven arrangements, they may find themselves caught.
  It is clear that a balance must be struck between meeting the concerns that have been raised and weakening the provision in those instances where it needs to apply, but I can assure my hon. Friends that we shall keep the matter under review.
  5 pm
  I now turn briefly to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 32 would make a minor change to the provision for debt contracts and options. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire wanted an explanation. Let me give him a brief explanation of the amendment, which results from a drafting error.
  Without the amendment, payments relating to contracts constructed by reference to hypothetical loan relationships could not be taken into account under the rules for derivative transactions.
  Amendments Nos. 38, 59 and 40 address another issue altogether—double tax relief. The basic rule has always been that double tax relief is given in proportion to the amount of foreign interest that accrues to the company concerned. The new rules for corporate debt do not change that principle, but a number of minor and consequential amendments have been needed, including a specific provision preserving the position of non-traders under the new rules.
  The amendments would enable regulations to extend to trading companies the application of the provision granting double taxation relief to non-traders. Using regulation to do that will facilitate consultation with those affected in the financial markets, so that the different authorised accounting methods available can be taken into account. It will also enable any necessary safeguards against loss of tax to be built in. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds those explanations satisfactory.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The amendments appear to give the Treasury the power to make regulations to extend to general insurance the rules applying to life assurance companies. Amendment No. 59 can be criticised in that it does not state sufficiently precisely what the regulations will do. Can the Minister tell us precisely what powers to regulate are being taken and what the regulations are intended to do?
  Mrs. Knight: The regulations are intended to ensure that double tax relief is available to financial traders. I cannot specify precisely how they will be formulated because we need to discuss the matter with the financial traders and those involved. There is a requirement to get it right. We intend to ensure that tax relief is available and to do so in the right way.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about insurance. The reason that insurance is mentioned—and there is a special mention of insurance credits—is that insurance is one of
  1194
  those particular industries that always has a separate mention, as he will recall from the Bill. For non-insurance companies, all overseas interest on which relief for overseas tax might be due is either a trading credit or a non-trading credit. As so often happens, there are special twists for insurance companies.
  Certain non-trading credits are not covered by the existing rules for such credits in section 807(A)(3) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The amendments make sure that such insurance credits may also be the subject of regulations. Again we want to discuss the matter with the industry to establish exactly what rules are required so that we can be sure of getting them right. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the explanation he wanted.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had an interesting and informative debate. I share many of the concerns so well expressed by Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) about—as the hon. Gentleman for Gloucester put it—the need not to draw anti-avoidance provisions so broadly that they interfere with legitimate business dealings. That is a good lesson for us all. It also builds on the important proposals for simplification made last year by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith).
  Tax legislation should be as clear as possible, and concerns were rightly expressed about the lack of clarity and the difficulties that that can create. In many ways, today's debate has demonstrated the best side of the House of Commons in that we sought to clarify ambiguities and get the legislation right. I am pleased that the Minister has adopted a positive attitude to the concerns of Conservative Back Benchers and the Opposition.
  I understand what the Minister said about amendment No. 68. By and large, I accept that there may be a problem in pursuing the amendment and at the end of my remarks I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw it.
  Government amendments Nos. 38, 59 and 40—particularly amendment No. 59—demonstrate the price of rushing through measures without proper and full consultation. As has already been flagged up in the debate, it is important that we get tax legislation right and that there is full consultation with the various groups concerned.
  The amendments demonstrate the price to be paid if that full consultation period is not allowed. The Government must now insert into the Finance Bill the ability to make regulations, the detail of which they have not yet worked out so they need to consult further. I accept the Minister's promise that such consultation will take place. I also accept that there is no prospect of further delay in loan relationships legislation, so the best way of proceeding is probably to put into law a provision allowing the Government to make regulations after full consultation has taken place, so that we can clear up these matters.
  Giving the Government powers to make regulations is not the best way to address these issues, but in the circumstances, it is perhaps understandable. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 95
  FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 67, line 41, at end insert 'or (6)'.—[Mrs. Angela Knight.]
Clause 156

  LIMITS ON RELIEF FOR EXPENSES
  Amendment proposed: No. 33, in page 113, line 41, after `1996,' insert—
  `(iia) any amount which in pursuance of a claim under paragraph 4(3) of that Schedule is carried back to that period and (in accordance with paragraph 4(5) of that Schedule) applied in reducing profits of the company for that period,'.—[Mrs. Angela Knight.]
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I was wondering whether the Economic Secretary might say a little more. Rather than formally proposing the amendment, will she tell us why the Government have chosen that particular form of words. Are we now dealing with amendment No. 33?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): I thought that we were still on the amendments grouped with amendment Nos. 68 and 32. We have not yet decided them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are on amendment No. 33.
  Mr. Darling: I can understand the Financial Secretary's confusion: sometimes procedure is a great mystery, even to those of us who have served on Finance Committees for many years. When I rose to my feet to remonstrate with the Economic Secretary, who attempted to get amendment No. 33 agreed to formally, I said that I thought it might be helpful if the Government set out what the amendment is meant to achieve. If the Financial Secretary, who has now found the relevant briefing note, could tell us what the amendment is designed to do, I should be profoundly grateful.
  Mr. Jack: The amendment is a straightforward and simple addition to what was added subsequently to clause 156 in Committee. The subsequent legislation allowed insurance companies carry-back facilities in respect of loan relationships. This amendment inserts that into the taxation procedures of life insurance companies.
  Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Minister. I know that we had an agreement to allow some amendments to pass formally, but this one gave rise to a query on the part of those advising us. It is helpful when Ministers set out what amendments are meant to achieve.
  I did not mean to embarrass the Financial Secretary. If I succeeded in doing so, I apologise.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 34, in page 114, line 27, after `(5)' insert
  `Subject to paragraph 4(10A) to (10C) of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 1996,'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 174

  BUSINESS PROPERTY RELIEF
  Amendment proposed: No. 60, in page 137, line 28, at end insert—
  `( ) In section 107(4) (replacement of property with unquoted shares), for the words from the beginning to "such shares" there shall be substituted—
  "(4) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, where any shares falling within section 105(1)(bb) above which are".'.—[Mr. Jack.]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I picked up the Government's press release on this matter. Paragraph 4 states:
  "Due to a technical defect, the current proposals in the Bill would have had the effect of withdrawing the replacement facility now available to controlling holdings. This was not the intention. Under the amendments both the existing facilities will be made available to all unquoted holdings regardless of their size."
  I do not want to be churlish, but our general complaint throughout proceedings on the Bill has concerned the facts that the Government have had to submit amendments at the last moment, and that there have been problems to do with technical drafting, with lack of consultation, and with various failures on the part of the Government's system to get the Bill right.
  There seems to be too much rush in the Government's approach. This will probably be my last opportunity to raise that concern, but it is valid, and the Government must take account of it. If they have to introduce another Finance Bill, I hope that they will acknowledge the anxieties that we have expressed throughout consideration of the Bill—through loan relationships, self-assessment and various aspects of inheritance tax.
  I accept that technical defects will always come to light once a Bill has been published. We would hope that they would be as few as possible. In this case, there have been far too many mistakes. It is clear that the Government are not properly using the time running up to the Budget to work out precisely what they are doing. It is incumbent on Ministers to assure the House, even though they may not accept all our criticisms, that they understand our concern when Bills are brought before the House and are then subjected to last-minute, multiple amendments.
  The omission under consideration, corrected by an amendment designed to reinstate a relief that was inadvertently omitted from clause 174, is a good case in point. I hope that the Minister will assure us that what I have said will be remembered. I offer those remarks in a helpful spirit, not to make a party political point. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that things will be done a bit better next time.
  Mr. Jack: To err occasionally is a human failing, but Report stage offers us the opportunity to put human failings right. We have duly taken advantage of that on this occasion. I am always the first to apologise if anyone has made a mistake, because I make mistakes and I realise that I am a human being with that frailty.
  The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. It is not a question of having made a mistake; it is just that, when drafting the clause, we based the whole test of what is a qualifying asset for the business property relief on one of two two-year tests. Having

  1197
  realised that we had restricted the basis on which assets can qualify for this 100 per cent. relief, as defined in clause 174, we sought not just to return to the status quo ante but to go a stage further, to enable those affected by the clause to have two two-year tests. So, we have improved the legislation. I take what the hon. Gentleman said in the spirit in which he delivered his remarks. While even we Conservatives remain human beings, we shall do our best to try to get it right in future.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 192

  MODIFICATION OF THE AGRICULTURE ACT 1993
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 155, line 47, at end insert—
  '(4A) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Agriculture Act 1993 (tax continuity with successor bodies) shall have effect, and be deemed to have had effect, in relation to any relevant transfer after 31st December 1995 to a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 of—

  (a) a trade, or part of a trade, of a milk marketing board, or

  (b) any property, rights or liabilities of such a board,

  as it has effect in relation to any transfer under section 11 of that Act to a qualifying body.'.
  No. 8, in page 156, line 6, leave out from first 'of' to `is' in line 7 and insert
  `subsections (4A) and (5) above a transfer of anything to a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965'.
  No. 9, in page 156, line 10, leave out 'the board' and insert 'a milk marketing board'.
  No. 10, in page 156, line 16, leave out from 'transfer' to end of line 18.—[Mr. Jack.]
  Amendments made: No. 50, a new schedule—
  Mixing of rebated oil—
  The following is the Schedule which shall be inserted after Schedule 2 to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979—

SCHEDULE 2A
  MIXING OF REBATED OIL

    PART I
    Power to create exceptions
    3. The Commissioners may give a direction that, in such description of circumstances as may be specified in the direction, a mixture is not produced in contravention of paragraph 1 above or (as the case may be) paragraph 2 above.

    PART I

      LIGHT OIL
      Converting unleaded petrol into leaded petrol
      1.—(1) A mixture which is leaded petrol is produced in contravention of this paragraph if such a mixture is produced by—

      (a) adding lead to unleaded petrol in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under subsection (1) of section 13A(1) of this Act at the rate given by subsection (1A)(a) of that section;

      (b) adding lead to unleaded petrol in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under subsection (1) of that section at the rate given by subsection (1A)(b) of that section; or

      (c) adding lead to a mixture of unleaded petrol of a description mentioned in paragraph (a) above and unleaded petrol of a description mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

      (2) In sub—paragraph (1) above the reference to adding lead to unleaded petrol includes a reference to adding leaded petrol to unleaded petrol.
      (3) This paragraph is subject to any direction given under paragraph 3 below.
      Adding octane enhancers to low octane unleaded petrol
      2.—(1) A mixture which is super-unleaded petrol is produced in contravention of this paragraph if such a mixture is produced by adding an octane enhancer to unleaded petrol in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under subsection (1) of section 13A of this Act at the rate given by subsection (1A)(b) of that section.
      (2) For the purposes of sub—paragraph (1) above 'super—unleaded petrol' means unleaded petrol—

      (a) whose research octane number is not less than 96; and

      (b) whose motor octane number is not less than 86.

      (3) Subsection (1C) of section 13A applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that section.
      (4) This paragraph is subject to any direction given under paragraph 3 below.

PART II

  HEAVY OIL
  Mixing partially rebated heavy oil with unrebated heavy oil
  4. A mixture of heavy oils is produced in contravention of this paragraph if such a mixture is produced by mixing—

  (a) gas oil in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under section 11(1)(b) of this Act; and

  (b) heavy oil in respect of which, on its delivery for home use, a declaration was made that it was intended for use as fuel for a road vehicle.

  Mixing fully rebated heavy oil with unrebated heavy oil
  5. A mixture of heavy oils is produced in contravention of this paragraph if such a mixture is produced by mixing—

  (a) heavy oil which is neither fuel oil nor gas oil and in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under section 11(1)(c) of this Act; and

  (b) heavy oil in respect of which, on its delivery for home use, a declaration was made that it was intended for use as fuel for a road vehicle.

  Mixing fully rebated heavy oil with partially rebated heavy oil
  6. A mixture of heavy oils is produced in contravention of this paragraph if such a mixture is produced by mixing—

  (a) heavy oil which is neither fuel oil nor gas oil and in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under section 11(1)(c) of this Act; and

  (b) gas oil in respect of which a rebate has been allowed under section 11(1)(b) of this Act with heavy oil.

  Complex mixtures of heavy oils
  7. A mixture of heavy oils is produced in contravention of this paragraph if such a mixture is produced in contravention of more than one paragraph of paragraphs 4 to 6 above.

PART III

  RATES OF DUTY, ETC.
  Rate for mixtures of light oil
  8.—(1) Subject to paragraph 10 below, duty under section 20AAA(1) of this Act shall be charged at the following rates.
  (2) In the case of a mixture produced in contravention of paragraph 1 above, the rate is the rate for light oil in force at the time that the mixture is produced.
  (3) In the case of a mixture produced in contravention of paragraph 2 above, the rate is the rate produced by deducting from the rate for light oil in force at the time the mixture is produced the rate of rebate which at that time is in force under section 13A(1A)(a) of this Act.
  (4) In this paragraph 'the rate for light oil' means the rate given in the case of light oil by section 6(1) of this Act.
  Rate for mixtures of heavy oil
  9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 10 below, duty charged under subsection (2) of section 20AAA of this Act shall be charged at the rate for heavy oil in force at the time when the mixture is supplied as mentioned in that subsection.
  (2) In this paragraph 'the rate for heavy oil' means the rate given in the case of heavy oil by section 6(1) of this Act.
  Credit for duty paid on ingredients of mixture
  10. Where duty is charged under section 20AAA of this Act in respect of any mixture, the amount of duty produced by applying paragraph 8 or 9 above shall be reduced by the amount of any duty under section 6 of this Act which the Commissioners are satisfied has been paid in respect of any ingredient of the mixture.
  Interpretation
  11. In this Schedule—
  `fuel oil' and 'gas oil' have the same meanings as in section 11 of this Act;
  `leaded petrol' and 'unleaded petrol' shall be construed in accordance with section 13A of this Act."'— [Mr. Jack.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  No. 65, a new schedule—
  Life assurance business losses—
  Expenses of management
  1. In section 76 of the Taxes Act 1988 (expenses of management: insurance companies) in subsection (1) (which applies section 75 of that Act with specified exceptions) before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—

  "(aa) where the whole or any part of a loss arising to the company in respect of its life assurance business in an accounting period is set off under section 393A or 403(1), there shall be deducted from the amount treated as the expenses of management for that period an amount equal to so much of the loss as, in the aggregate, is so set off, reduced by the amounts by which any losses for that period under section 436. 439B or 441 fall to be reduced under section 434A(2)(b); and

  (ab) section 75(1) shall have effect with the substitution for "in computing profits apart from this section" of—

  "(a) in computing income for the purposes of
  Schedule A, or

  (b) by virtue of section 121(3) in computing income from the letting of rights to work minerals in the United Kingdom"; and".

  Computation of losses and limitation on relief
  2.—(1) In relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 1st January 1996 and ending after 31st March 1996, section 434A of the Taxes Act 1988 (life assurance business: computation of losses and limitation on relief) shall be amended as follows—

  (a) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the subsection (2) set out in sub—paragraph (2) below; and

  (b) in subsection (2A) (which is inserted by paragraph 23(2) of Schedule 13 to this Act) for "(2)(c)" there shall be substituted "(2)(a)(ii)".

  (2) The subsection (2) set out in this sub—paragraph is as follows—
  "(2) Where for any accounting period the loss arising to an insurance company from its life assurance business falls to be computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act applicable to Case I of Schedule D—

  (a) the loss resulting from the computation shall be reduced (but not below nil) by the aggregate of—

  1200

  (i) the aggregate amount treated as a charge on income in computing for the period, otherwise than in accordance with those provisions, the profits or losses of the company's life assurance business; and

  (ii) any relevant non—trading deficit for that period on the company's debtor relationships; and

  (b) if the whole or any part of that loss as so reduced is set off—

  (i) under section 393A, or

  (ii) under section 403(1),

  any losses for that period under section 436, 439B or 441 shall be reduced to nil, unless the aggregate of those losses exceeds the total of the amounts set off as mentioned in sub—paragraphs (i) and (ii) above, in which case each of those losses shall be reduced by an amount which bears to that total the proportion which the loss in question bears to that aggregate."
  (3) In relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 1st January 1996 and ending on or before 31st March 1996. for subsection (2) of section 434A of the Taxes Act 1988 there shall be substituted the subsection (2) set out in sub—paragraph (2) above, but with the following amendments to paragraph (a), that is to say—

  (a) in the words preceding sub—paragraph (i), the words "the aggregate of shall be omitted;

  (b) in sub—paragraph (i), for "aggregate amount treated as a charge on income" there shall be substituted "amount of interest and annuities treated as charges on income"; and

  (c) sub—paragraph (ii) shall be omitted.

  Spreading of relief for acquisition expenses
  3.—(1) In section 86 of the Finance Act 1989 (spreading of relief for acquisition expenses) in subsection (1), for the words from "less any such repayments" to the end there shall be substituted—
  "reduced by the items specified in subsection (IA) below."
  (2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) Those items are—

  (a) the appropriate portion of any deduction falling to be made under paragraph (aa) of subsection (1) of section 76 of the Taxes Act 1988 for the period in question;

  (b) any such repayments or refunds falling within paragraph (c) of that subsection as are received in that period;

  (c) any reinsurance commissions falling within paragraph (ca) of that subsection. (1B) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1A) above, "the appropriate portion" of the deduction there mentioned is the amount which bears to the whole of that deduction the proportion which the acquisition expenses, without making the reduction required by subsection (1) above, would bear to the whole of the expenses of management, without making the deductions required by paragraphs (aa), (a), (c) and (ca) of section 76(1) of the Taxes Act 1988."

  Ascertainment of losses
  4. In section 83 of the Finance Act 1989 (receipts to be brought into account) for subsection (3) (ascertainment of losses) there shall be substituted—
  "(3) In ascertaining whether or to what extent a company has incurred a loss in respect of that business in a case where an amount is added to the company's long term business fund as part of or in connection with—

  (a) a transfer of business to the company, or

  (b) a demutualisation of the company not involving a transfer of business,

  that amount shall (subject to subsection (4) below) be taken into account, for the period for which it is brought into account, as an increase in value of the assets of that fund within subsection (2)(b) above.
  (4) Subsection (3) above does not apply where, or to the extent that, the amount concerned—

  (a) would fall to be taken into account as a receipt apart from this section,

  (b) is taken into account under subsection (2) above otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) above, or

  (c) is specifically exempted from tax.

  (5) Any amount which is to be taken into account pursuant to subsection (3) above for a period of account shall be so taken into account—

  (a) after the making of any reduction under subsection (6) of section 83AA below in relation to that period, but

  (b) before the making of any reduction under subsection (3) of that section in relation to an accounting period of the company ending in or with that period.

  (6) In subsection (3) above "transfer of business" means—

  (a) a transfer of the whole or part of the long term business of an insurance company in accordance with a scheme sanctioned by a court under Part I of Schedule 2C to the Insurance Companies Act 1982;

  (b) a qualifying overseas transfer, within the meaning of paragraph 4A of Schedule 19AC to the Taxes Act 1988; or

  (c) the making of a contract of reinsurance which, in whole or in part, constitutes or forms part of a total reinsurance by the reinsured, unless the reinsurer under the contract falls within section 439A of the Taxes Act 1988 (pure reinsurance).

  (7) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above, a transfer of business falling within subsection (6)(c) above shall be treated as a transfer of business to the company which is the reinsurer under the contract of reinsurance.
  (8) In this section—

  "add", in relation to an amount and a company's long term business fund, includes transfer (whether from other assets of the company or otherwise);

  "demutualisation" means the conversion, under the law of any territory, of a company which has been carrying on insurance business without having a share capital into a company with a share capital, without any change of legal personality;

  "total reinsurance" means the reinsurance (whether effected by a single contract of reinsurance or by two or more such contracts, taken together, whether or not made with the same reinsurer) of the whole, or substantially the whole, of the reinsured's risk—

  (a) under policies of a particular description issued in respect of insurances made in the course of carrying on life assurance business before the making of the contract of reinsurance (or, in a case where there are two or more contracts of reinsurance, the last of them); or

  (b) under contracts of a particular description so made."

  Application of surplus in reduction of certain losses
  5. After section 83 of the Finance Act 1989 there shall be inserted—
  "Amounts added to long term business fund of a company in excess of that company's loss
  83AA.—(1) If one or more relevant amounts are brought into account for a period of account of a company and either—

  (a) the aggregate of those amounts exceeds the loss which, after the making of any reduction under subsection (6) below but before any application of section 83(3) above in relation to that period, would have arisen to the company in that period in respect of its life assurance business, or

  1202

  (b) no such loss would have so arisen, the surplus for that period shall be applied in accordance with the following provisions of this section and section 83AB below.

  (2) In this section—
  "relevant amount" means so much of any amount which is added to the long term business fund of a company as mentioned in subsection (3) of section 83 above as does not fail within any of the paragraphs of subsection (4) of that section;
  "surplus", in relation to a period of account of a company, means (subject to section 83AB(2) below)—

  (a) if the aggregate of the relevant amounts brought into account for that period exceeds the amount of any loss which, after the making of any reduction under subsection (6) below but before any application of section 83(3) above in relation to that period, would have arisen to the company in that period in respect of its life assurance business, the amount of the excess; or

  (b) if no such loss would have so arisen, the aggregate of the relevant amounts brought into account for that period.

  (3) Where, apart from section 83AB(2) below, there is a surplus for a period of account of a company for which there are brought into account one or more relevant amounts which were added to the company's long term business fund as part of, or in connection with, a particular transfer of business, the appropriate portion of the surplus for that period shall be treated as reducing (but not below nil) so much of any loss arising to the transferor company in the relevant accounting period as, on a just and reasonable apportionment of the loss, is referable to the business which is the subject of that particular transfer.
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the appropriate portion of the surplus for a period of account of a company is, in the case of any particular transfer of business, the amount which bears to that surplus (apart from any additions by virtue of section 83AB(2) below) the proportion which A bears to B, where—

  A is the aggregate of such of the relevant amounts added to the company's long term business fund as part of, or in connection with, that particular transfer of business as are brought into account for that period, and

  B is the aggregate of the relevant amounts brought into account for that period.

  (5) Any reduction pursuant to subsection (3) above of the loss arising to the transferor company in the relevant accounting period shall be made after—

  (a) the making of any reduction under subsection (6) below, and

  (b) any application of section 83(3) above, in relation to the period of account of that company in which falls the date of the particular transfer of business in question.

  (6) Any loss arising to a company in respect of its life assurance business in a period of account subsequent to one for which there is a surplus shall be reduced (but not below nil) by so much of that surplus as cannot be applied—

  (a) under subsection (3) above;

  (b) under this subsection, in the reduction of a loss arising to the company in an earlier period of account; or

  (c) under section 83AB below, in relation to a transfer of business from the company in that or any earlier period of account.

  (7) Any reduction pursuant to subsection (6) above of a loss arising to a company in a period of account shall be made—

  (a) before any application of section 83(3) above in relation to that period, and

  (b) if the company is also the transferor company in relation to a particular transfer of business, before the making of any reduction under subsection (3) above in

  1203
  relation to that one of its accounting periods which is the relevant accounting period in relation to that transfer.

  (8) A surplus in respect of an earlier period of account shall be applied under subsection (6) above before a surplus in respect of a later period of account.
  (9) All such adjustments to the liability to tax of any person shall be made, whether by assessment or otherwise, as may be required to give effect to this section.
  (10) In this section—
  "add" has the same meaning as in section 83 above;
  "the relevant accounting period" means the accounting period of the transferor company which—

  (a) ends on the date of the transfer of business mentioned in subsection (3) above, or

  (b) if that transfer of business falls within section 83(6)(c) above and no accounting period of the transferor company ends on that date, ends next after that date;

  "transfer of business" has the same meaning as in section 83(3) above;
  "the transferor company" means the company from which the transfer of business mentioned in subsection (3) above is effected.
  (11) A transfer of business falling within section 83(6)(c) above shall be treated for the purposes of this section as a transfer of business from the company which is the reinsured under the contract of reinsurance.
  Treatment of surplus where there is a subsequent transfer of business from the company etc
  83AB.—(1) If an amount is added to the long term business fund of a company as part of or in connection with a transfer of business to the company, or a demutualisation of the company not involving a transfer of business, and—

  (a) there is a surplus for the period of account of the company for which that amount is brought into account,

  (b) at any time after the transfer of business or demutualisation, there is a transfer of business from the company (the "subsequent transfer"), and

  (c) at the end of the relevant period of account there remains at least some of the surplus mentioned in paragraph (a) above which cannot be applied—

  (i) under subsection (3) of section 83AA above,

  (ii) under subsection (6) of that section, in the reduction of a loss arising to the company in an earlier period of account, or

  (iii) under this section. in relation to an earlier subsequent transfer, so much of the surplus falling within paragraph (c) above as, on a just and reasonable apportionment, is referable to business which is the subject of the subsequent transfer shall be applied under this section.

  (2) An amount of surplus which is to be applied under this section shall be so applied by being treated as an amount of surplus (additional to any other amounts of surplus) for the period of account of the transferee company which last precedes the period of account of that company in which the subsequent transfer is effected, whether or not there is in fact any such preceding period of account.
  (3) If, in a case where an amount is treated under subsection (2) above as an amount of surplus for a period of account of a company, the period is not one for which there is brought into account an amount added to the company's long term business fund in connection with the subsequent transfer, subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to any transfer of business from the company subsequent to that transfer as if an amount had been so added and had been brought into account for that period.
  (4) Any question as to what is a just and reasonable apportionment in any case for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall be determined by the Special Commissioners who shall determine the question in the same manner as they determine appeals; but any person affected by the apportionment shall be entitled to appear and be heard or make representations in writing.
  (5) A surplus in respect of an earlier period of account shall be applied under this section before a surplus in respect of a later period of account.
  (6) All such adjustments to the liability to tax of any person shall be made, whether by assessment or otherwise, as may be required to give effect to this section.
  (7) In this section—
  "add" has the same meaning as in section 83 above;
  "demutualisation" has the same meaning as in section 83 above;
  "the relevant period of account" means the period of account of the company from which the subsequent transfer is effected which consists of or includes the accounting period of that company which—

  (a) ends with the day on which the subsequent transfer is effected; or

  (b) if the subsequent transfer is a transfer of business falling within section 83(6)(c) above and no accounting period of the company ends on that day, ends next after that day;

  "surplus" has the same meaning as in section 83AA above;
  "transfer of business" has the same meaning as in section 83(3) above;
  "transferee company" means the company to which the subsequent transfer of business is effected.
  (8) Where it is necessary for any purpose of this section to identify the time at which a demutualisation of a company takes place, that time shall be taken to be the time when the company first issues shares.
  (9) A transfer of business falling within section 83(6)(c) above shall be treated for the purposes of this section as a transfer of business from the company which is the reinsured under the contract of reinsurance to the company which is the reinsurer under that contract."
  Meaning of "brought into account" in sections 83AA and 83AB
  6.—(1) In section 83A of the Finance Act 1989, in subsection (1) (meaning of "brought into account" in section 83)—

  (a) for "In section 83" there shall be substituted "In sections 83 to 83AB"; and

  (b) for "that section" there shall be substituted "those sections".

  (2) In subsection (2) of that section (the accounts which are recognised for the purposes of that section) for "that section" there shall be substituted "those sections".
  Enactments disapplying section 83(3) of the Finance Act 1989
  7.—(1) The following provisions of the Taxes Act 1988 (each of which provides for section 83(3) of the Finance Act 1989 not to apply in certain cases) shall cease to have effect—

  (a) section 436(3)(aa);

  (b) section 439B(3)(b); and

  (c) section 441(4)(aa).

  (2) In consequence of sub—paragraph (1)(b) and (c) above, the word "and" shall be added at the end of section 439B(3)(a) and section 441(4)(a) of the Taxes Act 1988.
  Overseas life insurance companies
  8.—(1) Schedule 8A to the Finance Act 1989 (modifications of sections 83 and 89 in relation to overseas life insurance companies) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
  (2) In the Heading "Modifications of sections 83 and 89 in relation to overseas life insurance companies" after "83" there shall be inserted "to 83A".
  (3) In paragraph 1(1), for "sections 83 and 83A" there shall be substituted "sections 83 to 83A".
  (4) In paragraph IA, in sub—paragraph (4)—

  (a) for the words from "being transferred" to "added to that fund" there shall be substituted "being added to the company's long term business fund"; and

  (b) in the second sentence, for "a transfer" and "transferred" there shall be substituted respectively "an addition" and "added".

  (5) After that sub—paragraph there shall be added—
  "(5) Any reference in section 83AA(2), (3) or (4) or 83AB(1) or (3) to an amount being added to the relevant company's long term business fund shall be construed in accordance with sub—paragraph (4) above."
  (6) In paragraph 1C(4), for "transfer" there shall be substituted "addition".

  Transitional provisions
  9.—(l) In the application of section 83AA or 83AB of the Finance Act 1989 in a case where one or more relevant amounts added to a company's long term business fund on or before 25th March 1996 are brought into account for a period of account beginning on or after 1st January 1996—

  (a) the amount of any loss which, before any application of section 83(3) of that Act in relation to that period, would have arisen to the company in that period shall be treated as reduced (but not below nil) by the aggregate of those relevant amounts; and

  (b) except as provided by paragraph (a) above, those relevant amounts shall be disregarded.

  (2) In the application of sub—paragraph (1) above in relation to an overseas life insurance company, any reference to an amount added to a company's long term business fund shall be taken as a reference to any assets which became assets of the long term business fund of an overseas life insurance company used or held for the purposes of the company's United Kingdom branch or agency, having immediately previously been—

  (a) held by the company otherwise than as assets of that fund, or

  (b) used or held otherwise than for those purposes.

  (3) If the relevant accounting period mentioned in subsection (3) of section 83AA of the Finance Act 1989 is a period beginning before 1st January 1996, only the appropriate portion of the eligible loss shall be reduced pursuant to that subsection; and for the purposes of this sub—paragraph–

  (a) "the eligible loss" means so much of the loss arising to the transferor company in the relevant accounting period as, on a just and reasonable apportionment of the loss for the purposes of that subsection, is referable to the business which is the subject of the particular transfer of business in question; and

  (b) "the appropriate portion" of the eligible loss is the amount which bears to the eligible loss the proportion which A bears to B where—

  A is the number of days in the relevant accounting period which fall on or after 1st January 1996; and

  B is the total number of days in the relevant accounting period.

  (4) Paragraph 10(2) below shall not prevent—

  (a) an amount of surplus for a period of account of a company beginning on or after 1st January 1996, or

  (b) an amount of surplus for any period of account of a company which, by virtue of the operation of this subparagraph, derives from an amount of surplus falling within paragraph (a) above,

  from being treated by virtue of section 83AB of the Finance Act 1989 as an amount of surplus for the period of account of another company last preceding its earliest period of account ending on or after 1st January 1996 (whenever beginning) or from being applied accordingly under section 83AA(6) or 83AB of that Act.
  (5) In this paragraph—

  "add" has the same meaning as in section 83 of the Finance Act 1989;

  "brought into account" has the same meaning as it has in sections 83 to 83AB of that Act by virtue of section 83A of that Act;

  "relevant amount" has the same meaning as in section 83AA of that Act;

  "surplus" has the same meaning as in sections 83AA and 83AB of that Act.

  Commencement
  10.—(1) Subject to paragraph 2(1) and (3) above, paragraphs 1 to 3 above have effect in relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 1st January 1996.
  (2) Subject to paragraph 9 above, paragraphs 4 to 8 above have effect in relation to periods of account beginning on or after 1st January 1996.'.—[Mr. Jack.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  No. 63, a new schedule—
  Roll—over relief in respect of ships

  Preliminary
  1. The Capital Allowances Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.

  Amendment of provisions relating to roll-over relief in respect of ships
  2.—(1) In subsection (3) of section 33A (relief limited to expenditure on new shipping incurred or to be incurred by the shipowner), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
  "(b) the amount of any expenditure incurred or to be incurred by qualifying persons in the period of six years beginning with the day on which the event mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above occurs, so far as that expenditure is, or (when incurred) will be, expenditure to which an addition made under this section in respect of that event may be attributed in accordance with subsection (5) below;".
  (2) In subsection (4) of that section (relief not to apply where expenditure on new shipping not incurred by the shipowner within six years), for the words from the beginning of paragraph (b) onwards there shall be substituted the following—
  "(b) circumstances arise in which the whole or any part of the addition ceases (otherwise than by being attributed) to be an amount that may be attributed, in accordance with subsection (5) below, to expenditure on new shipping incurred by qualifying persons in the period of six years mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above,
  the shipowner shall be assumed not to have been entitled to so much of the addition as will not be so attributed."
  (3) For subsection (5) of that section (attribution of relief to expenditure on new shipping) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
  "(5) Subject to subsection (5A) below and to section 33D(6), where—

  (a) an addition is made under this section to the shipowner's qualifying expenditure for the relevant period in respect of his actual trade, and

  (b) expenditure on new shipping is incurred by a qualifying person in the period of six years mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above,

  1207
  the shipowner may, by notice to an officer of the Board, attribute to that expenditure so much of the addition as is equal to so much of the expenditure as is not already the subject of an attribution under this subsection.
  (5A) A notice under subsection (5) above shall not have effect in a case where the shipowner and the qualifying person to whose expenditure the notice relates are not the same person unless that person joins with the shipowner in the giving of that notice."
  (4) After subsection (7) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(8) In this section and the following provisions of this Chapter references to a qualifying person, in relation to any expenditure, are references to—

  (a) the shipowner; and

  (b) where the shipowner is a company, any company which, at the time when the expenditure is or is to be incurred, is or (as the case may be) would be a member of the same group of companies as the shipowner;

  and for the purposes of this subsection two companies are members of the same group of companies at any time if, at that time, they are treated as members of the same group of companies for the purposes of Chapter IV of Part X of the principal Act (group relief)."
  3.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 33C (re—imposition of deferred charge)—

  (a) in paragraph (b), for "the shipowner" there shall be substituted "a qualifying person"; and

  (b) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

  "(c) the expenditure is expenditure the whole or any part of which is expenditure to which the whole or any part of the addition is attributed in accordance with section 33A(5)."

  (2) In subsection (2) of that section—

  (a) the words "to be", in the first place where they occur, shall be omitted; and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "the shipowner" there shall be substituted "the qualifying person in question".

  4.—(1) In section 33D (definition of expenditure on new shipping), in subsection (1)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for "the shipowner's actual trade" there shall be substituted "a trade carried on by the person who incurs that expenditure"; and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "the shipowner" there shall be substituted "that person".

  (2) In subsection (2) of that section—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for "the shipowner" there shall be substituted "the person who incurred the expenditure"; and

  (b) in paragraph (c)(ii), for "the shipowner" there shall be substituted "the person who incurred the expenditure".

  (3) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) below, expenditure incurred by a qualifying person other than the shipowner on the provision of a ship shall not be, and shall be deemed never to have been, expenditure on new shipping if—

  (a) at any time after the time when the ship first belongs to that person in consequence of that expenditure, it ceases to belong to that person without having been brought into use for the purposes of a trade of that person;

  (b) the ship is brought into use for the purposes of a trade of that person and an event falling within section 24(6)(c) occurs with respect to the ship before the end of the period of three years beginning with the time when it is first so brought into use; or

  1208

  (c) there is a time falling—

  (i) after the expenditure is incurred, and

  (ii) where the ship is brought into use for the purposes of a trade of that person, before the end of the period of three years beginning with the time when it is first so brought into use,

  when the shipowner and that person do not fall to be treated as members of the same group of companies for the purposes of Chapter IV of Part X of the principal Act (group relief).
  (2B) Subsection (2A) above shall not apply by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection in any case if the event by virtue of which the case falls within that paragraph is, or is the result of—

  (a) the total loss of the ship; or

  (b) damage to the ship that puts it in a condition in which it is impossible, or not commercially worthwhile, for the repair required for restoring it to its previous use to be undertaken;

  and that subsection shall have effect, where anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above occurs, as if times falling after the occurrence of the total loss or, as the case may be, after the occurrence of the damage were to be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (c) of that subsection."
  (4) In subsection (4) of that section—

  (a) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for the words "the shipowner", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "the person who incurred the expenditure"; and

  (b) in paragraph (c)(i), for "the shipowner's actual trade" there shall be substituted "a trade carried on by the person who incurred that expenditure".

  (5) In subsection (6) of that section, for "by the shipowner" there shall be substituted "by a qualifying person".
  (6) In subsection (7) of that section—

  (a) for "any trade previously carried on by the shipowner" there shall be substituted "the shipowner's actual trade"; and

  (b) in paragraph (a), for the words "by the persons for the time being carrying on that trade" there shall be substituted "for the purposes of that trade by the persons for the time being carrying it on".

  (7) For subsection (8) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(8) For the purposes of this section a person is connected with another person at any time if, at that time—

  (a) he is, within the terms of section 839 of the principal Act, connected either with that other person or with a person who is connected with that other person by virtue of paragraph (b) below; or

  (b) he is carrying on a trade previously carried on by that other person in a case in which the only changes in the persons engaged in carrying on that trade between—

  (i) the time when it was previously carried on by that other person, and

  (ii) the time in question,

  are changes in respect of which the trade is to he treated by virtue of section 113(2) or 343(2) of the principal Act as not having been discontinued;
  and the persons who shall be taken for the purposes of this section, in relation to expenditure incurred by a person who is not the shipowner, to be connected at any time with the person by whom the expenditure is or has been incurred shall include every person who at that time is connected (in accordance with the preceding provisions of this subsection) with the shipowner."
  5.—(1) In section 33E (definition of a qualifying ship), after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(9) Subsections (5), (6) and (8) above shall have effect for the purposes of section 33D in relation to any ship on the provision of which expenditure is incurred on or after the

  1209
  passing of the Finance Act 1996 as if the references in those subsections to the shipowner included references to the person incurring that expenditure."
  6.—(1) In section 33F (procedural provisions), in subsection (4)—

  (a) for "An attribution made for the purposes of section 33A(5) or 33C" there shall be substituted "Subject to subsection (4A) below, an attribution in accordance with section 33A(5)"; and

  (b) for "the person giving the notice" there shall be substituted "the shipowner".

  (2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(4A) A notice by the shipowner under subsection (4) above shall not have effect in a case where the shipowner and the qualifying person to whose expenditure the notice relates are not the same person unless that person joins with the shipowner in the giving of that notice."

  Commencement
  7.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below this Schedule shall have effect in relation to any case in which the event mentioned in section 33A(1)(b) occurs on or after the day on which this Act is passed.
  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph shall not apply for the purposes of claims, assessments and adjustments made on or after the day on which this Act is passed but before such day as the Treasury may by order appoint.
  (3) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not prevent the making on or after the day appointed under that sub-paragraph of any claims, assessments or adjustments in respect of the application of this Schedule, in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, in relation to times before that day; and nothing in any provision relating to the period within which any claim or assessment must be made shall prevent any such claim, assessment or adjustment from being made by reference to this Schedule if it is made no more than twelve months after the day so appointed.'.—[Mr.Jack.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 5

  TAXATION OF SAVINGS AT THE LOWER RATE
  Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 209, line 24, leave out 'or'.—[Mr. Jack.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: The amendments deal with an issue that I raised in the Standing Committee, which had to do with the 20p tax on savings and the concern that I raised on behalf of the Association of British Insurers that savings in insurance products should be treated in the same way as others and attract the 20p rate.
  I thank my hon. Friend for making the change.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 2, in page 209, line 26, at end insert
  'or
  (c) the policy holders' share of the company's relevant profits is more than the company's BLAGAB profits,'.
  No. 3, in page 209, line 41, leave out 'all its relevant' and insert 'its BLAGAB'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Schedule 8

  LOAN RELATIONSHIPS: SPECIAL COMPUTATIONAL PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 51, in page 218, line 12, after `If, insert—
  '(a)'.
  No. 52, in page 218, line 14, after 'accruing,', insert
  `and
  (b) credits representing the full amount of the interest are not for any accounting period brought into account for the purposes of this Chapter in respect of the corresponding creditor relationship,
  then'.
  No. 53, in page 226, line 29, after 'period', insert ("the relevant period")'.
  No. 54, in page 226, line 32, leave out from 'security' to end of line 35 and insert
  "is available to another company at any time in that period;

  (c) for that period there is a connection between the issuing company and the other company, and

  (d) credits representing the full amount of the discount that is referable to that period are not for any accounting period brought into account for the purposes of this Chapter in respect of the corresponding creditor relationship.'.

  No. 55, in page 226, line 38, leave out from 'that' to end of line 42 and insert
  `every debit relating to the amount of the discount that is referable to the relevant period is brought into account for the accounting period in which the security is redeemed, instead of for the relevant period.
  (2A) References in this paragraph to the amount of the discount that is referable to the relevant period are references to the amount relating to the difference between—

  (a) the issue price of the security, and

  (b) the amount payable on redemption,

  which (apart from this paragraph) would for the relevant period be brought into account for the purposes of this Chapter in the case of the issuing company.'.
  No. 56, in page 226, line 49, leave out 'at any time' and insert 'for the relevant period'.
  No. 57, in page 227, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'one' in line 2 and insert—

  '(a) there is a time in that period or in the period of two years before the beginning of that period when'.

  No. 58, in page 227, line 4, leave out
  at that time, or at any time in those two years'
  and insert
  'there is a time in that period or in those two years when'.—[Mr. Jack]

Schedule 10

  LOAN RELATIONSHIPS: SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR INSURERS
  Amendments made: No. 35, in page 234, line 35, leave out 'sub-paragraph (5) above' and insert 'this paragraph'.
  No. 36, in page 234, line 51, leave out
  `the company's expenses of management deducted'
  and insert
  `any deductions'.
  No. 37, in page 235, line 7, at end insert—
  `(10A) In sub-paragraph (10) above, the references, in relation to a claim under sub-paragraph (3) above ("the relevant claim"), to deductions by virtue of section 76 of the Taxes Act 1988 for a setoff period are references to the deductions by way of management expenses that would have fallen to be made by virtue of that section for that period if—
  (a) no account were taken of either—

  (i) the relevant claim; or

  (ii) any claim under sub-paragraph (3) above relating to a deficit for an accounting period after the deficit period;

  but
  (b) there were made all such adjustments required by virtue of any sum having been carried back to that set-off period—

  (i) under the Corporation Tax Acts, but

  (ii) otherwise than in pursuance of the relevant claim or of any other such claim as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

  (10B) Where—

  (a) in pursuance of a claim under sub-paragraph (3) above any amount is set-off against the eligible profit of a company for any set-off period, and

  (b) there is a section 76(5) amount for that period which is attributable to that claim,

  that section 76(5) amount shall not be carried forward by virtue of section 75(3) of the Taxes Act 1988 but, if that set-off period is the first or second set-off period, sub-paragraph (10C) below shall apply to that amount instead.
  (10C) Where this sub-paragraph applies to a section 76(5) amount for any set-off period, the amount available in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) above to be carried back from that set-off period to be set off against eligible profits of previous set-off periods (or, as the case may be, against the eligible profit of the previous set-off period) shall be treated as increased by an amount equal to the amount to which this sub-paragraph applies.
  (10D) In relation to any claim under sub-paragraph (3) above, the amount which for any set-off period is, for the purposes of this paragraph, to be taken to be the section 76(5) amount attributable to that claim is the amount (if any) by which the amount specified in paragraph (a) below is exceeded by the amount specified in paragraph (b) below, that is to say—

  (a) the amount that would have fallen to be carried forward by virtue of section 75(3) of the Taxes Act 1988 if the claim had not been made; and

  (b) the amount which, after the making of the claim, would have fallen to be carried forward to a subsequent period by virtue of section 75(3) of that Act if sub-paragraphs (10B) and (10C) above, so far as they relate to that claim, were to be disregarded.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Schedule 13

  LOAN RELATIONSHIPS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 66, in page 251, leave out lines 47 and 48 and insert—
  `23.—(1) Where this Chapter has effect in relation to any accounting period in relation to which section 434A of that Act (computation of losses and limitation on relief) has effect without any of the amendments made by paragraph 2 of Schedule (Life assurance business losses) to this Act, subsection (2) of that section of that Act shall have effect in relation to that period with the following amendments, that is to say—'.
  No. 38, in page 259, line 1, leave out 'and (4)' and insert (4) and (4A)'.
  No. 59, in page 259, line 23, at end insert—
  `(4A) The Treasury may by regulations provide for subsection (3) above to apply—

  (a) in the case of trading credits as well as in the case of non-trading credits;

  (b) in the case of any credit ("an insurance credit") in the case of which, by virtue of subsection (4) above, it would not otherwise apply.

  (4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) above may—

  (a) provide for subsection (3) above to apply in the case of a trading credit or an insurance credit only if the circumstances are such as may be described in the regulations;

  (b) provide for subsection (3) above to apply, in cases where it applies by virtue of any such regulations, subject to such exceptions, adaptations or other modifications as may be specified in the regulations;

  (c) make different provision for different cases; and

  (d) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Treasury think fit.'.

  No. 40, in page 259, line 25, at end insert
  `and
  `trading credit' means any credit falling to be brought into account for the purposes of Chapter II of Part IV of the Finance Act 1996 (loan relationships) in accordance with section 76(2) of that Act.'.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Schedule 21
  SELF-ASSESSMENT: APPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 41, in page 338, line 9, after `England' insert 'and Wales'.—[Mr. Jack.]
Schedule 38

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 416, line 14, leave out 'Section 21 (2)(b).'.
  No. 67, in page 431, line 9, at end insert—

  `(22A) LIFE ASSURANCE BUSINESS LOSSES

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  1988 c. 1.

  The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

  Section 436(3)(aa). Section 439B(3)(b). Section 441(4)(aa).

  1995 c. 4.

  The Finance Act 1995.

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 16(4) and (5).

  These repeals have effect in accordance with paragraph 10(2) of Schedule (Life assurance business losses) to this Act.'.
  No. 64, in page 433, line 34, at end insert—

  `( ) CAPITAL ALLOWANCES: ROLL-OVER RELIEF IN RESPECT OF SHIPS

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  1990 c. 1.

  The Capital Allowances Act 1990.

  In section 33C(2), the words "to be", in the first place where they occur.

  No. 61, in page 434, line 36, column 3, leave out '"or (c)" and'.
  No. 62, in page 434, line 40, column 3, leave out from '8' to end of line 47 and insert
  `, paragraphs 5 to 7.'.—[Mr. Jack.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.19 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It seems quite a long time since the Budget and it is worth reminding ourselves of the important and interesting matters in the Bill. No doubt, everything that we discussed in Committee and on Report was important, but some matters are rather spectacular. The Bill increases personal allowances by £100 more than indexation. It widens the lower rate tax bands by £700, which is £500 more than indexation. It reduces income tax on savings income to 20 per cent. for basic rate taxpayers and cuts the basic rate of tax to 24 per cent.
  The elite little band of my hon. Friends who are here for Third Reading outnumber the two faithful souls on the Opposition Back Benches, and they are wholly outnumbered by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). It is never a surprise to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place and contributing to our debates.
  This important Bill makes significant reductions in capital gains tax and inheritance tax, the threshold of which will he increased by £40,000 more than indexation up to £200,000. That means that the number of estates paying that tax will be reduced by a third. The leader of the party to which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley belongs, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has come to reinforce him, and that makes the proportionate representation even more spectacular.
  The Bill's income tax changes will benefit 26 million taxpayers and 14 million savers. Some 220,000 people—low earners and pensioners—will be taken out of tax altogether and more than 6 million people—a quarter of all taxpayers—will pay tax at 20 per cent. The income tax bill of a family on average earnings will be cut by about £235 a year. Those changes will start to appear in pay packets the week after next at the start of the new tax year.
  As the experts on the Committee know, the Bill is not just about personal tax reductions. It modernises— hesitate to say simplifies—the tax system in several important respects and contributes to the Government's aim of a low-tax economy for business as well as for individuals. which is making Britain the enterprise centre of Europe. I shall give one or two quick examples, which will be familiar to hon. Members who are in the Chamber. The Bill legislates for the new landfill tax which, as the Chancellor memorably said, puts a tax on rubbish to enable the tax on people to be lifted a little. That is obviously an environmentally and economically sensible tax.
  The Bill completely updates the arrangements for handling corporate loan relationships. Some members of the Committee will be dreaming about that subject, or perhaps singing about it, in the months ahead. I cannot claim that that is a simple subject but it is now better legislated for.
  There are new measures to encourage participation in employee share ownership schemes, especially for lower-paid staff. That builds on our achievement of helping employees to acquire a true stake in their companies by owning shares in them. The members of the Committee put in a great deal of work and have improved the Bill. Hon. Members from all parties contributed to that but I pay tribute to my hon. Friends in
  1214
  particular. Those who are in the Chamber tabled, and had accepted, amendments that improve the Bill in various ways. Some of those amendments were tabled on Report.
  I shall mention a few of the improvements that the Committee made to the Bill. My hon. Friends, supported by some Opposition Members, made representations about the landfill tax. There were amendments to exempt dredgings from inland waterways and harbours, an issue that we debated yesterday, and to exempt naturally occurring waste from mining and quarrying operations. There were a number of other changes on definitions and on the coverage of that tax, and members of the Committee are to be congratulated on all those improvements.
  I am a leading member of the House of Commons classic car club—I think that I may be the only member apart from its chairman—and I certainly pay a high subscription. Of special interest to me were the representations by Lord Montague of Beaulieu and by others. Lord Montague has pressed us more on this part of our heritage than anyone else, and made representations about historical lorries, fire engines, road rollers and other types of traction engines to which we have extended the Chancellor's exemption. That will bring a great deal of pleasure to many people and will help to conserve an important part of our national heritage.
  On Report, the House debated loan relationships, which is not a subject that one enters into unadvisedly because it is complex and important. We listened to those who mentioned some flaws in the provisions and to more general comments that the anti-avoidance provisions went too far, We made some helpful changes in that area. We made further improvements in the self-assessment measures and adopted the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on friendly societies to allow them wider access to life insurance policies.
  I have given a selection of the improvements that were made in Committee. We were ably led by my hon. Friends the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, all of whom worked very hard.
  The United Kingdom economy has been growing steadily for nearly four years, and the recovery over that period has been the most robust of any major European economy. Far from slipping down the world prosperity league, as the Labour party likes to claim, the United Kingdom has closed the gap on many of its competitors. Over the last European cycle, which is the proper measure, United Kingdom income per head grew as fast as that of Germany and faster than those of France, Italy or the European Union average.
  The fundamentals for strong and continuous growth with low inflation remain in place. We are enjoying the longest sustained period of low inflation for almost 50 years and, of course, in the period before that statutory controls and all kinds of wartime controls were in place. The Bank of England's latest inflation forecast shows that underlying inflation in the United Kingdom is more likely than not to be somewhat below 2.5 per cent. in two years' time, which is our target.
  Company profits and the health of corporate Britain have rarely been better. Profits, which are already high, rose by another 6 per cent. in 1995. Investment in plant and machinery manufacturing had a further year of strong

  1215
  growth, and that is very satisfactory. Research that was commissioned by the Treasury shows that our better performance in manufactured exports in the 1990s is likely to come from better quality as well as from price.
  That is an encouraging trend and it is reinforced by the further good news that, although there has not been much investment in new buildings, Britain is doing well in investment in the latest manufacturing machinery. There is a good article in today's edition of the Financial Times about the British machine tool industry, which is a good indicator that firms are investing in the latest machinery. That is good for the future.
  Labour's response to all that is a little confused, because, for an Opposition, it is always pleasant to have bad news to point to so that they can blame their opponents. It is genuinely difficult to argue that there is much wrong with the British economy now or that there will be in the foreseeable future. That was confirmed recently by Lord Desai, professor of economics at the London school of economics. He had an enjoyable exchange by remote control with the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), in which Lord Desai said:
  "I have talked to people and they are beginning to feel a reduction in the mortgage payment already and what happened today"—
  the latest interest rate reduction—
  "is going to increase that. We just have to be aware, in the Labour party, that these things are happening and it's no good denying them."
  For greater clarification, he concluded:
  "All I am saying is the economy is going to look very good."
  That is not the place from which to attack one's opposition.
  The response of the hon. Member for Oxford, East to that was a little ungracious. He did not try to attack Lord Desai's economics—he would have been unwise to do so: Lord Desai is a Labour party member who is an extremely distinguished man—so the hon. Gentleman accused him of being a peer, and said that he is "an academic economist". Using the word "academic" as an insult is not becoming for someone who represents part of my former university town, but worse than that, the hon. Gentleman said that Lord Desai is a peer, so we need not pay any attention to him.
  The trouble is that it is not Lord Desai's fault that he is a peer; it is the Labour party's fault. It made him a peer, so it is jolly bad luck on the hon. Gentleman to say of Lord Desai, "Well, he's an old fogey. He's not only an academic, but he's a peer. Terrible fellow—you can't pay any attention to him." Lord Desai, not for the first time, has inconvenienced Opposition Front-Bench Members by saying something that is absolutely on the button, which is that the British economy is strong and looks as though it will remain strong and that it is unwise of the Labour party to attack it.
  With its strategy of bringing tax responsibly and steadily down as it can be afforded, improving the tax system, bringing more people into the lower rate tax bands, taking many householders out of the fear of inheritance tax and simplifying and lifting capital gains tax for many people who have built small companies and want to pass them on to their family, the Bill carries forward my right hon. and learned Friend's extremely successful economic strategy, and it does so with the support of the House.
  1216
  Throughout, the Labour party has taken a strong position: it has abstained. I forget who it was, but, in the middle ages, someone once refused the office of the papacy and became known as the great refuser. This year, the Labour party is the great abstainer. On almost any issue we can think of, after grave and careful thought, it abstains. That has been its position before, and probably will be again today. That is a curious position for a party represented by people such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who, in my experience, likes not to abstain from things, but to fight at the front of the barricades and who has, for the time being, been suppressed.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: No speech from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is complete without the mandatory attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). He just managed to get it in at the end. He did not, of course, give the complete story of my indirect interchange via the remote screens on "Newsnight" with Lord Desai. The point which I was making was that I had come fresh from talking to my constituents in the Blackbird Leys community centre and that I had much more confidence in what they had to say about the economy and about their being in touch with the realities of job insecurity and downward mobility under this Government than Lord Desai, in what he was quoted as saying.
  As we are on the subject of people who have been appointed to their respective positions by parties on both sides of the House and as the Chief Secretary quotes Lord Desai, I will simply respond by referring to Patrick Minford, who has been appointed not as a peer but as an independent adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Minford is not simply criticising. He is saying that the Chancellor should be sacked; he is saying that the Chancellor must go. Ministers should therefore he very careful about quoting Lord Desai at us. One never knows what Patrick Minford will say next.
  As for the Chief Secretary's claims about the Government's economic record, the fact is that Britain has gone from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league. Under this Government, we have the worst record on job generation in Europe, our share of total European investment has gone down and growth has averaged just 1.9 per cent.—1.7 per cent., if we exclude oil. During the Conservative party's term in office, we have had a worse record on inflation than any country in Europe bar Italy, so we will take no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends about relative performance compared with Europe. They have nothing to be proud of and they should be apologising to this country's people for their record. not boasting about it.
  On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was profoundly disappointing, even if the sins of omission were greater than those of commission. I said that it had all the hallmarks of a tired and frightened Government who have no new ideas to revitalise a sluggish economy and no vision to bring together a divided society or to embark on the training and investment revolution that Britain needs.
  During the Bill's progress through the House and Committee, we have exposed the fact that this is not a Bill for jobs, investment or fairness. It does nothing to advance the opportunity for everyone to make the most

  1217
  of his or her potential with a true stake in society. It does nothing to build a strong economy or a fair society, still less to recognise how the one depends on the other. As I said, however, those are sins of omission rather than of commission.
  If we judge the Bill for what it contains, we apply a number of categories. There are the things that we welcomed, including the 1 p tax cut, increased personal allowances, the lower savings rate and the introduction of housing investment trusts. There are the things that we supported in principle and sought, with some success, to improve in practice, including the landfill levy and the reform of loan relationships. There are the things about which we remain concerned, including the burdens of self-assessment, especially on the self-employed and small businesses. There are the things that we opposed, such as the extension of personal allowances to residents of the European Economic Area.
  There were also victories. A notable victory was the Government's commitment—the Chief Secretary should not laugh at this; we were pleased that they gave this concession—to uprate in future years the blind person's allowance in line with inflation. That is a long overdue and welcome measure.
  Taking it all together, it would be both contrived and churlish to pretend that there is not a good deal more in the Bill that we support than we oppose. On that basis, we shall possibly disappoint some Conservative Members and certainly disappoint their colleagues in Conservative central office, by not voting against the Bill.
  Under this Government, there have been two significant developments in relation to the Bill's proceedings, aside from its contents, which give us cause for concern. We have, first, the phenomenon of the shrinking Chief Secretary. I have been considering the statistics of Chief Secretaries' contributions to Finance Bill Standing Committees. I find that, for the first decade of Conservative Government, it was normal for a Chief Secretary to notch up more than 20 contributions during those proceedings.
  Peter Rees comes top in terms of contributions, with 31 during the proceedings in 1983 and 1984. When Chief Secretary, the Prime Minister managed 28 contributions in 1987–88, and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) managed 21 in 1989–90. But since then, a decline has set in. The right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) managed 13 in 1992–93 and 18 in 1993–94, but what happened then? Last year, the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) managed only seven and, this year, the present Chief Secretary made just three contributions. Perhaps he had other things on his mind.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: They were very short contributions.
  Mr. Smith: It is interesting to note that, even as Chief Secretaries' contributions to Finance Bills' proceedings become smaller and smaller, so the Finance Bills become bigger and bigger.
  That is the second serious cause for concern. Parliament has added more than 1,300 pages of primary legislation to taxes Acts in the past five years, and this evening we shall be adding a further 400 pages. It is incumbent on us all in the House—it is a genuine cross-party concern—
  1218
  to find ways in which the process can be simplified, legislation can be made more purposive, perhaps better expressed, and the processes of scrutiny can be improved. As taxes legislation is rewritten, as has been agreed, we will have to consider ways in which hon. Members and the public can contribute to the process.
  What will the Finance Bill be remembered for? Will we remember the first cut in the basic rate of income tax for seven years? I think not. That memory will be tarnished by the Government's imposition of the equivalent—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted—of a 7p rise in the basic rate, and more than 20 increases in taxation since the general election.
  Will the Finance Bill be remembered as a Bill for business? After all, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor engaged in a little theatrics, trailing the income tax cut with the cut in the small companies' rate of corporation tax. Considering how much difference the cut makes to companies and given that they have realised that the VAT threshold has not been uprated in line with inflation and business rates have risen by 5 per cent. more than inflation, I do not think that the Bill will be remembered as great for business.
  Could the Finance Bill be remembered as somehow, in the fantasies of Conservative Members, echoing Lord Lawson's tradition of omitting one tax every Budget? Unfortunately, it cannot, because the Government have introduced a new tax on average in almost every Budget, and certainly in every other Budget. Four new taxes have been introduced in five Finance Acts since the general election, along with 23 tax increases—from the Government who at the election promised to cut taxes year on year. The Bill will not be remembered for tax cutting. Nor will it be remembered, as I have said, as a simplifying Finance Bill.
  The Finance Bill might be remembered for the fact that we have had the third or the fourth attempt at getting self-assessment right. We still have a great deal of concern, however, that self-assessment will not work in the straightforward, simple and unburdensome way that Conservative Members seem to think it will. If the Government will not, even at this late stage, reconsider our arguments for the delay of the introduction of self-assessment for a year, I would at the very least urge them to redouble their provision of advice and support, especially for the self-employed—and small businesses—who will find the introduction of new scheme very onerous, along with, according to the Red Book, the extra £850 million that they will have to pay, which we have debated before.
  I suppose that the Bill might be remembered for the extensive debate on loan relationships. We believe that it was entirely desirable that that complicated area of legislation was reviewed, made consistent and codified. The way in which the matter was handled—there was late consultation, a whole flood of very late and significant amendments without the Opposition or interested parties outside the House being given the opportunity to comment properly—was wholly unsatisfactory. The experience of the House time and again is that, if we legislate in haste, we have to repair the damage later. I will be very surprised if we do not have to revisit the issues of loan relationships and—for the fourth or fifth time—self-assessment, in future Finance Bills.

  1219
  The Finance Bill gives Conservative Members nothing to boast about. It has indeed been a dull and drab Bill, perhaps enlivened only by the number of Conservative Members on the Committee who, as we heard from the Chief Secretary, are members of the classic car club, which left a certain mark on the Bill. The Bill has not, and the Government have not, addressed the issues of substance that affect the wealth, unity, fairness and quality of life of our nation. The Bill is characteristic of the Government who produced it.
  We shall not oppose Third Reading, not because the Bill is what we would have wanted but because its contents include the measures I mentioned earlier, which we support. We do not oppose for the sake of it and we shall not vote tonight. We and the country look forward to the day when we have the chance to introduce a Bill that the country really needs—the Finance Bill of a Labour Government.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. David Hunt: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget and the Bill. I applaud the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in Committee, and I praise the speeches of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. and in particular, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. Committee proceedings, Report and Third Reading have been very good. The Finance Bill is impressive and will do much to sustain a non-inflationary period of growth that will underpin the creation of jobs by businesses and our reputation as the enterprise centre of Europe, which I applaud.
  I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was very inadequate. I realise that he has so little to say. Indeed, in Committee we waited time after time to hear the Opposition's policies. We waited for an inflation target, a growth prediction, some form of alternative economic policy, but came there none. They have therefore been a rather irrelevant Opposition. but happy, smiling, very nice and courteous. I suppose that I cannot criticise them for their personalities and character, but really in politics one has to have a little more. The cosmetics are starting to crumbling and the make-up on new Labour and the Leader of the Opposition is melting.
  I do not know whether, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have had the chance to see the headline in today's edition of the Evening Standard. It says "Blair Hit by Two Revolts". The article says that the Leader of the Opposition
  "was dealt a wounding double blow today when 50 backbench MPs defied him over a single currency and unions branded his flagship training scheme a `nonsense'."
  We can add a great deal to that. The Opposition are beginning to learn that they cannot just keep opposing and opposing. They have to have some alternative strategy. The Bill represents an agenda for the future creation of jobs.
  When I stepped down from the Cabinet last year, I said that my prime objective was more and better jobs in my area of Wirral. Indeed, unemployment in my constituency fell from 3,215 in February 1993 to 2,947 this time last year, and the latest figures show a further fall to 2,776.
  1220
  Over the last year, unemployment has fallen by 6 per cent. and over the past three years by 14 per cent., but it is still unacceptably high. The Finance Bill will create the right conditions for a continuing fall in unemployment.
  One thing which was said in Committee was wholly wrong—that the social protocol does not apply to small businesses. I am afraid that I shouted from a sedentary position, "Nonsense!" I should have liked to quote verbatim from the protocol. If it had any affect on the Bill's provisions, it would do much to destroy jobs in the small and medium-sized business sector. It would destroy jobs generally, as would a statutory minimum wage. Therefore the only real policies that we have had from the Opposition would destroy jobs. That is why I shall continue strongly to defend my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, which will do much to restore employment in my constituency.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I apologise to the Chief Secretary for not having been here at the start of the debate. The House will understand when I say that I was detained by dealing with the crisis in the beef industry which deeply affects my constituency. The right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) says that he wants to promote jobs. I have lost 100 jobs today and I have hundreds more hanging by a thread. Although I believe that we urgently need some definite policies from the Government, I shall not detain the House on that matter now.
  The right hon. Member for Wirral, West said that, if one wished to oppose, one had to have an alternative strategy. The Liberal Democrats do not agree fundamentally with everything that the Government have done—quite the reverse. There are aspects of Government policy that we broadly support, but we have areas of disagreement. We have spelt them out and have said that we would prefer to promote a different strategy.
  I point out, especially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this Third Reading debate comes at a time when the strategy on which the Bill and the Budget are based has moved fundamentally against him. The situation is not as happy as the one that he set out at the time of the Budget. It appears, for example, that the borrowing outturn will be even higher and even more adverse than was originally forecast; the forecast itself was a big upsurge compared with the original forecast. Some of us had little belief that a policy based on a growth outturn of 3 per cent. was likely to deliver 3 per cent., and that likelihood is even less today.
  It was interesting that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said that the Labour party supported the 1 p cut in income tax. I thought that Labour Members abstained on the issue; they now apparently wish that they had voted in favour of the cut. I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats voted against the cut and we do not apologise for having done so.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Did the Liberal Democrats vote against the cut in Committee? If not, why not?
  Mr. Bruce: We did not because we had made our position clear on Second Reading. To have repeated votes when one knows the outcome wastes the time of Committees and of the House. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is rather silly.

  1221
  We believed that money should be invested in education, and we were prepared to say what our priorities were; there was a perfectly legitimate political difference there. The Government have a different view and they have pursued a different strategy. Nevertheless, the simple economic justification for the 1p income tax cut looks even weaker now than we believed it was when it was introduced.
  The Chancellor knows that much of my argument with him is a result of my belief that we need to get borrowing under control and that, if we have alternative priorities, we must put them within that framework. Even on the Government's economic analysis, a 1p cut in income tax was not justified at the time of the Budget and was driven by political and not economic reasons. I at least appreciate the fact that the Chancellor resisted deeper cuts, which would have left his Government more exposed and more embarrassed now.
  The current crisis in the beef industry adds a further dimension which alters yet again the implications for borrowing and taxation. I do not blame the Government for not anticipating the crisis at the time of the Budget, but I hope that they will recognise that, if a revision of the Budget strategy is required in the national interest, both to ensure that consumers get the encouragement and reassurance they need and to ensure that the industry survives, a substantial amount will be needed to achieve that objective.
  The Prime Minister said during Question Time today that the beef industry employs 650,000 people and has a turnover of £5 billion a year. Every day the Government delay getting the industry moving again, jobs are at risk. I said that I had lost 100 jobs today in my constituency. The companies have said that some of those jobs will not be re-created, but that some of them are lay-offs. However, hundreds more jobs hang by a thread, and that situation is repeated across the country. It is very important that the Government come up with a clear confidence-building package. If there are serious implications for the financial calculations on which the Budget has been based, the Government must be honest enough to say so; they will get support from the Liberal Democrats.
  I hope that the Government will not stand firm for tax cuts at all costs, regardless of the requirements not only of education but of consumer safety and reconstruction of an industry. Governments can often be knocked off course. If this Government put tax cuts ahead of the deeper and wider national interest, they will reap the consequences, because people recognise that the crisis requires some definite action.
  The Liberal Democrats have set out an alternative strategy. In Committee, we identified a number of concerns, especially the future of our whisky industry, the impact of the tax cuts on charities and problems for the disabled and small businesses. Regrettably, we did not get the reaction from Government that we would have wished, but at least the issues were aired. Those who looked at the voting record will see that we took a completely independent line and made our judgment on the individual issues. On a number of occasions, we voted with the Government, and on others we voted with the Labour party, on the merits of the argument.
  I do not believe that on Third Reading the Bill has been improved by the background circumstances. I do not suggest that we should vote against it and I believe that
  1222
  there is a lot in it that needs to be done. We have supported the Government, particularly in their wish to go ahead with self-assessment. I do not doubt for a minute that the Labour party thinks that it is on to something that is an alternative to the poll tax. A major change is bound to cause concern, disruption and confusion.
  However, having embarked on the change and having got people prepared for it, it would not be in anybody's interest to abandon it at this late stage. Although I have no doubt that political mileage can be made out of having tried to delay or oppose the change, I believe that, once such a decision has been made, it is better to get the new system into place, to sort out the problems and to get it working. We have supported the change, in principle, from the outset.
  The Government may well have to announce to the House substantial revision of their Budget strategy in the coming weeks and months. We will not oppose the Bill, but we place on record our criticism of the fundamental basis of the Government's analysis and economic policy, as it is our right to do.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the importance of the next debate and in deference to the Government Whips, I shall make but a brief contribution on Third Reading. It is customary on these occasions for a Back Bencher to pay a tribute of thanks to the members of the Finance Bill Committee for their hard work and diligence in bringing the Bill to the House for Report and Third Reading.
  It is also customary on Third Reading for the hon. Member for Ludlow to say a few words about capital taxation. I thought that this year, we would make a little more progress than we have done. I am grateful for the progress that has been made, but when I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say, last July, that he intended to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax, my heart leaped. On so many occasions in the past, I have said that there is absolutely no justification for those two taxes in a capitalist society and that they should not be perpetuated by a Government comprised of Conservative Members who believe that the reduction and abolition of taxes stimulate wealth creation and lead to greater revenue for the Exchequer in the long run.
  I draw the attention of the House, as is my wont, to the figures for capital gains tax and inheritance tax. For 1994–95, the most recent full tax year, capital gains tax was worth £900 million to the Treasury, a figure exceeded only by the cost of the reliefs and allowances against capital gains tax, which totalled £965 million. Similarly, inheritance tax raised £1.4 billion for the Treasury, after allowing for reliefs and allowances of £365 million.
  The effect of the Government's tax cutting in the past has always been to stimulate additional revenue. What I deplore about the continuation of capital taxes is the enormous amount of time, effort and resource deployed by some of the best brains in the country to try to avoid those taxes and get round them. I also greatly resent the way in which capital taxes tie up financial decisions that would otherwise be made on purely commercial and economic grounds.
  The House would be surprised if I sat down without pointing out that, were it not for the massive contribution that this country makes to the European Community, we

  1223
  could abolish not only capital gains tax and inheritance tax but air passenger duty, insurance premium tax, landfill tax and even stamp duty, too. Would not that be something to sing about as we face an election in the coming year?
  6 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: This is the first year in which I have had a real involvement with the passage of the Finance Bill. I spoke in the Budget debate, I was on the Standing Committee and I am here to the end. This is virgin territory for me—although I had better be careful how I say that.
  Let me give the House an impression of how I found the experience. First, I was astounded by the length of the Bill. Secondly, although I am well educated and relatively articulate, I found working through that Bill extremely hard. I believe that the whole process needs to be simplified. It could be made easier if amendments were not tabled at a very late stage. I appreciate that that is sometimes necessary, but it has certainly made life more difficult. Moreover, legislation passed in haste often has to be revisited. I am already conscious of a whole range of outstanding issues that need to be revisited through amendments to the law, and of many matters that Ministers will consider at a later date.
  Having said that, I thank my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for their tolerance and for helping to educate me. By the way, that does not amount to a promise that I shall ever do it all again—I am getting my retaliation in first.
  One result of my time on the Standing Committee is that I have begun to take a real interest in bingo, and have visited several bingo halls. I have not yet become an addict, but I have come to appreciate what an important role bingo plays. The whole face of gambling has been changed by the national lottery. The Finance Bill accepts that fact, and there have been changes in the football pools and in the duty on betting on racing, but nothing has been done for bingo. Bingo is a populist subject, and I know that future Finance Bills will have to deal with it.
  For the benefit of my Front-Bench colleagues, I simply add that for bingo callers, No. 10 is now "Blair's lair".
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) rattled off a series of criticisms of the Government's economic achievements. Indeed, he rattled them off so quickly so that it was impossible to intervene, so I now want to pick up one point from his speech. He complained about the Government's record on job creation.
  If there is one measure by which people judge the success or otherwise of a Government's economic policy, it is probably job creation. The Department for Education and Employment has published an excellent book called simply "Jobs".
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I have read it.
  Mr. Smith: I am glad to hear that. If the hon. Gentleman has read the book, he will know that this country has a larger proportion of the adult population in
  1224
  work than any other member of the European Union. He will also know that we have lower unemployment than the average—indeed, we have the lowest unemployment of any of the major members of the EU. In fact, we are on a par with Germany, but the difference between the two countries is the fact that our unemployment is falling while Germany's is rising.
  Why is that happening? If the hon. Gentleman looks at another table in the book, he will see what the on-costs are for every £100 of the direct costs of employing someone, such as wages and salaries. The on-costs are £18 in the United Kingdom, £36 in France and £44 in Germany. Yet the Labour party wants to add even more to payroll costs, directly through the minimum wage and indirectly by introducing the social chapter.
  It is easy to complain about the Finance Bill on the ground that it does not somehow encapsulate a great strategy. However, what it does is add to what has already been done. The process is incremental. For example, the rate of corporation tax is a significant factor when people are deciding whether to invest in the United Kingdom. What was the rate in 1979? It was 52 per cent. What is it today? It is 33 per cent. What was the standard rate of income tax 17 years ago? It was 33 per cent. What is that rate today? It is 24 per cent., with a target of 20 per cent.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill contains incremental changes that have led to substantial reductions in direct taxation. It also contains many other measures that I think were welcome. We had a good Committee stage, and I shall finish by thanking my hon. Friends the Treasury Ministers.
  First, I thank my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who dealt so conscientiously with the complex area of loan relationships. Then I thank my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who piloted through a completely new tax, the landfill tax. I believe that we now have that about right. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary dealt with a wide range of income tax matters, and looked with an open mind on several proposals made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I also thank my good friend the doctor—the Lord Commissioner to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—who kept us all in order. I thank all of them for their efforts; the Bill has been improved as a consequence.
  6.6 pm
  Ms Primarolo: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) admitted that he agreed with us that the Budget did not have a strategy. I shall return to that subject, but first I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), and agree with him about the length and complexity of the Bill. I think that at times all members of the Committee struggled to get to grips with the intention of many of its clauses. Indeed, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury agreed to allow Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen additional briefings with the civil servants to try to ensure that everything was correct. I am grateful for that.
  We greatly valued the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. We are pleased that he is so interested in bingo, and hope that he will maintain his interest in Finance Bills, so that he will be an active Member on our side when we are in government, pushing forward Labour's proposals.

  1225
  The right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) said that the Budget was about further job creation. I should remind him of the Government's record in that respect: 1.2 million fewer people are in work today than when the Prime Minister took office; 8 million people have had at least one spell of unemployment since the general election. Unemployment under the present Government has doubled, and male unemployment in the United Kingdom is higher than the European average. According to labour market trends, fewer people are in work now than at the time of the general election.
  When we consider the Government's claims to have created new jobs, we see that the facts do not live up to the rhetoric. Among major European countries, since 1979 the UK has had the worst record on job creation. If we consider the situation elsewhere, we see that employment in Japan has grown 18 times faster than it has in the United Kingdom; it has grown 21 times faster in the United States than here.
  On the Government's figures, the annual financial cost of unemployment to the taxpayer is more than £20 billion, and that figure does not include the human misery and insecurity that are attached to it. This Budget does nothing to address those facts. On an interest that the Chief Secretary shares with me, he will note that the Bank of England has today added to the continuing insecurity by announcing the closure of its regional branches in Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle and Birmingham. That means that 150 jobs will go. The Bank of England said in its letter to its employees in those cities:
  "I understand that you will be disappointed wit.. our decision."
  The Chief Secretary referred to the landfill tax. We welcome that tax, but we made it clear in Committee that it needs a great deal of improvement. He referred to the 1 p tax cut. What he forgot to mention is that, since the Conservatives were returned to office in the 1992 general election, there has been the equivalent of a '7p increase in tax. So taxes are 7p up and 1p down, and they expect to be congratulated.
  The Chief Secretary, worse still, forgot to mention the forced rise—an average of 8 per cent.—in council taxes. In the city that he and I represent, the increase has been 12.5 per cent. He forgot to mention increased charges in prescriptions, bus fares and public services. He forgot to mention that, at the most recent Treasury Question Time, he admitted that living standards in this country had fallen in the previous 12 months, yet the Budget does nothing to address that fact.
  The right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention cuts in the energy conservation programme, and that 200,000 homes that would have had insulation and greater energy efficiency will not be insulated. The Government cut the budget for that programme by £30 million. He forgot to mention—as the Government are apparently interested in job creation—that they cut the community action programme, cutting 40,000 jobs for vulnerable, unemployed people desperately seeking work.
  The Finance Bill fails to match up to the challenges facing this country: jobs, investment and fairness. It does nothing for long-term investment. It does nothing to address the central problem: we still have 2.2 million people unemployed, and others suffering huge insecurity at work, which is having a detrimental effect on the housing market.
  1226
  When the Chief Secretary mentioned inheritance tax, he did not mention the 25,000 housing repossessions in the first half of 1995 or the 1.7 million home owners trapped in negative equity. He did not mention that personal debt is still three times higher than it was in 1979 or that, in 1994, we had the lowest inward investment for eight years. He did not mention that Britain is bottom of the league for investment as a share of GDP, and that it has the worst balance of trade figures for more than three years and the lowest share of world trade in a century.
  Britain is 14th in the European Union in balance of trade figures. The Financial Secretary will not mention, because he does not like the facts, that Britain has fallen from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league.
  We judge the Government on what they have done for jobs, investment opportunities and fairness, and they have failed on each account. The statistics blow apart their pathetic claim to be making Britain the enterprise centre of Europe. They need to be reminded that one in five non-pensionable households have no one in work—trapped in isolation, without hope and without a job. This Budget does nothing for those people.
  Britain needs a strategy to increase productivity, and profitable long-term investment to secure sustainable growth, rising living standards and a quality of life and public services for the future. There is no such investment in the Bill.
  The Government are stumbling from one crisis to another. Their only function is to survive. They are treating this country as if they were a company holding a closing-down sale, in which they are trying to sell off everything in sight. They are bankrupt of ideas, they are incompetent, and it is time that they gave the country the chance to judge them on their record. Their record means that they will be thrown out of office, and that the next Finance Bill will be a Labour Finance Bill.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Jack: The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) was a tired speech, frot.. fired Opposition. We ran Opposition Members hard in this Finance Bill, and they are now staggering exhausted from the Chamber because of the excellence of our arguments.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) for their kind words and felicitations to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself on how we dealt with the Bill. We enjoyed working with them on it. We also enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who has taken such an interest in bingo, except that my bingo hall's call for No. 10 is "Major's there", and they all shout, "And he's going to stay there for a long time."
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South concluded the proceedings for the Opposition by chastising us on jobs. I am sorry that she has not, while preparing her lengthy oration today, had an opportunity to read my remarks of yesterday in more detail, when I put on record the excellence of what we have done in the sphere of job creation and work, and how our policies in the Finance Bill will deliver even more.
  I have posted a copy of "The UK at Work: Key Facts" to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and I shall do the same for the hon. Member for Bristol, South. To save her a little reading time, however, I shall remind her that

  1227
  "Workforce in employment has increased by 2.0 million since March 1983.
  1.3 million more self-employed than in 1979.
  UK unemployment is lower than EC average … Spain (22.2 per cent.), Ireland (14.67 per cent.), France (11.6 per cent.) and Italy (12.6 per cent.)"
  I am glad that we are down towards the bottom of the European unemployment league. That is a proud record of fact that the Government will stand on and defend in any court that the hon. Lady chooses.
  If we are as bad as the hon. Lady said, how does she account for the fact that we are No. 1 for inward investment in Europe? That investment is still growing, and it will be sustained by this Finance Bill. The Bill makes into law a Budget for confident growth, for the long-term prosperity of this country.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West pointed out one of the missing facts about Labour in relation to the Finance Bill. Its performance was lamentable. One year ago, my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary asked Labour Members these questions:
  "Will they spend more or less than a Conservative Government? Will they tax more or less than a Conservative Government? Will they borrow more or less than a Conservative Government?"—[Official Report, 4 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1616.]
  Labour Members have had a year to think of answers to those questions, and they have failed so to do. We teased that fact out in the debate on this Finance Bill.
  I thought that we might soon be able to get those answers, because the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is to hold a ballot on his party's manifesto. As a result, 365,000 party members will be consulted on all the Labour party policies, but when it comes to tax and spending, what will those members decide on? Nothing, because those facts and figures will be missing, just as they were during the Opposition's deliberations on the Finance Bill.
  The Opposition's policy on the Finance Bill was, "When in doubt, ask the Government for a report. We don't have any ideas, but we'd love to have some assistance from the quality side of the House with the facts." They proposed reports on Customs and Excise simplification, lower taxation of savings vehicles, charitable events, the environment, shipping and employment. They were all a substitute for any ideas of their own. Their paucity of contribution was lamentable.
  When the Opposition did contribute, what did they do with their time? They did not scrutinise any of the Bill's content on stamp duty. No, they saved their allocation of time to spend well over an hour and a quarter arguing about a simple and beneficial change to keep Britain's motoring heritage on our roads. Such were the Opposition's priorities in Committee. Instead of putting to the test of debate their proposals for a 10p tax and a windfall tax, they evaporated against the searing heat of debate from my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am delighted that the Opposition have now seen the error of their ways.
  The Finance Bill dealt adequately with self-assessment and revealed the depth of our preparations for it. On fairness, the Bill took three more steps towards the introduction of the 20p tax. The Bill's efforts to improve
  1228
  investment are borne out by the most recent survey conducted by the Confederation of British Industry, which showed investment intentions up 9 per cent. in January. We have more than adequately justified our record on jobs.
  As for the Opposition's false accusation about the tax decrease being equivalent to 1 p down and 7p up, let us remember the dishonesty of the Opposition when they published their previous borrowing policies. They disguised tax increases to the tune of lop on the basic rate. The Opposition failed to address that policy proposal. We have addressed the issue of the £850 million in the Red Book. There will be no double tax hit as a result of self-assessment, which will be well administered when it is introduced.
  The Opposition failed in all their attempts to convince the Government of any of their ideas—in fact, they put few ideas before us.
  The Finance Bill takes forward the long-term strategy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for the prosperity and growth of the country. The country will be well rewarded when the House passes the Bill into law tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

  SHERIFF COURT (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Sheriffdoms (Alteration of Boundaries) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.—
  [Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Employment Protection (Continuity of Employment of National Health Service Employees) (Modification) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  BORDER CONTROLS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9674/95, relating to controls at the internal frontiers of the Community; agrees that the United Kingdom's frontier controls on the movement of persons are essential for controlling immigration and to help combat terrorism, drug trafficking and other serious crime; agrees that the Government should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the maintenance of controls at the United Kingdom's frontiers with other member states of the European Union; and therefore supports the Government's opposition to the Commission's proposals.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[r. Liam Fox.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the Minister, I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on the speeches of all Back Benchers.
  6.22 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): On 20 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I came to the House to inform right hon. and hon. Members of the latest advice that we had received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle and its possible link with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.
  Our statements addressed three issues: first, the possible relationship between BSE and CJD; secondly, the assessment of the safety of British beef; and, thirdly, the steps that we propose to take further to ensure the safety of British beef.
  I would summarise what my right hon. Friend and I said as follows. First, the most likely explanation of the 10 tragic cases of CJD was exposure to beef before 1989. Secondly, in order to reinforce the already very tough restrictions on the disposal of offal, certain additional steps should be taken—for example, a requirement that all meat from older cattle should be deboned and a ban on the feeding of mammalian feed to all farm animals. Thirdly, provided the controls were vigorously implemented and enforced, the risk of eating British beef was extremely small: or, to use normal language, British beef was safe.
  Last weekend SEAC met again and on Monday it presented further advice to Government. That further advice was reflected in two further statements that my right hon. Friend and I made on 25 March.
  The substance of the further advice that we received was that, first, SEAC confirmed its previous opinion regarding the relationship between CJD and BSE. Secondly, it reaffirmed its opinion that, provided the controls were rigorously adhered to, the risks involved in eating beef were very low. Lastly, in its opinion, the risks to children were no greater than the risks to others. In addition, SEAC made some further recommendations regarding the disposal of offal, which we accept.
  I should like to stand back from the detail to take a broad view. We must ensure that we have the best available scientific advice, which is why we appointed SEAC, an independent committee of experts unsurpassed in their specialty. I pay tribute to the committee for the unstinting and clear way in which it has performed its duties.
  The Government accept that the most likely cause of CJD among the 10 identified cases is exposure to BSE before 1989. We agree entirely with the view that, provided the very tight controls now in place are fully implemented the risks of eating British beef today are extremely small: or, to use ordinary language, British beef is safe.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Farmers in my constituency have written to me today because they
  1230
  have heard what the Minister has said, as have many consumers, and there is still a crisis of confidence in British beef. How does he respond to the advice from the farmers of north Warwickshire, who say that the National Farmers Union's proposal for certain slaughtering should be adopted?
  Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not respond, because I am about to tackle that issue and related ones.
  It is clear that consumer confidence has been damaged and that has led to a collapse in the market. The difficulties have been aggravated by the European Union ban imposed on British exports of beef and beef products, which we believe to be unjustified on the facts, in logic and to have no sound basis in law.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
  Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make a little progress.
  As I have said, the collapse in confidence has caused great damage to the market. That clearly threatens the livelihoods of thousands of farmers and of others in related industries.
  We need to convince the public of what most informed people believe and what is stated by SEAC: that, provided the relevant controls are rigorously adhered to, the risk of eating British beef is extremely small: or, in other words, it is safe.
  I am determined to ensure that the existing specified bovine offal controls are implemented in full. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that, regrettably, lapses have occurred in the past. I have told the House on several occasions how seriously I take those lapses. That is why I called in the slaughterhouse operators on more than one occasion last year, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has done likewise.
  Furthermore, as soon as we had SEAC's recommendations on 20 March, we issued instructions to the Meat Hygiene Service to ensure that the controls are implemented yet more rigorously. I am pleased to say that the audits show a vast improvement. SEAC has recently said that, in its view, implementation is now satisfactory, but we shall certainly remain vigilant.
  Now that we have received the two reports from SEAC, we must proceed as speedily as we can to implement its recommendations. This will involve the laying of orders, some of which must be the subject of consultation. Indeed, it is right that there should be consultation; we are talking about important issues of public health so the details must be right. We are also talking about the livelihoods of people engaged in the relevant industries.
  I am pursuing the following timetable. Orders are being laid today that will have the effect of banning, with effect from tomorrow, the manufacture of feeding stuffs for farm animals using mammalian meat and bonemeal, and extending SBO controls to cover heads and lymph glands. As a temporary measure, I am also banning the sale of meat from newly slaughtered cattle aged over 30 months. This measure will apply until we have in place a procedure for licensing and supervising deboning plans, as recommended by SEAC. I am under a legal obligation to consult on the order introducing those procedures and

  1231
  on a proposed ban on the use of bonemeal in agricultural fertilisers. Despite that statutory obligation to consult, I am proceeding rapidly. The consultation document has been issued, and I intend to make the relevant legislation in the week beginning 15 April.
  The steps that I have set out are recommended by SEAC. It is important to see how we can further reinforce market confidence and what steps we can take to achieve the lifting of the ban imposed by the European Union.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister enlighten the House—if he knows—about which article of the treaty the veterinary committee, the Commission or any Council official is claiming validates the ban on exports to third countries that have not banned those imports?
  Mr. Hogg: The decision of the Commission referred to at least four directives, but it would not be helpful if I were just to read out the directives.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that consumers can simply walk away from consuming beef if they want to, but for beef farmers the devastation may be total. Will he assure the rural community that, if and when compensation is settled, consideration will be given to the people whose lives, for the most part, have been ruined in a way from which they will probably never be able to recover?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend correctly states the gravity of the situation, and I do not wish to leave the House under any misapprehension. The Government are fully aware of the gravity of the situation facing the agriculture industry, and we will do all that we properly can to address that crisis. I will make comment specifically on what we can do now, and I will add some general observations on what we may do subsequently.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If I understood the Minister correctly, he said a moment ago that no animal over 30 months old would be killed and put into the food chain. If so, what mechanism is he proposing for farmers who would normally sell those animals to ensure that they retain some of their expected income? Will there be intervention buying? If so, how do the Government propose to dispose of the animals? Does he foresee that happening quickly?
  Mr. Hogg: The order to which I have referred has the effect of preventing cattle over the age of 30 months from entering the food chain, but the hon. Gentleman should remember SEAC's recommendation that animals over that age could come into the food chain provided they did so in a deboned state, the deboning taking place in premises approved for that purpose. The order, which has the prohibitory effect referred to by the hon. Gentleman, is temporary in character and will cover the situation until such time as we can put in place the licensing regime that will enable farmers to sell cattle over the age of 30 months, the meat being in a deboned state. But the meat must be deboned in approved premises, and we are consulting on that.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) first.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I am not certain from my right hon. and learned Friend's comments whether the Government believe that the Commission's ban on exports to third countries is or is not illegal. If it is illegal, will the Government make representations at the highest possible levels in Turin this weekend?
  Mr. Hogg: I have said that I think that the ban, and the directives on which it was based, has a questionable basis in law, and there are serious arguments to be addressed on its legal aspects. But the truth is that it takes time to get an adjudication on such a matter, and time is what we do not have. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will certainly raise the matter in Turin in the most vigorous terms, and I am going to Brussels tomorrow—my officials are there today—to see whether we can agree some measures that may help to restore consumer and market confidence.
  Mr. Hendry: May I refer my right hon. and learned Friend back to the temporary ban on the slaughter of animals aged over 30 months? Is he aware that this is the most expensive time of year for many farmers—the rent is due and they must pay for the next quarter's feedstuffs, among other things? Farmers have no choice but to send their cattle for slaughter at this time of year. What comfort can he give farmers who have to sell at this time of year, but now find that they cannot do so?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I have tried to convey the gravity that the Government attach to the market and financial security of the agricultural community. I have a number of things to say about supporting the agricultural community, but I feel that the best thing would be to make some progress. What I say may help my hon. Friend—I certainly would like to think that it will.
  I have explained the steps that I have put in place to implement SEAC's recommendations, and I said that I hoped to make the relevant legislation in the week beginning 15 April. The steps that I have taken are those recommended by SEAC, but clearly we must explore what more we can do to reinforce market confidence and what steps we can take to achieve the lifting of the ban imposed by the EU.
  To restore consumer confidence and to obtain a lifting of the European ban, we may have to take steps that go beyond those that are strictly necessary on scientific grounds. Officials from my Department are in Brussels today to discuss with Commission officials our thoughts on how best to reassure the market and lift the European Union ban. I will go to Brussels tomorrow to meet Commissioner Fischler, and we shall prepare the ground for the emergency Agriculture Council that has been called for next Monday.

  1233
  We will also discuss with the industry how best we can collectively restore the confidence of the British consumer. As I have already said, that may involve taking measures beyond those required by the scientific evidence.
  Of course, to re-establish consumer confidence is also to re-establish the market, but there is an immediate problem to be tackled. To address the most immediate issues, I have two announcements to make today.
  The first concerns the problem of the renderers, which is important because, if renderers cannot operate, the slaughterhouse system will seize up and it will be impossible for farmers to sell their beef. Therefore, the Government will make available transitional aid of around £1.5 million per week to help the rendering industry adjust to the changes.
  Although, in the longer term, ruminant protein will not be incorporated in feed rations for farm animals, I am confident that a new and different commercial relationship will be established between renderers, slaughterhouses and farmers. What I am announcing is essentially temporary assistance.
  The second announcement relates to the immediate problem of the young bull calves, for which there is not a market at present. I told the House on 25 March that a European Union market support scheme existed, which could be used to provide aid for the slaughter of young male calves from dairy herds.
  I am announcing today that we shall avail ourselves of that scheme, providing a premium of slightly more than £100 per head on all such calves slaughtered before reaching 10 days of age. That will be reviewed as the market position improves. I estimate that it will be worth some £50 million year to UK farmers. Pending parliamentary approval, which will be sought in a supplementary estimate, the necessary expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the contingency fund.
  The circumstances that I have described today have serious implications for businesses and communities involved in this industry. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President to examine the consequences with appropriate parliamentary and other ministerial colleagues, which will enable us to make appropriate recommendations.
  My Department has made it a top priority to seek to ensure that livestock payments reach producers as quickly as possible. I am pleased to be able to announce that livestock farmers will receive an extra £35 million in their final headage payments this year. We shall do everything we can to ensure that as many payments as possible are made by the end of next month.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the scheme for calves and a figure slightly higher than £100. As he knows, bull calves can be worth anything between £50 and £350. How will the scheme work as regards the range of quality in bull calves and how will it operate to ensure that it pans out fairly between farmers?
  Mr. Hogg: The detail should be explored in greater detail later. I am trying to deal with the main concerns that hon. Members have expressed.
  1234
  I recognise that, if the market remains depressed, those measures will not be sufficient in themselves. In my statement on 24 March I referred to the common agricultural policy's mechanisms for market support—in particular, intervention purchases of steer beef and the possibility of aid for the slaughter of older animals.
  Small quantities of beef have been offered to the intervention board this week and I shall press the Commissioner hard tomorrow for those quantities to be accepted. We have also impressed on the Commission the need for a scheme to remove older animals from the market. I am glad to say that the initial response was reasonably positive. I shall certainly pursue the matter tomorrow.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: If the European Union ban on British beef exports turns out to be illegal, as we believe it to be, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that compensation for the enormous damage done to British farmers is paid not by the British taxpayer but by the 14 European Governments who supported the ban? If they will not pay, will he give the House an undertaking that he will deduct that amount from our next payment to Europe?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's suggestion has a great deal of support in the House.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister was dealing with intervention buying. Can we be clear that he is saying that he will remove the blockages in the system, which make widespread intervention buying impossible under the present circumstances? Will he give the House a commitment that he will deal with the problem on the scale that will be required, not just for farmers—although that problem is very serious—but for abattoirs, where stores are building up? Does he understand that he has to remove those blockages if anything is to be left when consumer confidence returns?
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the blockage associated with the intervention scheme and to draw attention to the possibility of enlarging the categories capable of coming into intervention. Those are precisely the sort of issues that officials have been discussing in Brussels, and they are issues that I expect to raise with Commission officials and the Commissioner tomorrow.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Minister elaborate a little on whether intervention will apply to carcases that are in slaughterhouses, which are causing an enormous cash flow problem as slaughterhouses have had to pay for animals at high prices and are not able to get rid of them? Will he express his appreciation of the importance of abattoirs, including smaller and medium-sized abattoirs, for the local economy, particularly those in areas where there is no oversupply of such institutions?
  Mr. Hogg: I am not sure of the accurate answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether intervention can be applied to carcases or only to live steers. My right

  1235
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—trespassing off his normal responsibilities—might want to reply to that question, on advice, when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a lot of beef went from Northern Ireland to Europe but was sent straight back again? It is sitting in stores in Northern Ireland, which are almost jammed solid. What will happen to the intervention, if any, for Northern Ireland? Where will it go and how does he expect abattoir owners to survive? They have already paid for that stock and have no money left for anything else. That problem must be dealt with; otherwise, there will be no beef and abattoir industries left.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman asks two important questions. The first relates to the ultimate destination of any meat that may be in warehouses or slaughterhouses and the ultimate destination of any meat that comes into intervention. In a sense, that depends on the state of consumer confidence—and thus market confidence—at the appropriate time. Obviously, there are a number of possibilities. Either the meat can be sold for human consumption or it cannot. Everything will depend on the state of the market when the meat leaves storage or intervention facilities.
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I would like to deal with this question, after which I will give way.
  On abattoir owners, I have already told the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is very aware of the ramifications that the crisis could have, not only for farmers—although very importantly for them—but for people across the spectrum of industry and the rural community. He has asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and other ministerial colleagues to address those problems with a view to making any proposals that may seem appropriate.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, to restore confidence, both at home and abroad, we must soon reach the stage where the only beef on sale is from BSE-free herds and that people know that? Is he working towards that end?
  Mr. Hogg: There are some problems of definition about how to address that question. My hon. Friend raises the basic question of how to restore consumer confidence, which would lead to a restoration of market confidence. That may involve measures that go beyond those already outlined, which, in our judgment, are all that are required by the scientific evidence. However, that is not to say that we may not have to explore further measures. I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), after which I will make some progress.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: While I appreciate the immediate and medium-term steps that my right hon. and learned Friend is taking, I am concerned, as was my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), about the restoration of confidence,
  1236
  which will not happen until we have eradicated BSE from the entire national herd. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given consideration to the measures necessary to achieve that end?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, indeed we have. My right hon. Friend will remember the SEAC recommendations that were the subject of the statement on 20 March and its recommendations that dealt with the use of ruminant protein in feed rations for farm animals. He will recall that I have announced today an order prohibiting the incorporation of mammalian protein into feed rations for all farm animals. That is believed to be a most effective way of reducing the incidence of BSE. That is not to say that it will be the only thing that we do, because we clearly have to consider proposals from elsewhere and we will. But that is an important step designed to achieve precisely the objective that my right hon. Friend has identified.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The National Farmers Union of Scotland will be delighted with my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals on intervention because it recognises that agriculture depends on a credit system. Unless we can unclog the finance, as well as the carcasses at the abattoirs, we will not remove the problem. His speech will be welcomed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland.
  Mr. Hogg: I am awfully glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. John Greenway: I appreciate the line that my right hon. and learned Friend is taking. I have two questions on intervention. Will all cattle that will go to market, or would have gone to market, be included in any intervention arrangements? How quickly does he expect those arrangements to be in place? The news from North Yorkshire is that, unless they are in place in three or four days, the market will completely collapse and many farmers and other related business will face ruin.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the urgency of the position. He will know that the intervention system is intended for young steers and not, if I may put it like this, for the elderly dairy cow. The elderly dairy cow, or any other elderly cow that might become destined for the beef market, is a problem that we may have to address in other ways that will not strictly be under the intervention scheme that he has in mind. I will discuss this and related problems in the course of my meeting with Commissioner Fischler tomorrow.
  I very much welcomed Commissioner Fischler's statement that he would consider means of assisting farmers to overcome the present crisis. As I have said, officials from my Department are in Brussels to discuss with the Commission how best to restore market confidence. I propose to follow up those talks tomorrow. Part of those discussions will include the financial support that may be necessary as a result of the present market turmoil and of any additional measures on which we may agree. We look to the European Union to play its part in resolving this crisis.
  This is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to participate. I have tried to address the main concerns that I know trouble the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that everyone recognises the critical importance of his visit to Brussels and of securing agreement to the lifting of the ban in recognition of the measures that we are taking? That may take a little time; meanwhile, the urgency of the financial situation is manifest for businesses and farms. Will he lend his support to the loudest call possible to banks and other financial institutions to recognise the seriousness of the situation, which farmers and companies have not brought on themselves by their inadequacy, and exercise the maximum restraint?
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has expressed the sense of the House very clearly and I endorse what he has said.
  Sir David Steel: I was going to ask exactly the same question. Will the Lord President of the Council's committee deal with that as a matter of urgency on behalf of the Government? After all, the banks have made reasonable profits in recent years and must exercise tolerance and restraint in the interest of the entire rural economy.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that earlier it was suggested that the next meeting of the vets would be in six weeks' time? That is an awfully long time. Could it not be brought forward to two weeks' time?
  Mr. Hogg: It is a long time, but what I discuss, and what I may agree, with the Commissioner tomorrow may make it possible to have an earlier meeting. That is something to be explored when we see how the discussions are going.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have been trying for four days to get hold of copies of documents referred to by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on food processing and regulation. Is he aware that the documents to which she referred when she accused the Government of being deregulatory dealt not with the way in which food would be processed but only with testing for salmonella?
  Even more serious, the document makes it clear that that proposal did not come from the Labour party in the first place but from the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). The Labour party took no action during the whole of its period in government to consider food processing, and it was left to this Government to bring it in.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be short.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point and clearly has read, as other hon. Members may not
  1238
  have, the report of Sir Richard Southwood, which was published in February 1989. In paragraph 4.28 on page 11, the House will find a careful analysis of the probable causes of the outbreak of BSE.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that it had nothing to do with deregulation. The first regulation was imposed in 1981. There was no regulation in the 1970s: the Conservative Government were the first to impose one. There were draft proposals, but, as my hon. Friend said, they had to do with salmonella. In any event, the temperatures contemplated in the draft regulations were wholly irrelevant to BSE, because they would not have deactivated it.
  Sir Roger Moate: Before concluding, will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about his discussions in Brussels? It is obviously right and proper and necessary for him to discuss a number of measures with the European Commission, assuming that that will contribute to lifting the ban. Will he say whether the discussions that he will have about the intervention system and other measures that we intend to put in place will contribute to the lifting of the ban? If he does not secure agreement about the new intervention arrangements, will he confirm that we shall proceed regardless?
  Mr. Hogg: I think that the House agrees that we have two principal objectives. The first, and most important, is the need to restore consumer confidence. If we can do that, the market will recover. Secondly, there is a clear relationship between consumer confidence, market confidence and lifting the ban. Tomorrow I shall explore with Commissioner Fischler the sorts of steps that we propose to take that would, in our opinion, help to restore consumer and market confidence and assist in lifting the ban.
  Mr. George Walden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I think that it will assist the House if I draw the themes together.
  Hon. Members feel very deeply for those who have developed CJD, and for their families. The Government accept that the most likely explanation of CJD in the 10 cases that have been referred to is exposure to BSE before 1989. We are confident that, because of the controls that are now in place and because of our determination to see that they are implemented fully, the risk involved in eating British beef is extremely small: or, otherwise put, British beef is safe.
  We now need to put in place a comprehensive programme to rebuild consumer confidence. That involves ensuring that controls are implemented fully. It may also involve taking measures beyond those that are strictly justified on scientific grounds. We are discussing with Brussels how best to reassure the market, and we shall discuss the same matter with representatives of British industry.
  I have announced two specific measures to address immediate financial problems. If the market remains depressed, we would expect to see the support mechanisms provided under the common agricultural policy come into operation. We stand ready to make

  1239
  further proposals to the House. Above all, the future of that essential part of British agriculture depends on the restoration of public confidence. Our solid and firmly founded conviction is that, for the reasons that I have already given to the House, British beef is safe and can be eaten with confidence. I believe that that opinion can be safely put to the British people.
  7.3 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: On Wednesday of last week, the Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—SEAC—had advised the Government that bovine spongiform encephalopathy was the most likely explanation for an apparently new strain of Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease. We are all aware of the gravity of that announcement. The crisis that followed has affected confidence among consumers and within the European Union. It is a crisis over the safety of our beef and a crisis affecting thousands of jobs. The Government's task is to rebuild that confidence.
  Clearly, the Government's first priority must be to keep the BSE agent out of our food. Only when consumers and our European counterparts are satisfied that the necessary measures are in place and are enforced properly will they be confident that British beef is as safe to eat as any other beef in Europe.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way: he has been much more responsible than many of his colleagues in responding to the problem. If the measures with regard to beef hygiene and the slaughterhouses are carried out and if the new recommendations in the orders put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend are implemented effectively, does he agree that—given that BSE is endemic and is under-reported in other European countries—British beef will be the safest, as well as the best, in Europe?
  Dr. Strang: I agree—if the implication of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that our aim must be to make our beef the safest in Europe and among the safest in the world. There may have been some under-reporting of BSE cases in cattle in Europe—I cannot claim to be an authority on that subject. However, in my judgment and that of all the experts in the United Kingdom and in Europe, the incidence of BSE is a much bigger problem in the United Kingdom than in any other European Union member state.
  I must advise the Minister that even the Government's most ardent supporters cannot claim that the Government's record will help them in their task of restoring confidence. The necessary measures were not put in place promptly in the past. BSE was first identified in November 1986. It was 20 months before the Government made farmers destroy all cattle showing the signs of BSE. It was not until June 1989—two and a half years after discovering BSE—that the Government announced that they planned to stop the parts of cattle that carried the most BSE agents from entering our foods. It was another five months before the ban was implemented in England and Wales and seven months before it was implemented in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.
  1240
  Farmers did not receive full compensation for the slaughter of cattle suspected of carrying BSE until February 1990. The Government have now admitted that under-compensation during the previous 18 months must have deterred farmers from declaring suspect animals. That is the Government's record: a record of delay.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: That is not correct. if the hon. Gentleman looks at the response by the Ministry of Agriculture to the Agriculture Select Committee report of February 1990, he will see that that point is addressed expressly. The fact that compensation was limited at that time did not, in the judgment of either the Select Committee or the Ministry, lead to any significant under-reporting—and probably none at all.
  Dr. Strang: I do not accept that, and nor do the majority of those in the industry. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads and re-reads the comments by his hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in the Scottish Office, the Earl of Lindsay, in the other place, he will see that he acknowledged that more cattle with BSE went to the slaughterhouses as a result of under-compensation.
  We are not saying that the farmers were particularly devious—although there are good and bad farmers. Looking at it from the farmers' point of view, if they had a borderline case of BSE and they knew that it would cost money—perhaps 50 per cent. of the beast's value—to keep it back from market and turn it over to the authorities, it is human nature to say that it would be okay. We must remember that most farmers at that time did not believe that there was a link between BSE and CJD.
  Once regulations are in place, enforcement is crucial. In September 1995, the Meat Hygiene Service made unannounced visits to 193 slaughterhouses and found failings in the handling of specified bovine offals in 92 of them. Nearly half the abattoirs visited were flouting the rules to protect us from the BSE agent. Those abattoirs have tarnished the reputation of our many excellent abattoirs.
  The Government's explanation for the fact that more than half the new cases of BSE are in animals born after the animal feed ban was imposed is that that ban was not properly adhered to. So the Government's record is not good.
  As soon as BSE was identified, it had to be recognised that a link might appear between BSE and CJD. In February 1989, the Southwood committee advised the Government that the risk of transmission of BSE to humans appeared remote but could not be ruled out.
  The job now is to look ahead; to turn round the current position. The Government's task is to restore confidence in British beef and beef products.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Great heat has been generated about remarks made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). Will the hon. Gentleman now say, because he was one of the authors of the paper in 1978, that that paper did not deal with the processing of feedstuffs, only their testing, and that testing was not instituted by the Labour Government even though it had been on the stocks for six years, and it took a Conservative Government to introduce any regulations to test the output of feedstuff manufacturers?
  Dr. Strang: I shall be honest with the hon. Gentleman. I shall not go back over the history of what happened in

  1241
  the period 1978 to 1980. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the Labour Government's draft regulation, but I will say the following to the hon. Gentleman, and to the Government: BSE was not known to exist then. The regulations we were discussing related to recycling. The concern then was about salmonella, and there is all the difference in the world between food poisoning and a condition in cattle that might in some circumstances result in CJD in humans. There is a general point about regulation and the need for it, but I shall concentrate on looking ahead.
  Sir Colin Shepherd rose—
  Dr. Strang: I have given way pretty religiously. I want to get on. Many hon. Members want to speak.
  British consumers and producers have a common interest here. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. As I am sure the House is aware, the Opposition proposed to the Government a series of measures. I wrote to the Minister and laid them before him yesterday. The Minister acknowledged that he had read the letter earlier this afternoon.
  I deeply sorry that the Prime Minister was so dismissive of those proposed measures this afternoon. I intend to take a little time describing those measures and answering the points that the Prime Minister made, because, although I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House for more than 25 years, I have never been so depressed and disappointed by a Prime Minister as I was this afternoon.
  First, we proposed the speedy implementation and enforcement of all the measures, including the new measures that the Minister has announced, to keep the BSE agent out of our food. We referred to the State Veterinary Service and the Meat Hygiene Service. The Prime Minister said that we voted against the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service. Anyone who understands the history of the Meat Hygiene Service knows that it was created as part of the Government's Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, and they know that there was a genuine argument.
  I do not impugn the Government's motives, but there was a genuine argument about whether it was better for the meat regulations to be enforced by local authorities or by a new national quango, the Meat Hygiene Service, and the Prime Minister should not have implied, as he did this afternoon, that the fact that we had voted against the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill meant that we were not concerned about enforcement. On balance, we believed at that time that it would be better to leave the responsibilities with the local authorities. That does not devalue the case we were making for effective enforcement.
  Secondly, we said that we believed that the introduction of a random testing programme for BSE in the brains of cattle going through slaughterhouses, as recommended in 1989 by the scientific committee set up by the Government, the Tyrrell committee, would be of great epidemiological value. What did the Prime Minister say to that? He said that it was irrelevant because
  "we have stopped all brain products that could possibly be infected from entering the food chain."
  1242
  If he is so confident that he has stopped it, is it really so unreasonable to ask for the implementation of a scientific recommendation made in 1989 that there should be random testing of the brains of cattle in the slaughterhouse, just to be sure?
  The third proposal that the Opposition made to the Government was the publication of a full list of all products that contain bovine material. The Prime Minister's response was that this was "already happening". In fact, the Government have not published such a list. All we are saying is that we do not believe that the British people should have to rely on newspapers, helpful as they may sometimes be, for the publication of such a list.
  The fourth proposal that the Opposition made to the Government was that there be a reassessment of the safety of mechanically recovered meat. The Minister assured the House on Monday that such meat had been banned in December. I knew, as I think did other hon. Members who followed these matters, that the ban that the Government had implemented related to meat that was recovered mechanically from the spinal cord. There is other mechanical recovery of beef. All we asked for was a reassessment—a reassessment dismissed by the Prime Minister.
  The fifth proposal that the Opposition made to the Government was encouragement of quality assurance schemes, so that consumers know where their beef comes from, possibly with labelling of products in shops. Hon. Members who follow these matters are aware of voluntary schemes that exist throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for Scotland will be well aware of the Scottish Quality Beef and Lamb Association and similar schemes; they are purely voluntary.
  The Prime Minister said that that would mean
  "allowing the sale of unsafe beef'.
  He appeared to believe that we were suggesting that some meat would be labelled safe or BSE-free and other meat would be labelled otherwise or unlabelled. Did the Prime Minister really think that? Was it ignorance?
  I am making the point that the advantage of the voluntary scheme is traceability—and any responsible Government would see the relevance and the importance of that against the background of the crisis that we face in relation to BSE in cattle throughout the United Kingdom. That is all that we were proposing—it was a long-term measure; it was not going to alter things overnight—yet it was dismissed by the Prime Minister.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One of the things that depresses and frightens me about the debate is that many consumers, particularly mums, will be totally bewildered about the priorities of the Government and the priorities of the House of Commons. We are in danger of wiping out our entire beef industry without in any way compensating for the safety and the good health of the majority of our consumers. If we cannot urgently put something in place that is acceptable to the average customer, then, frankly, the amount of money that the Minister of Agriculture has announced for the farming community and for the butchers will be absolutely no use whatsoever.
  Dr. Strang: I welcome the measures announced by the Minister of Agriculture but my hon. Friend is absolutely

  1243
  right: if the market is not restored and if there is not some move back to confidence, the money announced by the Minister will not save us, jobs or the future of our farming.
  My sixth point was the banning from human and animal food of all specified bovine offal—and, of course, I referred to cattle under six months old. The Government subsequently banned some specified offal—they banned the thymus and the intestine. However, they have not banned the brain and the spinal cord in cattle under six months old. I know that the Government's response to that is that there is no scientific recommendation asking them to so do, but I put it to them that—this was one of the Opposition's points—it was a House of Commons Select Committee that recommended that in 1990. Finally, we also made reference to our policy for an independent food standards agency—I shall not go into the detail of the point.
  When the Labour party worked on these measures—I thank the agricultural organisations and the large companies that welcomed them—we did not expect the Minister to stand up and say that the Government would accept all our proposals, but we expected a dialogue, we expected a constructive response and we expected an opportunity to move forward. That is why I was deeply depressed by the Prime Minister's response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.
  The Minister of Agriculture is aware, as much as any of us, of the significance of Europe here, and I welcome some of the points that he made. As he knows, I have been critical of the way that the Government reacted to the French decision to halt the movement of beef and beef products when our market had collapsed and to halt the movement of cattle and calves. I have also been critical of the Minister's criticism of the European ban.
  I had the opportunity to speak to the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, on the telephone last night. There is no doubt in my mind that the European Commission wants to help, and I think that the Minister's remarks this afternoon suggest that the Government acknowledge that and I trust that they will secure an agreed package of measures.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: No, I will not give way—I would like to, but many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  A lot has been said about slaughtering the national herd. As some hon. Members may be aware, I was with a dairy farmer in Whittington, in the west midlands, who was the proud owner of Flo, a dairy cow with one of the best breeding records in Europe who was worth £65,000 before the crisis. The farmer, Mr. Cope, and his son have a BSE-free herd—they have never had BSE and they have not used any feed with the contaminated protein. Most vets and experts would say that that herd would never develop BSE.
  I put it to the House that the extravagant statements about the complete slaughter of the national herd make no sense. [Interruption.] I acknowledge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture but I am not
  1244
  referring to the hon. Lady or to the Minister of Agriculture. We have to put the slaughtering issue into perspective. I think that the hon. Lady is aware that the question of implementing measures that help us move towards a BSE-free herd is something that is of great importance and concern to the European Commission. We will not get European backing and funding if we are not prepared to move in that direction.
  A complete slaughter of the national herd is not the way to tackle the problem—it is not practical. Do the people who put out the wild idea of a national slaughter understand that we would not produce milk or beef for many years? Perhaps it is a theoretical option, but the idea that we slaughter our herds and buy cattle from elsewhere is ridiculous. Where would we buy it? From France? From the Irish Republic? From Germany, where we know there are some BSE cases? Someone actually suggested to me that they were going to ship in the cattle from New Zealand.
  That is not a practical approach. However, we are aware that a proposed scheme of selective slaughter is on the agenda. The National Farmers Union of England and Wales has proposed that cull cows—both in the dairy and beef herds—will be slaughtered and destroyed when they reach the end of their working lives. We believe that that proposal—which I believe has the support of the majority of farmers and other farming organisations in the United Kingdom—should be implemented if the Government intend to go down the road of the slaughter and destruction of some animals to reduce the risk of any cow with the BSE agent entering our slaughterhouses and its carcase entering the food chain.
  Of course, we are all aware of the policy to destroy any cow that has the BSE symptoms. However, we are concerned that some cows have the BSE agent but do not display the symptoms—usually because they have not had the agent for a sufficiently long time. We believe that there is something constructive about preventing these older cows—which have a high incidence of BSE—from entering the food chain.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible and constructive speech. He is attempting to create a bipartisan policy, and the public expects that. Does he accept that we have our present problem, at least in part, because of the ridiculous, extravagant and hysterical statement by his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)? Can we expect a more responsible speech from her this evening?
  Dr. Strang: I do not think that that was a helpful intervention. The Government have blamed Europe for our BSE, they have blamed the media for our BSE and they have blamed the Labour party for our BSE. The Secretary of State for Health—I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong—said that the people, not the cows, were mad.
  I do not think that many people agree with any of those propositions. My hon. Friend was articulating the concern of many people, especially parents, about the important, historic statement on the new cases of CJD.
  I was disappointed by the Prime Minister's response to our proposals, but I welcome the Minister's proposals. I welcome what he said about the renderers. It is absolutely crucial. The rendering plants are to be given

  1245
  £1.5 million a week in aid. The announcement of temporary aid will certainly help. I welcome especially—although they will have to move quickly—the fact that the Government are urgently considering support for the abattoirs. The potential collapse of the abattoirs is far and away the most disturbing factor. If they do not move quickly to support them, there could be a domino effect.
  I note the Minister's announcement of the calf slaughter premium—which has been long standing within European Union regulations—of £100 a bull calf. There will be many sad dairymen and farmers who are being paid £100 to kill their calves.
  By and large, we welcome the measures that have been announced. We shall not nit-pick. We know the scale of the crisis—and it is a crisis. It is the biggest threat to British agriculture and all its associated industries.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It is the biggest threat to British beef this century.
  Dr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is a much bigger threat than foot and mouth disease was in the 1960s.
  My overriding point to the Minister is as follows: only when the necessary measures to keep BSE from our food are in place and properly enforced will confidence in the safety of British beef return to the country and the rest of the world.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has ruled that all Back-Bench speeches shall be restricted to 10 minutes.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I am most grateful to be called so early in such an important debate. First, I must declare my interest as a farmer, a master butcher and a member of the Agriculture Select Committee when it inquired into BSE in 1990.
  As a butcher and a farmer, I must say that the entire meat and livestock industry will be extremely disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). He said very little that would give comfort to that industry at this time of crisis. The hon. Gentleman said that he would do whatever he could to restore confidence in the industry but, with very few exceptions, his proposals have done very little to engender that.
  By and large, I am sure that the whole House will welcome the measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend this evening. My only concern—this will be reflected in some parts of the House—is the time scale against which some of the measures will be implemented. At the end of the day—as my right hon. and learned Friend recognised—we are talking about the livelihoods of the hundreds and thousands of people working in the meat and livestock industry.
  Let me take a moment to explain to the House how fragile the economy and finances of the meat and livestock industry are. Even before the latest outbreak of hysteria, there was great concern about the massive over-capacity in the abattoir industry, to the extent that a scheme had been proposed whereby the owners of
  1246
  abattoirs would put money into a kitty that could be withdrawn by those who chose to close their abattoirs. I now fear that the very much reduced throughput in our abattoirs will make it practically impossible for their owners to keep body and soul together, and they will have to close. The knock-on effect on the industry cannot be calculated accurately. It is potentially devastating. Frankly, if the abattoirs are unable to pay the auctioneers and the auctioneers cannot therefore pay the farmers, I leave the House to draw its own conclusions.
  Early-day motion 677—tabled in my name last night and supported by 115 right hon. and hon. Members—mentions the safety of beef, the involvement of the European Union and the payment for consequential loss. I have no doubt that British beef is safe and nor does my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. In 1990, no proof was submitted to the Select Committee that there was any link between BSE and CJD. There is no positive proof of that link today and the measures that the Government have taken are responsibly based on the acceptance of a remote, but yet unproven, possibility of that link.
  The European Union has disgracefully ignored the scientific evidence. It has totally ignored the findings of SEAC and moved with lightning speed to impose a ban, not just in Europe but worldwide. I doubt whether many hon. Members realised that it is now within the power of the European Union to impose a ban that goes far beyond the European Union. The European Union has precipitated a public relations disaster of unparalleled proportions, and it has been aided and abetted by certain commercial undertakings which, frankly, ought to know better.
  The House will be aware of the advertisement which appeared in this morning's newspapers, in which McDonald's states:
  "We still believe that British beef is safe".
  If McDonald's believe that British beef is safe, why in heaven's name is it not selling it? If that company believes in a market economy—presumably it does, as it is an American company; it comes from the very home of capitalism—why does it not believe in giving consumers the choice between eating British beef and eating other beef? The hypocrisy of the actions of that company defies all possible explanation.
  I shall deal now with consequential loss. There must be compensation for the cattle that will be slaughtered and that will not pass into the food chain. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that there can he no horse trading on this in Brussels and no quid pro quos. We have to make it a quite separate and distinct issue. We want compensation from the European Commission for the consequential loss suffered by the meat and livestock industry.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is not their money.
  Mr. Gill: It is not their money—some of it came out of the hon. Gentleman's pocket, and probably a lot more of it came out of mine. If anybody is to pay for the mayhem caused in the industry as a result of a totally irresponsible, unwarranted and unnecessary ban on British beef, it has to be the European taxpayer. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes to Turin, he must make it quite clear to our colleagues in the European

  1247
  Union that, if they do not pay that compensation voluntarily, it will have to be docked from the huge sum of money that we pay to Brussels each year.
  Mr. Skinner: Now you are talking.
  Mr. Gill: I have a lot more talking to do and I have very little time in which to do it, so I would appreciate fewer sedentary interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
  We are where we are. I see absolutely no point in raking over the coals of past decisions, but that is exactly what the Opposition spokesman did for almost his whole speech. There is no point in trying to best-guess decisions made in the past. Decisions that have been made were not made with the benefit of hindsight; they were made in the light of all the circumstances and all the evidence available at the time. That is not to say that scientific knowledge does not improve or that more scientific data will not become available in future.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East hinted that all this was just a Government responsibility. I tell him that anyone interested in the future of the meat and livestock industry, not to mention the future of the country's whole economy, must come together to help to restore public confidence. It is no good Opposition Members taunting Ministers by asking for assurances that beef is 100 per cent. safe. Nothing on God's earth is 100 per cent. safe, as everybody knows.
  No scientist worth his salt would ever say that anything was 100 per cent. safe. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, and the Opposition should recognise that. Having recognised it, they should then be prepared to back anyone who will take a responsible view towards restoring confidence. We must work harder together to restore that confidence in a product that is as good as any product in the world, and better than most.
  I want to propose a series of measures, some long-term, some short-term, some immediate. I am glad that the Minister has already dealt with my prime concern—help for the rendering industry, without which the whole meat and livestock industry would come to a grinding halt.
  The Country Landowners Association has called for a scheme to ensure that all cattle culled from the dairy and beef herds are taken off the market with compensation and totally removed from the food chain. The CLA says:
  "Failure to act will have a devastating effect on the livestock and related industries".
  I believe that that is true. I welcome the Minister's measures, as far as they go, and I hope that he will be able to flesh them out as soon as possible.
  The measures proposed by the Government are not justified by the scientific evidence—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I suppose that it was too much to hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) would rise above his Euro-scepticism when debating an issue as serious as this is for the whole rural economy of the United Kingdom—but there we are.
  1248
  I start by declaring my interest. I am a partner in a family farming business which includes 70 beef suckler cows on a traditional, extensively managed Scottish hill farm. We also have a little fold of six pedigree Highland cows. What is more, I represent a large number of livestock farmers—mainly upland farmers in the Lammermuir hills.
  My interest is much more than financial: it is also emotional. Like any stockman or anyone who cares for cattle, I care about the cattle on my farm. I know that that goes for virtually every stockman and farmer in the land. We look after our stock; we tend them every day and in all weathers. We take a pride in producing good, healthy cattle in quality herds. My farm's cows will be calving in the coming month, and I am appalled by the idea that people may regard them as a health risk—and that the slaughter and incineration of such fine healthy animals is being considered.
  The House is entitled to reflect on how we got into this problem. I am sure that I speak for many farmers when I express my personal fury at those in Government and in the feed compounding industry who cut costs by dropping standards to allow the incorporation of unsuitable and inadequately treated animal material in feed supplements. I am nauseated by the thought that some hill cow cobs on the market in the mid-1980s may have contained such material. The labels on the bags of feed never said anything about animal residues, and we should have been able to trust reputable feed manufacturers and Government regulatory bodies to ensure that there was nothing wrong with the concentrate feed we needed to supplement hay or silage in winter.
  Unfortunately, and to the eternal shame of a mad, deregulatory Government, that confidence may have been misplaced. I was a Labour spokesman on agriculture from 1985 to 1990, and I well remember working with my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to press for action to eradicate the menace of BSE when it was first discovered. We wanted better controls of feed and more attention given to research, both to discover to true scale of the problem and to develop ways of achieving early diagnosis. We wanted the Government to try to eradicate BSE, but the Government seemed content to contain it in the hope that it would go away.
  I suggest that that Government were guilty of serious negligence in respect of that aspect of animal and human health, and they stand condemned.
  Now that the crisis has broken, the situation is being further aggravated by the Government's dreadful relationship with our EU partners. All this is undeniable—but the water has flowed under the bridge, and it serves no useful purpose to wallow in recriminations. The whole country will expect this House to deal constructively with the crisis facing the 600,000 people who work in the beef industry. Our task is to restore public confidence in the quality of British beef and to reopen the export markets. The alternative is unthinkable: a deficient diet for our people, a decimated rural economy, and a countryside without grazed pastures and traditional beef herds.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) set out a constructive agenda with the objective of eradicating BSE. We need the resources and the research, and we need action to establish the true nature and extent of the problem. So let us have fewer

  1249
  bland reassurances from politicians of all colours. What we need are more direct explanations and advice from credible scientists. Let us resolve here and now to follow the best scientific advice with the objective of eradicating the disease. If that means selective, targeted slaughtering, so be it.
  Slaughtering can be targeted. There are detailed records of cases of BSE, and all farmers are required to keep full records of stock movements. So it should not be unduly difficult to find out where cattle come from and where they have gone; and if necessary, to cull particular breeding lines.
  It would be absurd and obscene, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, to indulge in slaughtering and incineration of healthy cattle as a stunt for the satisfaction of the press.
  I should like to add a word of special pleading, as the Minister talked about the 30-month cut-off rule for cattle going to the prime beef market. It would be almost impossible for slow-maturing highland or Galloway cattle to be fattened in that time, so there may be a need to pay special attention to certain native breeds.
  I also suggest that the Government have a duty to deal with the immediate crisis facing the 600,000 people who work in the beef industry, from high street butchers right through to the stockmen who live and work in our remotest rural areas. Livelihoods, enterprises and whole communities are facing ruin this week.
  There is also an immediate animal welfare problem. If stock cannot be marketed, they still have to be fed. Many farms must be running out of hay and silage as they wait for the long-delayed spring after a long, cold, difficult winter. So I hope that the Minister will be successful in his endeavours to open up the intervention system for finished cattle. That is required within days, not weeks. I appeal to the Minister also to look at ways of permitting temporary grazing on set-aside land for store cattle in these extraordinary circumstances.
  This crisis is a national disgrace. Some of the best beef cattle in the world are being regarded as a health risk, which is absurd in a country such as Scotland where the incidence of BSE is just 0.03 per cent. of the cattle population and is falling. But consumers are alarmed, the market has collapsed and a massive sector of the rural economy is facing disaster. I fear that it has to be said that Government negligence in the mid-1980s must have contributed to this situation, but the House and the whole nation will not allow the Government to shirk their responsibility now.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: The debate takes place against the background of the deepest sense of crisis and unease in our rural areas that I have ever known, probably greater than that during the foot and mouth crisis some 20 years ago. Setting aside for a moment the Labour party's cries that it is all the Government's fault—when does it not say that?—farmers, processors and exporters out there expect the Government and the House to come up with solutions which will preserve our rural way of life and regenerate confidence in British beef in Europe and elsewhere.
  Having seen the way that the European Union has operated in the past week against the weight of scientific evidence—which it has never challenged—I am coming
  1250
  to the view that the two aims are not compatible. Plainly, the Government will try to persuade the EU that our measures are sufficient to restore confidence. However, we must accept that that may be a forlorn hope and that we may have to go it alone, very much along the lines that have been proposed by the National Farmers Union.
  I have never in the House or elsewhere been one of the more strident anti-Europeans, yet Europe's decision, which was taken without a scintilla of evidence, has fed the growing cynicism in the House and outside about Europe and its motives towards Britain. It has performed like a trade protection agency for the farmers of France and Germany and their products. If that were not so, it would impose the same restrictions on food from those countries, which have BSE, as it is now proposing for ours. We all know that all those countries have exactly the same incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as well.
  Let this week be a dreadful warning to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as he goes about his duties in Turin tomorrow. The country wants no greater integration with a group which treats us like that. In the meantime, the situation continues to drift into deeper crisis. We must consider unilateral action. A wide range of options from total slaughter to selective slaughter is available and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture today announced one or two interim measures. It is unfortunate that those measures had to be, because cases of BSE notified in Britain have been coming down from 1,000 a week at the height of the disease to 250 a week now. The specified bovine offal ban which was introduced in 1989 has been instrumental in reducing the figures over the past few years.
  The Government's task has not been made any easier by those who are anxious to rubbish British beef. They range from some politicians to some people involved with food—all of whom should know better. The advice from the Consumers Association not to eat British beef was disgraceful—almost as disgraceful as the mealy-mouthed comments from McDonald's, which said in its press release:
  "We believe British beef is safe. However, we cannot ignore the fact that recent announcements have led to a growing loss of consumer confidence in British beef which has not been restored."
  By any understanding of the British language, that means, "British beef is safe but we will lose profits if we continue to use it." Those same people are proposing to import foreign beef products.
  McDonald's would have us believe—I continue from its press release—
  "we have always put our customers first".
  By putting its customers first in that way it is happily signing up for beef and beef products from countries that have BSE, just as Britain does, and CJD, just as Britain does, and have a far less stringent regime of standards within the food chain. As a consumer, I shall be much more cautious about eating burgers from such food chains in future than I would have been in the past.
  People are panicking about recent cases of CJD, but at yesterday's meeting of the Select Committee on Agriculture, we heard evidence from Dr. Robert Will, who is the head of the national CJD surveillance unit at Edinburgh. He said that it was quite wrong to assume that because it was not known for sure how people got CJD, it must be assumed that it was through scrapie or BSE. He continued:

  1251
  "CJD occurs all round the world at about the same incidence in countries that are free of scrapie and free of BSE. Within an individual country they appear to occur completely at random. This has led to the proposition that CJD is not due to any environmental contamination at all but is due to a spontaneous change in the protein in the brain itself, occurring at a random event. We have no good evidence that CJD is caused in any way by cross contamination other than by very special circumstances."
  Therefore on the basis of "no good evidence", our farmers are suffering and will continue to suffer and go under unless measures such as those that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced are continued and improved after he has been to Brussels this week.
  A farmer in my constituency fattens 4,000 beef cattle a year for slaughter and export. He has never seen a case of BSE on his farm or elsewhere. He has never used concentrates or bone meal. For 20 years he has fed his cattle solely on vegetable waste. Just over a week ago, his cattle were worth £1,000 a head. Today, they are perhaps worthless. Such people have done nothing wrong in their professional lives as farmers. They are the backbone of England and the future of a prosperous rural community.
  Intervention has been mentioned but intervention restrictions are harming or could harm farmers, such as the one that I have described. The weight limit for intervention is 370 kg and will not help the exporting beef producer, whose average beast weighs about 450 kg. Payment is often required up front by the intervention board, which takes six weeks to pay. Intervention does not take premium cattle; only average quality cattle.
  If intervention is to work for the good farmer who has done nothing wrong in his professional life, some of those restrictions will have to be amended. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to recommend some of these improvements in his final package. They will help to prevent a disaster of national proportions from which this country may never recover in the lifetimes of many of us. Today's announcements will help, and I wish my right hon. and learned Friend every success in his discussions in Brussels tomorrow.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: This week, there has been a steady stream of job losses throughout rural Britain. In the past seven days, the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people have been destroyed and, tomorrow, many more will be laid off—I hope temporarily, but who knows? I wonder whether they will be encouraged by what they have heard today, especially on the evening news following Prime Minister's Question Time. I suspect that they will be further depressed.
  Let me quote the statement issued by the St. Merryn Meat Co. yesterday as it announced that 149 staff would be laid off immediately and that a further 2,000 jobs were at risk. I should emphasise that the company is one of the biggest and best meat processors serving the whole of the south-west. It said:
  "We would like to express our total exasperation at the Government's inept handling of the BSE crisis, the Labour Party's political point scoring, with total disregard for the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of employees engaged in meat processing and associated food industries which they represent."
  That was reported in The Western Morning News this morning. That view will be echoed by many other people all over Britain tonight; indeed, I suspect that, in their
  1252
  hearts, many hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with it. It was reflected in the comments earlier of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
  There will be plenty of time for investigations—and blame, if need be—and, clearly, the research programme will need to be redoubled to answer the major scientific questions that remain. For example, first, what progress is being made to develop reliable testing of live cattle and why was feed not effectively tested for contamination? Secondly, is maternal transmission of bovine Spongiform encephalopathy—from cow to calf—really impossible? Thirdly, what about lateral transmission in the herd? Are the French right to insist on total infected herd slaughter?
  Fourthly, what is the hard evidence of cross-species transmission'? In particular, what is the exact position with regard to sheep? Fifthly, what is the scientific analysis of the remarkable coincidence of the use of organophosphorous warble fly treatments—OPs—on cattle in the United Kingdom at the same time as BSE developed among our national herd? Could the known effect on the central nervous system make cows more susceptible to BSE? It may not have caused BSE, but it may have triggered it.
  Sixthly, what lessons are to be learned from the overall pressure, to which the farming industry has been subjected, for ever-increasing intensive methods of husbandry'? What are the Government doing—what will they do at the intergovernmental conference starting tomorrow—to reassess the risks of that central strategy of the common agricultural policy?
  I hope that the Government also take note of the increasing support, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already drawn attention this week, for our 1993 proposal for an independent food commission, answerable separately to a Secretary of State, because that is clearly relevant. I note that consumers and farmers' leaders, such as Sir Simon Gourlay, now support us on that issue.
  Over the years, other people and I have put those and many related questions to Ministers. It is not just the research budget that must be re-examined; training, too, will have to be upgraded if the industry is to reorientate its efforts. Rumours in the past few days of economies in ATB Landbase could not be worse timed.
  Those issues, however, require longer-term re-examination. Tonight, we must face the immediate concerns. We must look forward rather than rake over the past. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that it is time for cross-party and cross-industry consultation and action, not least because that will be essential to impress the European Commission and the other 14 European states that we are in this together.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has repeatedly emphasised to the Prime Minister over the past seven days, we are ready to contribute constructively to the resolution of both the public health and the public confidence issues that were raised by the ministerial statements on BSE and beef.
  As the hon. Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) have said, the whole rural economy is in danger. There have been thousands of lay-offs already. Livestock farmers have been hit at their most vulnerable time of year. In the circumstances, many Liberal Democrats, in town and county halls throughout

  1253
  the country, have a special responsibility for these matters, representing as we do, at all levels of government, the difficulties that rural areas have faced during the recession. It is critical that the painstaking, sustained efforts to bring back jobs to those areas are not put at risk. In the next few days, we must improve the local employment position rather than let it be further threatened by what has happened in the past week.
  We believe, therefore, that investigations and recriminations can wait for another day. First, we must deal with the question of public confidence in British beef. To that end, we suggest that the Government must now announce—I do not think that it has happened yet this evening—an explicit, defined and measurable target. What is their objective? The explicit objective should be a "BSE-free" national herd—a return to the ambient and negligible levels before the mid-1980s—within an agreed timetable. It should be possible to aim for that. It cannot be left loose. Nothing less will satisfy public health concerns. Once that is established, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee will have to be mandated to advise on the most comprehensive means of achieving that objective, but the political objective must be here first.
  As we all recognise, the market is governed by sentiment as well as by science. We welcome the positive contributions from the industry led by the National Farmers Union, but with the food industry involved as well. Their recommendations on a selective cull of older cows were made at the same time as our suggestions to the Prime Minister on Monday. There is obviously wide consensus on their necessity. A clear, clean break is necessary if we are to regain confidence in beef.
  Since Monday, a huge range of organisations has specifically endorsed the thrust of our proposals. I have already referred to the NFU and to the other farming unions, with which we have worked closely. I should also mention the Country Landowners Association and the Livestock Industry Support Trust. Even more significant, in terms of restoring market confidence, is the support of the Initiative on Food Marketing because, as the House knows, that body represents the leaders of the food manufacturing, catering and retail industries. In addition, representations from the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council point in the same direction.
  I understand, but I am disappointed, that, until this evening, the Labour party has not seen fit to support this vital core proposal. I hope that what we heard earlier means that the Labour party has changed its mind. Its previous position was sad—understandable but regrettable. The industry has been disappointed by that. I hope that we can now move on.
  There are various options, and exemptions must be rigorously examined, but they must all have this common aim: the elimination from the human food chain of all beef or cow meat that could possibly have been infected by contaminated feed before the 1989 ban took full effect. The precise timing and monitoring of that process can be the subject of further discussion among us all. At the same time, as the Minister clearly recognises, there must be an immediate package of measures to stabilise the market and to avoid further haemorrhaging of jobs in rural areas.
  We recommend that a statement on the use to which the Government intend to put the intervention scheme for finished cattle is made urgently. Clearly, the ban
  1254
  announced this evening on 30-month-plus cattle, albeit temporary, increases the need for emergency action. As it is imperative to get the market moving again, it may be sensible to consider a top-up price scheme for the immediate future. That is something that the farming unions want the Government to deal with urgently.
  It remains to be seen whether the aid scheme, again announced this evening, for young steers will be sufficient. I hope so, but I doubt it. Of course, stocks in intervention are low and only comparatively recent entries remain, so there is presumably no reason why purchases from abattoirs at an economic price should not be initiated as quickly as possible. The mechanism for ensuring that is surely financially viable, although clearly that will be a subject for negotiation with the European Commission. No doubt the Minister will brief us on his return from Brussels.
  As for the culling and compensation scheme, clearly it will take time to work out, but we believe that it is vital to achieve a decision as fast as possible, commensurate with the essential consultation process that we would require. As carcases will have to be stripped out anyway, we would hope that payments by weight, rather than just by animal, will be possible, thereby ensuring that there can be appropriate compensation for quality stock.
  Since European Union precedents—for example, swine fever in other member states—provided for up to 50 per cent. Brussels funding, surely it must be possible to obtain Commission endorsement very speedily for the proposals that we are suggesting. That could also ensure that other countries' BSE problems, to which reference has been made and which are becoming more and more apparent, will be treated without any discrimination. Our colleagues in the European Parliament pressed last night for assurances on those points, which I hope will prove to be correct. Incidentally, the collapse of beef sales, especially in France, but generally on the continent, may persuade other member states to join us more energetically to restore confidence throughout the Union.
  In the longer term, we must reiterate our conviction that a substantial Government investment in a truly comprehensive UK-wide beef quality assurance scheme is now long overdue. A positive commitment could revive hope of returning public confidence generally, while forming the base for an effective marketing strategy abroad.
  At the same time, we must carefully examine the case for the exemption from culling of herds in which, first, there have been no BSE cases whatever, as the hon. Member for Newark said, and, secondly, absolutely no bought-in cattle cake has been fed to them, which particularly applies to beef suckler herds. In such circumstances, surely the examination of MAFF records and farmers' audited accounts should be sufficient to provide proof. As long as the Government's compensation package is realistic, the motive to cheat will be minimal. Those herds will then provide the nucleus for the expanded beef quality assurance scheme that we require and a tightening up of any compensation arrangements.
  We must all work together energetically for an early reversal of the EU ban. To rely on that happening—incidentally, while it is in place it is just being used as a good target for the Euro-sceptics—seems wildly over-optimistic, not least because its removal would not lead to an immediate resumption of any confidence or trade buying on the continent.

  1255
  In any case, the industry in this country must regain public confidence long before the Union six-week review period is up. The Minister simply cannot afford to come back from Brussels this weekend empty handed. About two thirds of a million jobs are at risk, as the Prime Minister confirmed this afternoon in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The people in those jobs cannot wait months for the export ban to be lifted.
  The root of the problem lies closer to home. Until everybody in the UK—consumers, food retailers and food producers—is enabled to have his or her confidence renewed, export prospects will remain dire. That is why it is our conviction that the development of an agreed package of measures, along the lines that I have set out, is urgently necessary. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support and work constructively with the Minister in a programme of action along the lines that I have suggested to restore consumer confidence in the market. We believe that the country deserves nothing less.
  8.13 pm
  Sir Colin Shepherd: In my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Catering, I should report that there appears to be no fall-off in the consumption of beef among hon. Members. That is not a moment of levity, but an important statement on how we in the House feel.
  Hereford and beef are very much synonymous. I took time out today to go to Herefordshire to talk with people there because I wanted to get some first-hand feedback. I spoke to butchers, the public generally, meat processors and farmers. I have heard about all the knock-on effects and will not weary the House by repeating them. I want to tell the Labour party with all the strength that I can muster that there is massive resentment of the politicisation of the issue. Asking why it cannot be sorted out on a common-sense basis instead of it being hyped up was the common thread of what was said to me. That is very important, and I hope that the Labour party hears it.
  The second point made to me concerned the strong resentment of the worldwide ban that has been imposed by the European Commission. That really hurts. People ask what confidence we have that the imported beef constitutes less risk. I have had the pleasure of serving on the council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for the past 13 years and I have the highest regard for the UK veterinary profession. I do not have quite the same regard for some of the profession's members on the European side of the channel. That does not in any way reduce my European credentials; it is just a matter of perception.
  I also want to know what confidence we can have in the imported product. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) mentioned that important point in his discourse on McDonald's. I happen to disagree with some amount of what he says about McDonald's, but that is another matter. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister attends the emergency Council of Agriculture Ministers this weekend, I want him to demand a wide-ranging review of EU countries' farming practices. I do not think that they are all whiter than white. The problem is wider than the UK. We must know that we are
  1256
  all playing on the same field. I am also asked why we have to take imports of white veal when we do not even agree with the practices adopted in the rearing of those animals.
  Confidence-building measures are what we are about tonight. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) remarked on the point and I agree with him on it. There are three very important areas. First, it is absolutely fundamental that farmers take scrupulous care in reporting anything worrisome. Secondly, the figures quoted about abattoir operators are alarming, and it is vital that the public should have confidence that meat is handled scrupulously in abattoirs. Thirdly, there should also be confidence in the Meat Hygiene Service inspection. Those three elements are very important, and can be implemented by the industry itself.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has brought forward measures today, but there is a big gap on the question of cull cows, to which other hon. Members have referred. The package is not yet complete. Until a measure on cull cows is in place, it will be difficult to assess any increase in the underlying confidence of the market, the producers and the public. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to press ahead on that issue as fast as he possibly can, because we need to know where we stand.
  Other points that have already been raised relate to the engendering of BSE-free herds. Although not all herds have been affected, a number that are BSE-free may be so only by the grace of God. We need to develop incentives to finish beef cattle particularly on grass rather than cake. I declare a small interest, in that the Hereford breed of cattle is particularly good at finishing on grass rather than on cake compared with some of its continental successors. The breed has been under threat for some time because of its inability to put on quite the same amount of weight per day as the Charolais or the Limousin, but it is a first-class breed in terms of putting on weight on grass at the finish. It will be helpful if we can encourage finishing on grass as part of the overall package.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made an important announcement about renderers today. However, I have some questions on that. They need not necessarily be answered today, but I would welcome a letter. First, does the £1.5 million a week to the rendering industry take into account the volume of offal produced by the poultry industry? That is a very relevant question, as an immense amount of offal is produced as part of the poultrymeat production process. If the figure does not take that offal into account, we must rethink the matter.
  Secondly, an order is being produced today for consultation. Will the consultees include the poultry industry, which is all part of the same scene? Thirdly, will the order contain provision for a review mechanism to take into account future developments in rendering, offal handling and the continuing scientific debate?
  Tonight, my right hon. and learned Friend has proposed a number of confidence-building measures, but there are still gaps, and I hope that they will be addressed. I shall meet my farmers and all those involved in the meat industry in Herefordshire tomorrow. I shall listen to what they say and I shall feed back their views to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the hope that they will form part of the useful debate on restoring confidence in the meat industry.
  8.21 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I may technically have an indirect interest to declare, inasmuch as I am president of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. My overriding interest is in the health of the population and in the interests of all consumers. I do not accept that our prime objective should be the restoration of confidence in the market, because I believe that the objective must be the protection of public health. Furthermore, unless the public are assured that health is the prime objective, whatever we do with the aim of restoring confidence, we shall fail. The perception that what is being done is intended to protect public health is the first prerequisite of any reassurance or any restoration of confidence.
  There has been Government ineptitude for some years. The crisis would have been far less likely to arise if there had been firmer action earlier and if there had been more humility in the face of our massive ignorance. People are tired of hearing bland statements that everything is safe and that the risks are extremely small—statements which are clearly born out of ignorance and which have had to be contradicted from time to time, most recently on 20 March.
  There has been order after order after order; the chronology of events is long. Each order has made certain progress and has introduced certain regulations, but there has always been a tiny step at a time. That approach is inadequate.
  I do not want there to be a panic in that all herds are assumed to be the same. I am sorry that some people feel that because there is such widespread BSE, all our herds are infected. However, I believe that any slaughter policy we institute—I believe that there will have to be such a policy—must differentiate between one herd and another. There are differences which probably result from how cattle have been cared for, reared and fed; there are different practices. That must be acknowledged, because the different practices have led to different results. It should not just be the case that cows over a certain age are slaughtered. If we are to have recognisably BSE-free herds, our objective must be to distinguish between one herd and another.
  It has been said that we do not need to rake over the past. However, one person's raking over the past might be another person's learning from the past. We must learn severe lessons from the lack of enforcement of the regulations on abattoirs. Regulations that are not properly implemented and are not enforced are simply a false reassurance; we are now paying the price for all the false reassurance.
  It is extraordinary that there has been such complacency about the huge failure to comply with the regulations. How can we be assured that future stronger regulations will be complied with when milder regulations have not been complied with in the past? One important way to ensure compliance would have been to treat the non-compliers with great severity. Why have there been no prosecutions? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that prosecutions would have made it a criminal matter. Exactly. It is a criminal matter not to have complied with regulations imposed on the handling of meat and meat products in the interests of public safety. If people who did not comply had been criminalised and
  1258
  had paid a penalty, there would have been a lot more compliance a lot sooner, and people would have a lot more confidence in future regulations. That is an important matter.
  The sheer extent of BSE in the herds has astonished and worried people. The fact that, as at 23 February, there were 158,277 cases is very worrying. As at July 1993, there were 100,000 confirmed cases, which means that in the past two and a half years, and a long time after the ban on feeding ruminant remains to ruminants, there have been almost 60,000 more cases. That is why consumers do not have confidence, and who can blame them?
  We need a frank acknowledgement, as some hon. Members have made, of the extent of human ignorance in this matter. We do not know for sure how the disease is transmitted and we do not even know whether it has come from scrapie. We do not know why sheep convey scrapie to lambs, and why cows do not convey BSE to calves. We cannot know whether humans will convey it to babies. It is time that we stopped just saying that everything is safe and that we admitted our great ignorance. Paradoxically, that would help to create confidence. Bland reassurance works for a time, but it then becomes utterly self-defeating. That is what has happened, and that is what is still happening.
  One good thing that was not generally known until a recent parliamentary answer to one of my hon. Friends is that vaccine serum from British cattle was discontinued in 1989. The chief medical officer admitted that there was no actual evidence of risk, but he said that it seemed prudent to take that action. He thought that the industry itself would want to eliminate any theoretical risk.
  That is a sensible attitude. If we wait for proof, it will be too late. Positive proof in such cases is not the same as negative proof, whereby we could all simply say, "It has all worked out well, has it not?" By the time we have positive proof of all the dangers, it will be too late, and we may face something uncontrollable.
  I hope, and I think that I believe, that at this stage the situation is still controllable, and that it would be possible to have a BSE-free herd. I am not a vegetarian; I personally want to be able to have confidence about eating beef. Of course, I would have a lot more confidence in cattle fed on the things on which animals should be fed—those that eat grass and similar natural products. Those are the kind of cattle that we should have, and I think that they are more likely to be found free of BSE.
  That is one reason why I do not want to say, "All herds are suspect. Slaughter them all, according to age," or simply, "Slaughter them all." I do not want that, but what I am looking for is respect for nature, which is so often missing from much of the human attitude to animals We are now seeing the consequences of that kind of carelessness—a carelessness about humanity's relationship with nature—and we cannot afford to continue with it.
  I repeat my belief that our overriding objective must be the protection of human health. When we achieve that, confidence will be restored in the market—but not until then.
  8.31 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate—a debate that is exceptionally important for our

  1259
  countryside as well as in other ways. I must make it clear that I am attempting the double whammy tonight: I am speaking on behalf not only of myself but of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Our constituencies are adjacent and are both rural. Between us, we represent much of the farming community in Cheshire.
  I shall begin by puncturing one or two myths propagated by the media. The first is that the interests of consumers, farmers and the meat and food industry are not synonymous. That idea is almost too ridiculous to repeat. Farmers are consumers. They are not in the business, or life style, of agriculture and farming to provide the nation with food that is not fit to eat. They are as concerned as anyone to produce the best quality food. Indeed, in our part of the world, and in our country, they do—and it is about time that somebody said that.
  Secondly, I shall puncture the myth that the Ministry of Agriculture, has acted only to defend a large and important industry in this country—the conspiracy theory. That idea, too, needs knocking on the head straight away. The reality is the opposite: Ministers and officials have been open and honourable, and at all times have taken the best and latest scientific advice available in the world, let alone in the United Kingdom. It is always easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight. How many times do we see that happening? Science is moving forward fast, but people must take decisions with the knowledge available to them at the time.
  The next myth that needs to be exploded is that food can be pronounced 100 per cent. safe. What rubbish. We all know that that is not possible. All life is a balance of risks. It is safer for me to travel down to Westminster every week by aeroplane, but I do not. I travel by car more often than not. Every day of our lives when we get out of bed we take risks and assess the balance of risks. We must use those common-sense methods to assess the balance of risk with food.
  Another myth is that scientists have been denied funding. Scientists have been given adequate and more than adequate funding for their needs. I suspect that if they need more and ask for it they will have it. Many scientists reported in the media have their own axes to grind, and they make all sorts of claims. I say to them, "If you have anything to put forward in the debate, put your ideas, theories and research before Professor Pattison and the other members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. Put yourselves forward and be judged by your scientific peers." I am not capable of judging whether there is any value in what such people propose; the best scientists in the country are the people to judge and assess.
  The next factor is the role of the media, which has been disgraceful. We have had hype, hysteria and over-reaction, with people being interviewed for the sake of their off-beat views—rent-a-quote, in other words. People are interviewed who are obviously woefully ignorant of the issues and are very concerned. To a certain extent we are a scientifically uneducated and illiterate nation, so people are swept along with the tide and believe what is written in the newspapers, which is based on speculation and scaremongering. That is what has led to the overall crisis of confidence.
  1260
  Next, blame should also be laid firmly at the feet of the European Union. The view taken by the Commission and the subsequent banning of British beef were breathtaking in their arrogance. We now know what we have always suspected—that Europe acts politically, predominantly to protect its own industry. British beef has been making inroads into European markets. What an opportunity for Europe to put a stop to those valuable exports from this country. Who would ever recommend anyone to eat Belgian beef, which is treated with clenbuterol, cortisone and angel dust? People must be really mad to do that.
  The only question that the House needs to answer tonight is how to restore confidence. That is the most vital question of all, and the most difficult to answer. It is vital that the EU is made to reverse its illegal ban as a matter of urgency, and that our other export markets are reassured by the evidence that our beef is entirely wholesome. The EU has caused, aided and abetted market turmoil, and the Government must pull out all the stops to ensure that it is aware of our views.
  The briefing paper from the Country Landowners Association says:
  "We put a clear message to Jacques Santer that European policies should similarly be based on the best scientific evidence".
  The best scientific evidence says that eating our beef is perfectly safe, and that it is perfectly good.
  The Cheshire branch of the National Farmers Union brought out its policy before the national organisation of the NFU. I am delighted about that, because we always try to be one step—I was about to say "in front of the herd", but perhaps I had better not, in the circumstances. The Cheshire branch recommends the culling of what I would call the "old girls" in the dairy herd when they come to the end of their productive lives. They would not go into the food chain but would be incinerated.
  The scientists who appeared before the joint Select Committees yesterday made it clear that meat from such cows caused no health hazard. Frankly, I believe them, but the whole object is to try to restore public confidence, so if such a policy does that, and is thought a worthwhile thing to do, I would support it.
  I remind the House how many people "swing on a cow's tail". I heard that expression last weekend, when my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and I spoke to many consumers and farmers in our constituencies to discuss these issues. The expression is absolutely true, because not only farmers but feed merchants, slaughterers and people in cattle markets and the leather trade, to name but a few, are affected by the situation. Macclesfield has an excellent abattoir, in which huge investment has been made. It is one of the best in the country, and it has been badly affected by what is happening.
  This debate is vital, not only for our countryside and our farming industry but for our economy. It is essential that all political parties and responsible groups stand behind the Government and support the measures that are to be introduced to help confidence. We should give a message to our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that, when he goes to Brussels to negotiate on behalf of this nation, whatever he does he must fight his corner hard for Britain and for British beef—the best beef in the world.
  I have never eaten so much British beef as of late, and I can assure the House that, when four of our six grandsons stay with us over Easter, we shall change from

  1261
  having turkey on Easter Sunday to having the biggest bit of British beef that I can get. My grandsons are aged between one and seven, and I do not have a scintilla of doubt of the wholesomeness of what we shall eat—because, of course, I shall cook it superbly.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I have often heard it said that when one sells a house, the one thing that matters is location, location, location. It has become clear to everyone that when one sells beef, what matters is perception, perception, perception. If we all kept that in mind, perhaps we might have rather more light and less of the heat we have had so far.
  I should like to remind hon. Members and those few people who will no doubt read my words that smoking is alleged to be responsible for 110,000 deaths every year and that alcohol is responsible for 40,000 deaths every year. Those figures are broadly agreed and are widely known among the population of the United Kingdom. People are not drinking any less alcohol, and an awfully large number of people—who know the very serious risks they run—are still smoking. Deaths from CJD are minimal, and there is still severe doubt about whether they were caused by eating meat or any meat product, yet there is mass hysteria.
  I do not want to go into all the arguments about assigning responsibility for the hysteria to hon. Members or members of the press—people can draw their own conclusions—but I will say that the fear is not at all rational. Fear has arisen in people's minds because, above all things, they fear for their children and they fear brain decay. I think that most of us have had elderly relatives who slowly sank into senile dementia for one reason or another and said, "I hope I never go like that." We have an irrational fear that eating meat might cause such a condition. I do not believe it.
  I would be the first to admit that it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, as many hon. Members have said in this debate, we are not dealing only with scientific evidence, because the situation has gone far beyond that. Essentially, we now need a public relations exercise and—I suggest to Ministers—an education exercise for the public and the consumer. We must repeat the facts again and again. Among the facts are that there are nearly 160,000 confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom. Ministers will no doubt recall that a parliamentary answer given to me at the end of November revealed that 23 of those cattle were what could broadly be described as beef cattle. That number is so small that it is hardly worth noticing.
  We must also show the consumer—the urban consumer more than the rural consumer, I think—how our beef is produced and where it comes from. It would be helpful if the Government were to make information available in every home. We could tell people that BSE is a condition of older cows, and mainly of dairy cows. I am sorry for the dairy herd that that is a fact of life, but it is a fact of life that we cannot deny.
  We also need to educate the population about what beef cattle eat. The reality is that the average beef cow in this country eats grass all spring, summer and autumn. They eat grass silage all winter or hay with a relatively small amount of barley and practically no concentrate at all. They are fed as cheaply as possible. Exactly the same
  1262
  situation holds true for those animals' offspring that are to be slaughtered. Most of them are fattened on grass, silage and rolled barley. A certain amount of concentrate is presented, but my understanding is that it is almost invariably of vegetable origin; there is certainly no offal or protein now involved.
  I believe that the public mind should draw a distinction between produce from beef cattle and from the dairy herd. Unless we create a clear understanding of that difference in the public mind, we are beating our heads against a brick wall. We have to help the public, who want to buy meat, understand exactly how it is produced, where it comes from, how it is fed and why it is safe to eat it.
  Although I believe that it will be an unnecessary waste of perfectly good stock, sooner or later we will have to remove older cows and bulls from the meat trade. I say that it is unnecessary, but again it is a matter of perception. The situation is, unfortunately, being exploited, but unless people get over their fear we will have to grasp the nettle. If this fear proves as temporary as the fear of salmonella in eggs, perhaps we can get away without taking such actions. That is why the beef should be not destroyed but stored, although, as I said, the stores are becoming full.
  It is an enormous job to destroy carcases on a large scale. There is no easy way to do it, and folk have to understand that. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) drew attention to the behaviour of the feed compounders. who of course wanted to use the offal. They used it, and in the long run that turned out to be the worst decision ever made in British fanning, because that is what led to the current crisis.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned local and regional problems in this debate. I propose to do the same because Northern Ireland has a particular problem, which in some respects is paralleled elsewhere. The good bit is that we can trace our cattle, if not quite from the cradle to the grave, from the cradle to the slaughterhouse. We know where they come from and where they are going. There is a similar system up and running in the Irish Republic.
  Mr. Salmond: And in Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: Yes. We have a quality assurance scheme that can be built upon. In those circumstances, the danger of beef from a non-beef herd getting into the food chain is minimal.
  We also export 80 per cent. of the beef that we produce, and 50 per cent. of our meat goes to continental Europe. I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that recently much of the exported meat was sent back. It was sent back from Holland, where supermarkets had decided to sell beef from Northern Ireland in preference to beef produced in their own country. They would take our beef again tomorrow, but their Government will not let them. That beef is back in Northern Ireland sitting in cold stores, which is appalling. As a result, the freezers are full, and all the beef producers' yards in Northern Ireland are full of cattle.
  The cattle are, as we say, eating their heads off and enjoying life very much, when quite a number of them should be on the hook. That reservoir of cattle will get bigger and bigger with every passing week and the cattle

  1263
  must be slaughtered because there will not be the feed in the silage pit or in the fields in a month or six weeks' time to keep them. Every practising farmer knows that.
  Government support will be needed for the abattoirs and the freezers. It will also be badly needed to move the cattle off the farms in large numbers. Food stocks are dropping fast, which is creating a great difficulty.
  We have heard some chat about Northern Ireland having separate status. I noticed in the media some crack about the Ulster Unionist population saying that they wanted all-Irish beef status. That was not true. The only party in Northern Ireland that asked for all-Ireland status was Sinn Fein. Even the SDLP did not particularly want that because it knew that it would annoy its friends in Dublin. It was a pleasure to see someone becoming a Unionist, if only to avoid annoying his friends.
  I support the idea of separate regional status for all sorts of things. It was raised earlier at Question Time. We should promote what we can produce well from the various regions. It is too late to do that in this instance; it is not a way out of the present crisis. That would not be acceptable to Europe. All the United Kingdom must sink or swim together. I wish the Minister well in his war with Europe, because a war he is going to have.
  In conclusion, I ask the folk of this country to realise that there is no way of having cheap food.
  8.52 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: First, I must declare an interest as a farmer, albeit one who, sadly, no longer has stock. I wish I had. As a dairymaid in my youth, I loved stock, and still do.
  In all my years in politics, I can recall no more depressing period than the past two weeks concerning the tragedy—I cannot call it less—of BSE and CJD. I have never spent a more depressing morning than last Friday morning at Lancaster auction.
  The disaster affects not just farmers but the whole community. The impact of the crisis is so great that the health of the rural economy of substantial parts of Britain, including my own, is in peril. As one of my sensible constituents, Mrs. Gardner of Scorton, put it:
  "The whole country must recognise that farmers, producers, meat processors and abattoir workers are also parents and consumers, and this is not an 'us and them' situation and calls for a united front and joint action."
  She signed herself:
  "Mother of five children, consumer and farmer, in that order."
  How right she is.
  Yesterday, I attended the joint meeting of the Select Committees on Health and Agriculture, which interrogated the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and their most senior and best-qualified advisers on health and veterinary matters as well as representatives of the CJD surveillance unit. As the Secretary of State told the Committee:
  "The best available evidence demonstrates that British beef and beef products can be safely eaten by consumers both here and around the world. The question now is a matter of consumer confidence. It is one thing to have a safe product; it is another to command confidence in the marketplace."
  1264
  That is very true, and the Prime Minister reiterated those sentiments at Question Time today.
  The Government have meticulously followed all the scientific advice given to them, and I share the Minister's view that British beef is perfectly safe. I certainly continue to eat it, as do all my family, who are now old enough to make their own decisions and do not just follow mum's advice.
  A remarkably small number of so-called experts have managed thoroughly to alarm people both here and abroad, although they have not taken in some of the country dwellers. As a lady from Pilling put it:
  "It is a lot of media hype",
  and as one of my constituents from Garstang put it:
  "It is a lot of twaddle".
  I agree, but unfortunately the media hype and twaddle have had a catastrophic affect on the public mind.
  I greatly sympathise with the chief medical officer, who said yesterday, rather ruefully, that the risk is extremely low, that there may be no risk at all, and that there is no evidence of a link between BSE and CJD. He went on to say that there are many thousands of scientists here and in the United States, and in other parts of the world, who are conducting research on the matter, but the media interview only three of them. We can all remember who those three are. They make a highly lucrative living by scaring the living daylights out of people, but they flatly refuse to subject their theories to analysis by their scientific peers.
  As the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday, the argument moved on on Tuesday. All over the country, the market for beef has collapsed. On Friday, at Lancaster market, just 37 cull cows were put forward as against the usual number of between 150 and 200. Those cows sold were between £100 and £150 down. By Monday, instead of between 150 and 180 beef animals being traded, just five went to market, of which four were sold and the other had to be taken home. It is imperative that action is taken to reverse that collapse. Farmers cannot hold their beef animals beyond their proper maturity or they will run to fat and be downgraded. Apart from that, after a dry summer, the farmers do riot have the fodder to do so.
  The aim must be to restore confidence in the least wasteful way. It would be criminal, in a world short of food, to advocate a wholesale slaughter policy. However, cull cows from the dairy herd and old cows from the beef suckler herd, which have passed their useful breeding life, and are presented for slaughter, could be removed from the food chain and incinerated. I dread, however, the uproar that will ensue when the burning starts, because existing incinerators will be quite unable to cope with the influx of animals. I am old enough to remember the 1954 foot and mouth outbreak, when one could smell a herd that had been destroyed for many, many miles.
  Proper compensation must be paid, and we are fully entitled to demand that the European Community, which aggravated the panic by its ban, should bear half the costs. Those measures should restore confidence, but the next meeting of the European Union vets should be brought forward from the proposed six weeks to two to reconsider that ban.
  How do we gauge that confidence has been restored? As one of my colleagues half-jokingly observed last night: "If McDonald's think the measures are adequate, and resume their policy of buying British beef, the British public will follow suit."

  1265
  I rather think he has a point. People who are—in my mind mistakenly—turning to foreign beef, should remember that others feed to their animals some very odd growth promoters and other things, which could well damage their health. They will stay a lot healthier if they stick to British beef.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I begin by quoting from a letter that I received this afternoon from James Aspinall, a farmer in my constituency:
  "I am an arable and beef farmer who farms at Gt. Altcar in West Lancashire.
  Could you please ask this Douglas Hogg"—
  the House will understand that I am quoting—
  "why he has not put some confidence into the beef industry and ordered the slaughter of these old milk cows which can carry BSE?"
  I hope that what the Minister said tonight will reassure him somewhat on that. He continued:
  "I have never had BSE on my farm and feel I am being victimised with the total collapse of price at auction markets. I feel abandoned by the Government."
  The two strands of the BSE problem run side by side: the scientific evidence—uncertain in some areas—of the transmission or otherwise of BSE, including its relationship to CJD, and the public perception of the risk and the reaction of the media and of Europe. Unfortunately, the two strands cannot be separated, much as the Government, and perhaps all hon. Members, would wish that all decisions on BSE were taken on scientific grounds alone.
  The Minister said in opening the debate that measures may have to be taken that go beyond scientific evidence, confirming the National Consumer Council's briefing that said that it has always argued that the Government should follow the precautionary principle and take all necessary measures to protect public health. Such an approach involved taking precautionary measures "beyond available scientific evidence".
  The difficulty we face has been compounded by the peculiar way in which the Government have dealt with the announcements in the past week and a half. To announce last week that a different strain of CJD had been identified caused a public panic about beef. It was followed by a weekend hugger-mugger of the relevant scientists to discuss the issue—the public knowing full well that the scientists had been working on the issue for a decade.
  Over the weekend, the Minister talked on television—rightly—of not ruling out anything, including mass slaughter. Within a week, the Secretary of State for Health had announced that everything seemed to be okay as far as the scientists were concerned. While I commend Ministers on their openness with the House in the past week or so, I must say that no tactic could have been better devised to inflate public concern than the way in which the matter has been handled.
  The public alarm is totally understandable. It is no use Conservative Members blaming the press, the Labour party or whomever they can find—apart from themselves—as the Prime Minister did today. Nor is it at all surprising that our European partners reacted with similar alarm to that of the British people—I would have been surprised if they had not. Had the situation been reversed, I can easily imagine the delight with which some
  1266
  Conservative Members would have rushed to demand a boycott and, in some senses, they have been doing that this evening. The vilification of European beef—justified or otherwise—would simply result in people in this country not eating beef at all, whether it was British, Belgian or whatever.
  In common with most hon. Members, I am not a scientist. It is therefore fairly simple for the Government to tell me, and all of us, that we must rely on scientific information. Unfortunately, not all the scientists agree. Those who have been sounding alarms for many years about BSE have been brushed to one side, branded as bonkers and—in one case, at least—sacked. The Government must realise that, although they rightly have confidence in the scientists on SEAC to whom they listen, the public also listen to scientists who differ—even when their views might be apocalyptic.
  Many people in this country suspect science and scientists—even more, they suspect Government. They fear cover-ups and vested interests that appear at times to control public policy-making. When the public hear hon. Members declaring loudly that British beef is totally safe or that British beef is the best in the world because they have tried beef from all other countries, or when they hear hon. Members declaring that they will eat more beef—as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has recently done—metaphorically, they count the spoons.
  Comparisons of risk with road accidents or smoking are interesting, but totally irrelevant. There is something creepily awful about suspecting the food one eats, and suspecting that it might contain a poison that one cannot see. We are talking not about consequences amounting to something like flu, but about an incurable fatal disease.
  Numerous questions must be addressed, and some have been by the Minister this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) detailed the errors of the past. I will not go through them again, but there are questions to be asked. Why did the Government reject the recommendations of the Tyrrel committee and of the Select Committee in 1990 that there should be random checks of animals at slaughter? That has been raised before this evening, and it seems to be the most obvious and simple thing that should have been done.
  A distinguished farmer in my constituency, Jim Heyes from Mossborourgh farm, wrote:
  "As all brains etc are removed from carcasses are they tested for BSE before disposal?…If not why not?"
  That is a good question. He added:
  "Cattle which die on the farm are normally sent to the knacker. Are brains etc removed from these carcasses?"
  I do not know the answer to that. Why has the regime in slaughterhouses been so lax that, last September, 48 per cent. of them were failing to handle SBOs correctly? What work has been done into the possible consequences of that for public health? Why was Haresh Nareng's proposed test for BSE in live animals not thoroughly tried out, instead of being pushed on one side? Why has there never been any testing of slurry-treated land where BSE has been found?
  The joint Select Committee was told yesterday that scientists were not sure about the zero risk of BSE in muscle and that it might be one in a million. We have to remember that we have a population of more than 50 million, so that is a substantial increase in risk.
  Why do we not know the reason for the incidence of CJD being much higher among dairy farmers, not merely in this country but abroad? Why were we told that

  1267
  mechanically recovered meat was banned in December, when it was only the mechanically recovered meat from the spinal cord? Why do we not know whether infected animals—or how many—were passed into the food chain during the period of the 50 per cent. compensation? Why do we not know whether infected animals were buried during those years in the late 1980s? Why have the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about possible cross-infection in the mid-1990s not been answered? Perhaps they cannot be.
  Those matters and many others—most vitally perhaps the fact that there is still uncertainty about transmissibility between mother and offspring—are all lodged in the public mind, and reassurance on statistical grounds will not suffice. Clearly, putting the consumers' worries to rest is not going to be easy. Distrust of beef products will probably remain as a folk memory for a long time. In restoring some confidence, so that the industry can survive and rebuild, I do not believe that the Government can overreact. The proposals for slaughter suggested by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association seem to be a minimum that would start the process of rebuilding.
  The regime at slaughterhouses and on farms must be draconian, and must be seen to be so. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East proposed a quality assurance scheme. The situation is so desperate that that must not only be the case, but we must not put aside the idea of creating a statutory beef regime to ensure that all the power of Parliament is seen to be behind that quality assurance. The public must be clearly informed about the presence of bovine products in other foodstuffs. Many of us have been astonished, however well up we might be on these matters, to find out how extensive is the use of such products, which are in all sorts of things, such as sweets and biscuits.
  The penalties for ignoring or flouting the regulations must be seen by the public to be harsh and effective. Moreover, whatever action is taken, it must be taken swiftly. Every day that passes means more jobs, more confidence and more exports lost and that may lose us the co-operation and support of the European Commission, which we seem to be starting to enjoy.
  There is an awful lot to learn from this episode about the wider concerns of the public—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I call the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
  9.7 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: One of the greatest strengths of our parliamentary system, certainly in so far as it applies to the House, is the relationship that all hon. Members enjoy with our constituencies. I dare say that every hon. Member is proud of the constituency that he or she represents. In this past nine years, I have certainly been proud to represent Ryedale and I have good cause for that pride, because those who have been to North Yorkshire know that it is one of the jewels of our countryside.
  1268
  Much of my interest and concern in the affairs of Ryedale has focused in those nine years on the fortunes, welfare and interests of the agricultural community. Were any of that community able to speak in this Chamber tonight, they would want to say that the crisis that they are facing is unprecedented in their memory and, I suspect, that of their parents and grandparents, who have farmed the land for generations. Therefore, it is time for us to stop a lot of the party political bickering that has marred debate on this matter in the past seven or eight days. The electorate will be able to judge that in due course. Now we must concentrate on what measures we can take to stem the prospect of a complete collapse of the interests of many farms and other businesses that are dependent upon agriculture.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Whole communities.
  Mr. Greenway: As my hon. Friend says, whole communities could be devastated.
  We face the prospect of a grotesque obscenity. It is grotesque because we are likely to have to spend hundreds of millions of pounds, perhaps more than £1 billion a year, to put things right—and for what? To destroy cattle, livestock, meat and meat products that are entirely wholesome—some of the highest-quality produce anywhere in the world. We shall spend money that, whatever our views on the Budget and the need to contain public expenditure, we could have spent on the health service, education and social services.
  The purpose of the debate is to ask ourselves what can and should be done to ensure that we do not suffer the catastrophe that many of us think may occur. It is abundantly clear that, while the Government have rightly followed all the scientific advice that they have received, and have done so speedily on virtually every occasion, more action that goes beyond the science is needed.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned what they have discovered at their markets. Last Friday, I discovered at one of my local markets in Malton a unanimous view that, above all else, we must differentiate in the public's mind between clean beef and cow beef. Beyond peradventure, that must be the most important way to begin the difficult job of rebuilding consumer confidence.
  The housewife and the consumer want to know that the meat or other beef product that they are buying or consuming in restaurants, canteens, schools and factories has come from an animal that could not have had BSE. It is difficult for us to give that guarantee, but it is much more easily given if we take cow beef out of the food chain. For that reason, I strongly support the proposals of the National Farmers Union. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, knows that, for almost a week, I have advocated that. I know how seriously he is considering it. The Country Landowners Association has also supported it.
  The question is whether that proposal will work. It is no good us being convinced that it is a sensible proposition; we have to judge the expenditure on the likelihood of its success. Will it make any difference to the European Union veterinary committee? It clearly must, because there can be no real basis for the ban that has been placed on British beef and beef products against the advice of its own veterinary scientists. Will the supermarkets support the proposal? I believe that they

  1269
  will. Will McDonald's and the other fast food restaurants support the move? I believe that they should. Will schools lift their bans on beef? I am sad that North Yorkshire has also succumbed and taken that ridiculous measure. Will the consumer generally be reassured? Those are the issues that Ministers have to judge. That is the objective.
  It is very easy for hon. Members and for the general public to say, "Here is an easy way of resolving the problem." However, it will not be an easy solution unless the organisations agree with our decision. It may take more than tomorrow's meeting to reach agreement—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend knows that—in which case we must decide what we will do to support the market in the immediate future.
  I intervened during my right hon. and learned Friend's speech to ask whether all cattle would be available for intervention. He replied that the cull-cow beef that we want to remove from the food chain may not be available for intervention. I am grateful for his comment that other support may be available in that case. Under our system of intervention, all the intervention boxes are not available to United Kingdom producers. Some cattle—whether they are premium cattle or those that weigh too much—are not allowed through the intervention system. They must be available for intervention as a matter of urgency.
  If the European Union ban is not lifted, we shall not be able to export livestock, not just beef and beef products, to Europe. It will be utterly grotesque if veal calves are slaughtered at a cost of more than £100 each, the trade in veal calves is stopped and many businesses are ruined by that ridiculous measure.
  I do not for one moment underestimate the difficulty that my right hon. and learned Friend faces in Brussels tomorrow—and I do not think that any hon. Member should do so. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will travel to Brussels knowing that he has the support of all hon. Members, as well as that of the farming and rural communities, in securing the results that he needs in order to restore confidence in the British beef industry.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: As I came into the Chamber this evening, I learned that Cornhill and Maud—two of the historic marts in the north-east of Scotland—closed today and are never to reopen, regardless of the state of the industry. Buchan Meat, another famous name in the industry, was closed in January. Following a vigourous community campaign, we attracted a buyer, and it was due to reopen last Monday. That reopening has now been postponed for days, weeks or months—who knows? I am aware that such events are occurring not only in Scotland but in the rural communities of Northern Ireland, Wales and England. However, the north-east of Scotland is one of the heartlands of the beef industry.
  The train of events is affecting farmers, processors at the marts, factory workers and butchers. It is not simply a question of compensating companies: individuals need compensation, too. Individual workers—not just individual farmers—are losing their jobs. I hope that, in summing up, the Secretary of State for Health will mention compensation for rural communities as well as for individual enterprises.
  Earlier today I likened our present situation to a blocked drain. That is the reality: unless the meat can be shifted from the abattoirs, those who finish the cattle cannot sell them for slaughter and they cannot buy the
  1270
  stores of the hillmen who have nourished the cattle through the long winter months. The drain must be unblocked—and quickly.
  It has been said this evening that we should not refer to the past too much. I shall put one idea to the House. There may be a small premium in apportioning blame, but a significant problem of feed contamination in the dairy industry, which was identified 10 years ago, has turned into a black hole that threatens to envelop the whole of the beef industry. That hardly represents a wise carrying through of official policy. The Government say that we should not be wise after the event, but they are foolish after the event. They still do not think that they have done anything wrong during the past 10 years. That is folly. A bit more humility would come well from Ministers.
  We are told that Europe is to blame—that the French have done us down. I ask hon. Members to consider what would have happened if the French Agriculture Minister had said in the Assembly of the Republic, "We have a problem with our poultry industry. It is a small risk, of course, but some people have unfortunately died." The very Members of the House who blame the French would be blockading Dover to keep out French chickens, and they know it.
  What policy prescription do they advocate? That we should withdraw from the European Union. Would that make the European Union buy British beef? Would that advocacy be successful? What nonsense. The responsibility for the BSE outbreak and its repercussions, not only in what foreign Governments are doing but in what the domestic public are doing, lies much closer to home than Brussels, Paris or Bonn.
  Four things must be done now to stabilise the position. First, we need tough measures to enforce the regulations that have been made. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that that is a problem of the past, but it is a problem of the very recent past indeed. There is a credibility problem with regard to the enforcement of regulations. I hope that we shall hear something from the Minister later about stiffer sentencing. People who break those regulations are jeopardising the livelihoods of thousands of people, and not paltry fines but gaol sentences are required.
  Secondly, a selective slaughter policy should be agreed with the European Commission, to provide the basis for reopening markets at home and stabilising consumer confidence in this country. The NFU has proposed, not a compulsory cull, as I understand it, but a 30-month restriction, and after that, when animals come to the end of their useful lives, they will not go into the human food chain. There is an important distinction. I am not sure that all hon. Members fully appreciated that. If we go for a compulsory cull—which I think will be necessary for certain categories of animals—let us concentrate on the BSE-infected herds, the animals at risk, and not carry out a global cull, which will satisfy no one and will not even have the public relations value that some people advocate for it.
  Thirdly, Scottish beef must be marketed as a quality product, which can be guaranteed BSE-free. I have a letter here from Professor Hugh Pennington, whom many hon. Members will know as a professor of medical microbiology at Aberdeen university, an expert in the field that we are discussing. Looking at the low incidence of BSE in Scotland, perhaps one sixth of the incidence elsewhere, cow for cow, he says:

  1271
  "Second, Scottish Quality Beef can be traced back to BSE-free herds. From the scientific point of view it would be irrational to rate the health risk from consuming this beef as higher than that run from consuming beef from any other country that had reported BSE in its own cattle—a risk that is currently considered to be negligible."
  There are quality assurance schemes in Northern Ireland and Scotland, there may be some in England and I understand that a small one has started in Wales. If the Ministers do not succeed in lifting the global ban, we must get beef that is traceable as quality assured on to European markets, to try to unblock the system.
  Fourthly, the Government must take global intervention measures to unblock the system. We heard some encouraging things in the Minister's opening speech, but without widespread intervention buying, the market will not recover. If the market does not recover, even if consumer confidence is restored quickly, the processors, slaughterhouses and farmers will no longer be there, because they will be redundant or out of business. Measures must be taken quickly.
  I have undertaken to shorten my speech to allow others time to speak. I say finally that the Government must take action quickly, or the industry will not be there when consumer confidence returns.
  9.23 pm
  Sir Jim Spicer: I have undertaken to speak for five minutes or less, and I shall do just that.
  When I farmed in Dorset, 15 or 20 years ago, I had a pedigree herd of Galloways and I then had to move across—single suckling—to a cross-bred herd. If I had been farming today, this would have been one of the most desolate days of my life. All I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is that, whatever measures we take to help the farming industry, for God's sake let us get on with it and give help quickly, because help is desperately needed now.
  Yesterday, there was a joint meeting of the Health and Agriculture Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) asked Professor Pattison:
  "Would you not agree that the likelihood of BSE infected food appearing on the dinner plate is as near zero as is humanly possible?"
  Professor Pattison's response was:
  "I believe that is now the case."
  That was not reported in the press this morning—it does not suit them to report the facts, which would have restored some confidence. If we were dealing with a rational response to such a statement, there would be no major cause for concern, and consumers—both in this country and in Europe—would be happily eating beef as a matter of course.
  Sadly, we all know that in this case, the media, the Opposition and our so-called fellow members of the European Union seem to have had one aim: to stir up public fears and—in the case of the European Union—to serve their own interests, at whatever cost to our industry. We now have to face up to that lack of confidence. There is no doubt that major resources will
  1272
  need to be deployed and that many thousands of cows may have to be slaughtered in an attempt to restore public confidence.
  I shall say a word to those who have helped to undermine that confidence. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has her reasons for what she has done over the past week—and I hope that she will live to regret it. We all accepted and enjoyed hearing what the leader of the Liberal Democrats has said over the past two or three days, but I wish that he had taken the same line when he was making broadcasts earlier this week and last week—his tone was quite different. I ask the Liberal Democrats to exert some influence on the leader of Dorset county council, to make certain that he does not go around undermining confidence in our beef.
  The cost of the measures that we shall have to implement may be high, but it is worth bearing it in mind that, between 1979 and 1995, Government social and reconstruction grants to British Coal totalled over £6 billion. At that time, the coal industry was in decline. However, our farming industry has a future, provided that we take the steps now to reassure our farming community and to restore confidence.
  It is vital that the European market is reopened as soon as possible. The total value of beef products in this country at £2.5 billion, and over £500 million goes in exports. If we do not get that market back, we shall be in serious trouble. The Government have to listen to reason and they have to do something about it.
  BSE has been in rapid decline in this country and, in large measure, that is because of the actions taken in 1989. We must all hope that that downward trend continues and that within two or three years the present catastrophic situation will, in part, have been righted. The banks should help—they must stand by the industry and, if need be, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should write to all the clearing banks.
  Next Friday—5 April—the Dorset National Farmers Union will have a meeting. It has invited all Members of Parliament, all candidates, all county councillors, all district councillors and all parish councillors. At that meeting, we must be united and have only one aim: to restore confidence in Dorset beef and food products and, through that, in the rest of the country.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I thank the hon. Members who have cut their speeches short to allow me the opportunity to say something on this important subject.
  I come from a good Labour constituency in the central belt of Scotland. Hon. Members seem to forget that I have one of the largest rural constituencies in the House—over 550 square miles. The Lanarkshire area secretary of the National Farmers Union told me that he has 400 members in my constituency. Therefore, I have a considerable interest in this very important subject. Obviously, I understand the plight of the farmers, but we should not lose sight of the fact that hundreds of thousands of other livelihoods are under threat. Particularly in rural constituencies such as Clydesdale, many small businesses, including family butchers and corner shops, depend considerably on a thriving rural economy and a vibrant agricultural industry.
  Last weekend, I found myself appealing to my constituents to calm their response to the understandable hysteria that followed last week's announcement.

  1273
  In asking them to be calm, however, I could not put my hand on my heart and advise them to eat beef after the statements in the House a few days previously.
  In Scotland, we have excellent beef. I did not get where I am today without being a specific supporter. In Scotland, we have the best steak pies anywhere. I have had one or two steak pies in my time. I had one last weekend and I shall have another this weekend.
  I am not trying to score political points, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), I was disappointed and somewhat surprised when I listened to the Prime Minister today. I understand that the Prime Minister has problems and pressures, as we all do. He probably has more than most, but his reaction today went over the scale and made no contribution whatever to addressing a great problem. I do not say that in a political way, but if the Prime Minister watches the tape of today's Question Time, he may regret his response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  There seems to be a certain attitude abroad within the Government. We have had scepticism and Thatcherism—now we have "not me-ism". Whenever there is a problem, the Government take the same view. They say, "It is not us," and somebody else is always to blame. Our constituents expect the Government to take responsibility. That is what the Government and Ministers are about, so when they start bobbing and weaving to escape that responsibility, politicians lose the public confidence. That loss of confidence affects not just particular Ministers, but the whole political system. It is difficult for us as politicians to address a fall in confidence when the public see politicians refusing to accept the responsibility that they accepted in the past.
  We can talk about presenting a united front in our approach to the problem. I can well understand that, but the Secretary of State for Health let the genie out of the bottle last week. It would have been better had he considered talking to consumer associations, industry, traders and Opposition parties first. Some cross-party views might have helped to reduce the hysteria.
  The statement let the genie out of the bottle, and over the weekend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food suggested the possibility of selective culling. Then we were told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came back from South Africa to veto any such proposal. I do not have to remind the House that that was followed by the ban by McDonald's, British Airways and schools, which was no help at all.
  Some colleagues blame Europe for the problem. Today, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that the Commission had acted illegally. As Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I can tell the House that the Commission did not act illegally: it acted quite properly under the treaties. That has been demonstrated quite clearly to our Select Committee this week. It is a fact, not a matter of conjecture.
  Now we need to rally round and try to pull back from this disaster. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we are not going to nit-pick about the Minister's proposals. I hope that they will do enough to rebuild confidence in British beef. I agree with hon. Members on both sides about British beef; in particular, Scottish beef is the best one can find anywhere. Wherever I am in the world, if I am offered Scottish beef, I am delighted to eat it.
  1274
  Let us refrain from throwing brickbats and claiming that the Opposition parties caused the whole problem. If the Government had accepted responsibility from the beginning and had consulted the industry and Opposition parties, we might have been in a better position today. If, in the interests of unity, the Opposition had supported the statement by the Secretary of State for Health last Monday, where would we be today? It was only by objecting to what he said that we brought about some movement towards solving the problem. I hope that what we have heard today will begin to solve it, but the Government cannot escape their responsibility for the issue.
  9.36 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: The debate in the House tonight and the wider debate in the country has been prompted by the discovery of 10 cases of what has been identified as a new form of CJD, which is an horrific disease, always fatal. This new strain of the disease has a new neuropathology. Hitherto it has been thought unique to this country, although I understand that it has been announced today that there may be a case with the same neuropathology in France.
  This disease strikes young people, unlike the form of CJD with which people are more familiar. The average age of the 10 victims is 27.
  We are told by the Secretary of State for Health that the most probable cause of the disease in these 10 people was eating contaminated beef, most probably before 1989. We well understand the full horror of the disease, but scientists are still attempting to understand more about it. I acknowledge the work of the independent advisory committee, SEAC, which has tried hard to marshal and to understand the scientific evidence, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) made clear, the problem remains that more questions have still to be answered than can be answered by the scientists.
  The scientists cannot tell us with any certainty whether these 10 cases will be the first and last, or whether there will be 100 cases or 10,000 cases. The issue is full of uncertainty and must be kept under review. In particular, I ask the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the scientists keep the susceptibility of children under review, especially those with underdeveloped immune systems—children under three. Public health must be the Government's first concern.
  To take the necessary action, there must be an understanding of the roots of the crisis which has been caused by confidence in the safety of British beef first having hung by a thread and then having collapsed.
  From the time that BSE was discovered, the Government asserted that mad cow disease could not be transmitted to humans and cause brain disease. On 7 June 1990, the then Minister of Agriculture, said:
  "the clear scientific evidence is that British beef is perfectly safe."—[Official Report, 7 June 1990; Vol. 173, c. 906.]
  That was followed up by the Minister inviting the world to watch him feed his daughter beefburgers, thereby implying certainty, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) said, there was no certainty, and concern and doubt were growing.
  The problem is that trust in the Government collapsed when, having made categorical assurances for all those years, the Secretary of State for Health had to come to

  1275
  the House and announce, in the words of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, that the most likely explanation at present was that these new CJD cases were linked to exposure to BSE.
  Of course it is true that scientific opinion on BSE and Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease has developed considerably over the years, but as new developments have emerged the balance of scientific opinion has changed. Against the background of that growing uncertainty, the problem remained that the Government continued to argue with certainty that there was no link between BSE and CJD. It is that belief in certainty when there was none that contributed to the delay and inaction and which has now led to a crisis in public confidence.
  In the debate, hon. Members set out their concerns about Government delays and the failure to regulate. The only way forward is to make beef safer and to restore consumers' confidence. That is also important for the livelihood of all those who work in the meat industry. There must be a common agreement between consumers, producers and retailers on the action that must be taken to restore public confidence. I hope that the Government will now admit that that is necessary.
  For a week, the Secretary of State for Health insisted that policy must be based on scientific evidence and nothing else. I argued in the House on the Wednesday that the announcement was made and on the following Monday that only tough action that goes beyond the minimal recommendations of the scientists would have any chance of restoring public confidence. It was only yesterday, seven days later, that the Secretary of State for Health came round to agreeing when he told the joint meeting of the Agriculture and Health Select Committees:
  "The issue is no longer a question of the safety of British beef. The question now is a matter of consumer confidence."
  He said that the Government were considering a wide range of options over and above what was scientifically recommended. But it took seven days for a recognition of that action; seven days in which consumer uncertainty has grown and people in the meat and fanning industries have faced uncertainty.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: Will the hon. Lady tell us what she proposes to do to boost consumer confidence?
  Ms Harman: I will. Today we put forward an eight-point package that commands broad agreement among retailers, the hamburger chains, consumer organisations and farmers. The task is to restore public confidence: not simply to jeer at the public. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Health will finally understand the importance of making beef safer in order to restore consumer confidence.
  Nobody could fail to have been moved in the past week after hearing about farmers, farm workers, slaughterhouse workers and those in the meat and food industry, seeing the collapse of consumer confidence threatening their livelihoods.
  Mr. Hendry: That was helped by the hon. Lady.
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman says that it was helped by me, but the writing has been on the wall for
  1276
  many years. Before I said one word on the issue, 10,000 schools, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, had taken beef off the agenda. The Government should have read the writing on the wall instead of just seeking scapegoats.
  The awful position faced by farmers, farm workers and people in the meat industry was mentioned by the hon. Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The tragedy is that it has taken the Secretary of State a week to be moved to action to support farmers in the meat industry by rebuilding public confidence in beef safety.
  As I said in response to an intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), public concern about beef had been mounting for some time before last Wednesday. A third of all schools had taken beef off the menu when the Secretary of State for Health was saying that it was perfectly safe, but he did not listen to their concerns. He ignored their worries and, as a result, they could not have confidence in him and could not trust him.
  After Wednesday, consumer confidence, which had been hanging by a thread, collapsed.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I cannot sit here and listen to this for much longer. Will the hon. Lady say whether she believes beef is safe?
  Hon. Members: Yes or no?
  Ms Harman: Hon. Members shout, "Yes or no?" They should listen to what the scientists have said, which is that there is no certainty in this situation, but I will say that, if the Government take the eight measures that we have proposed, British beef will certainly be safer and consumer confidence more likely. The Consumers Association said that, if people want to take no risk, they should not eat beef.
  There has been mounting consumer concern. On Sunday, McDonald's announced that it would no longer put British beef in its burgers. It was swiftly followed by Wimpy, Burger King, British Airways, Virgin Airways, Little Chef and Happy Eater. Even the canteen at the Department of Health has taken British beef off the menu.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire said, it is no good blaming the consumer, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) sought to do. Consumers will be assured only if they are given full information and see tough action.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right that someone should attribute a view to me that has never been expressed in the House? I have never said that the consumer should be blamed. I have made a perfectly clear, straightforward speech. I never said anything of the sort, and the hon. Lady maligns my character.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That may be a point of debate, but it is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.
  Ms Harman: I will move on to Labour's proposals to make beef safer and to restore consumer confidence. The

  1277
  first priority must be enforcement of existing rules in slaughterhouses. For many years, people who work in slaughterhouses, represented by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and by the Transport and General Workers Union, have been saying that the standards are not high enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said. In autumn last year, unannounced visits by the state veterinary service found that 48 per cent. of slaughterhouses failed to comply with safety regulations. That was reaffirmed yesterday in the Select Committee by John Pattison, chairman of SEAC.
  How can the public have confidence that their meat is clean if slaughterhouses are not? As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, in response to the failing standards in slaughterhouses, there have been no prosecutions for that flagrant breaking of the rules. All that has happened is that slaughterhouse owners have been invited into the Ministry of Agriculture for a cup of tea. Let me tell Ministers that, if McDonald's, Tesco or Sainsbury's find that their slaughterhouses have broken their rules, they do not invite them in for a cup of tea; they take their business away.
  We have made other proposals. They include the introduction of a random testing programme for BSE in the brains of cattle going through slaughterhouses, not because those brains are to be eaten—the Prime Minister misunderstood the position—but so that we can trace the incidence of infection with greater accuracy. We are calling for publication by the Government of a full list of all food products that contain bovine material. People cannot choose if they do not know what they are eating. The Secretary of State for Health should help them be able to choose.
  We are calling for the banning from human and animal food of all specified bovine offal, including offal from cows under the age of six months. We should look again at the safety of mechanically recovered meat. We should encourage a quality assurance scheme—so that consumers know where their beef comes from—with labelling of products in shops. That point was made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
  We should be establishing a food standards agency—it would put an end to the sense of conflict in MAFF—which would report to both the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture. We should be guaranteeing the chief medical officer greater independence and the support needed to fulfil that role independently. That would make beef safer; it would restore consumer confidence. Safer food will make for safer jobs in the food industry.
  9.50 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The House will have heard the contrast between the speeches by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and her hon. Friend the shadow agriculture spokesman, the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). The House, the country and those whose livelihoods depend on agriculture will have drawn their own conclusions from that contrast. In the 10 minutes that are available to me at the end of this debate, I do not propose to follow the hon. Lady into the political sewers from which she has not emerged since the beginning of the argument.
  1278
  Every other contributor to the debate has reflected the seriousness of the position facing the country's rural economy. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd), who said that there would be universal disappointment in the rural community, and, indeed, among those who enjoy eating beef, at those who have sought to draw party politics into the issue. That point was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer), and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, for which I give him full credit.
  The House knows the history and is aware that the central finding of SEAC is that provided that the specified offals ban and other regulations are fully enforced—the Government have made it abundantly clear that we are fully committed to the full enforcement of those regulations—beef is, in the words of the SEAC chairman, in common parlance, safe. We heard that from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and would have liked to have heard it from the hon. Member for Peckham.
  Against that background, the Government were right to identify clearly from the beginning that they faced two priorities. Their first and paramount priority was to ensure that the product on sale to British and foreign consumers was safe. That is a technical question and needs a technical answer. That is why I am quite certain that the Government were right to insist that we must begin dealing with the situation by looking at the science.
  The result of that, and of the fact that the Government have adopted such an approach not merely in this latest episode but right through the story of the treatment of BSE, is that we now have in Britain the most intensively regulated beef industry and the best quality assurance for it that one will find in any part of Europe. That is the foundation of our claim for market confidence. We have the best assurance of any country in Europe about the quality of the beef product on sale to consumers in this country and abroad.
  It is against that background that I said—the hon. Member for Peckham was right on this at least—at the Select Committee meeting yesterday, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture repeated this afternoon, that we now need to move quickly to restore market confidence in the product. I agree with all my hon. Friends who have stressed the need to move quickly.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the banks help people who are in such dire straits?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a need for support for the entire economic structure of these industries from those who deal with them and from the Government. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is going to Brussels tomorrow to make clear the British Government's desire to act to restore market confidence in British beef.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU ban on British beef is unfair, unjustified and unwarranted, and that it owes more to commercial considerations than it does to any medical reason?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes a very important point which has been made during the debate by my hon.

  1279
  Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander), and by others. It is underlined by the wording of the press release put out by Commissioner Fischler, who said:
  "the evidence suggests that even should there be a link to BSE and CJD the risk to human health has been eliminated or at worst reduced to a minimal level".
  That is why it is the Government's view that the ban is unjustified and why my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has made it clear that it is an objective of British policy to see that it is removed. That is also why my right hon. and learned Friend has welcomed the fact that in the same press release, Mr. Fischler stresses that the Commission is ready to assist the UK both in terms of support to stabilise the beef market and in terms of further control measures against BSE.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. and learned Friend is going to Brussels to take forward the Government's commitment to discuss measures to support the British beef market. That is a clear commitment and my right hon. Friend will carry it forward tomorrow.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have only another 10 minutes and I have some other important points to make in responding to the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four minutes."] I should have said four minutes. My mathematics is improving as my speech continues.
  I have asked representatives of the British food retailing industry to come to the Department of Health tomorrow. Thus while my right hon. and learned Friend is conducting discussions with the Commission in Brussels which are designed to restore market confidence in the British beef industry, I shall be conducting discussions with food retailers in this country to ensure that we understand clearly the steps that are necessary to restore the confidence that every one of us wants to see restored.
  Mr. James Couchman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeing the food retailers. Would he—
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to give way
  1280
  successively to hon. Members who have not been here throughout the debate, but to refuse to give way to hon. Members who have been?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely at the discretion of the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he gives way or to whom he gives way.
  Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend remember, while he speaks to the retailers, the food manufacturing industry, including the pie factory in my constituency which makes 60 million pies a year—a third of all British frozen pies? Will he remember that such firms also face a crisis?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises a key interest. He has pursued it tirelessly with both my right hon. and learned Friend and me, and I assure him that it will also be represented.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster stressed the importance she places on bringing forward the meeting of European vets planned for six weeks' time. It is an objective of my right hon. and learned Friend in his discussions with the Commission to ensure that we are in a position whereby that meeting can be brought forward.
  My right hon. and learned Friend also made it clear to the House in his opening speech that not only are we taking the steps necessary to rebuild the confidence of the beef consumer and reopen the market, but we are introducing in the House measures to support the restructuring of the rendering industry and to introduce a calf slaughter premium. My right hon. and learned Friend has also undertaken to examine other measures necessary to support the rural economy connected with the beef industry.
  All those measures were welcomed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, for which I am grateful. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) stressed the importance of research, and I assure him that that emphasis is entirely supported by the Government.
  I shall conclude with another point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall made, about the importance of building a national approach to a national problem. If that approach is diluted or upset by the conduct of narrow party political arguments—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Women in prison
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  10 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: This debate was originally due to take place on 6 March, after a scheduled one-and-a-half hour debate on the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. However, the motion for that debate was not moved, largely because the Minister responding to the previous debate on community care finished 10 minutes earlier than expected.
  It is interesting to speculate why on that occasion the Minister took only eight minutes to reply to a five-hour debate. All I know is that there was considerable media interest in the issue of women in prison, and the feedback that I received suggested that there was considerable nervousness on that day about the spotlight being put on the Prison Service.
  My sources say that a relatively quiet period for the women's prison service had been transformed in a matter of days into a crisis because expected places at Eastwood Park, which had suddenly become famous as the "battery hen" prison, did not become available. We shall probably never know whether my debate was deliberately scuppered by the Government, but at least we are now here at a reasonable time of night.
  I wanted to give this subject another airing because of the continuing concern about the increase in the female prison population and the conditions in which people are housed. I hope that the Minister of State will be prepared to demonstrate an objective approach to the humanitarian and practical issues concerning female offenders.
  The Minister is on record as having said that, as well as punishment, an important role for the Prison Service is the rehabilitation of offenders. I echo her comments on the BBC programme "Question Time" on 29 February, when she said that she needed to make no apology for taking out of circulation people who prey on the general public. I agree that serious and persistent offenders should be gaoled, but I hope that tonight she will acknowledge the fact that the public would be better served if fewer female petty offenders were given custodial sentences. That would give the Prison Service more scope to pursue its work in the rehabilitation of more serious offenders.
  I understand that the female prison population this month is about 2,100—an increase of about 40 per cent. over the past two to three years, and more than double the numbers incarcerated 20 years ago, when it was predicted that in future fewer women would be given prison sentences.
  The flippancy with which the Home Office has reacted to that huge increase is illustrated by the written answer by the other Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), to my question asking about the increase in the number of women sent to prison, and requesting his assessment of the reasons for that increase. He wrote:
  "Some 2,952 women were sentenced to immediate custody in 1994, compared with 2,158 in 1992 … The reason for the increase … is the rise in numbers sentenced to custody by the courts."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 266.]
  One might expect from that information that we are in the midst of an epidemic of crime committed by women, but the number of convictions for indictable offences has
  1282
  steadily declined from 47,500 in 1987 to 39,500 in 1994. Violent offences have also gone down from a peak in 1989. The figures show not a rising tide of female crime but a greater readiness to imprison women. The result is overcrowding and inhumane treatment, as has been graphically recorded in recent months.
  In December, the new chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbottom, pulled his inspection team out of Holloway. The team included a past governor of that establishment. Sir David reported that prisoners were being locked up 23 hours a day. Prisoner officers complained that they were being forced into acting like 18th-century turnkeys. Conditions were reported as extremely dirty. The Minister of State admitted that she had visited the prison six months previously.
  More recently, newspaper reports emerged of "battery hen" cells, measuring 6 ft by 6 ft, or 8 ft by 8 ft—that is debatable—at Eastwood Park, which have been described by zoo managers as conditions that would drive even animals mad. I know that we can take newspaper hyperbole with a pinch of salt, and perhaps prisoners transferring from tatty dormitories at Pucklechurch might consider their brand new cells an improvement. However, is the Minister prepared to defend such conditions, when women might be locked up in their cells for 14 hours a day, and perhaps more, as at Holloway, particularly in view of forthcoming budget cuts?
  Can the Minister imagine prisoners on basic regimes allowed free association on only two evenings a week, spending their time lying on their beds, their heads inches from their toilet bowls? Does she find that acceptable? A prison officer has been quoted as saying, "I feel like a concentration camp guard." Although it is acknowledged that about a third of the women moving into Eastwood Park are likely to be mentally ill or suffering from a personality disorder, and many have a history of sexual abuse, the health care centre has only 10 cells for an eventual population of 135 prisoners. It seems appropriate at this point to mention the 1991 Home Office study which showed that 56 per cent. of female sentenced inmates were mentally ill. We surely have to ask ourselves whether those women's experiences in prison are likely to help or to hinder their rehabilitation.
  For example, does the indiscriminate use of restraints for prisoners who are sick or vulnerable help? I am sure that the recent furore about the unnecessary shackling of female prisoners in labour will be remembered by the Minister of State for many years to come. Just as that died down, after new guidelines were issued, another story emerged of a woman shackled by two prisoner officers throughout the funeral service for her 10-day-old baby. That woman was obviously not a security risk; she had been allowed to visit her baby in the neonatal intensive care unit at Great Ormond Street hospital without handcuffs or chains. What sort of reign of terror is the Minister presiding over that leads prison staff to abandon all sense of common decency?
  The Royal College of Nursing has specifically requested that I raise that issue with the Minister. I hope that she will agree to its call for an urgent review of the use of restraints for female prisoners. It is a tragedy that high-profile escapes of dangerous male prisoners should have resulted in such inhumane treatment of women, who, as an analysis of the prison population shows, are not a danger to society.

  1283
  Of the 2,000-plus female prisoners, only between 260 and 270 have been convicted of crimes of violence. As many as 35 per cent. of women prisoners are first-time offenders, compared with 12 per cent. of men. Although only 11 per cent. of men convicted of theft are gaoled, the figure for women is 23 per cent.
  As I have said, most of the recent increase in the female prison population is attributable, first, to the increase in the numbers of females sent to prison and, secondly, to the more recent trend of imprisoning women with convictions for theft and fraud, many of whom are in multiple debt, have dependent children and would be better and more constructively punished in the community.
  Considerable concern has also been expressed at the large number of women fine defaulters who are gaoled, not because they wilfully refuse to pay but because they are poor. Since 1984, gaol for non-payment of fines has increased by 63 per cent. for women, but by only 5 per cent. for men. There is plenty of evidence that magistrates are failing in their duty to use prison only as a last resort, and even to abide by their own guidelines. Research—including that carried out by the Home Office—shows that the overwhelming majority of fine defaulters are people struggling to live on benefits. A dossier of cases compiled by Rona Epstein of Coventry university demonstrates that, despite their poverty, many fine defaulters make considerable efforts to pay off their debts but their cases receive cursory attention in the courts, with many magistrates regarding the application for deductions from benefit as creating too much paperwork.
  Home Office figures show that, nationally, only about 2,000 women on income support have fines deducted from benefits. An alternative ostensibly open to magistrates is to impose a money payment supervision order, yet the use of that measure has declined dramatically. Last week, the justices' chief executive from Wolverhampton told me that the probation service was not actioning MPSOs, with the result that this was not an option for the court. Will the Minister take action to put that right? That action must include ensuring that there are adequate resources for the probation service.
  As I have mentioned on many occasions in the House, the courts in England and Wales—unlike their counterparts in Scotland—do not have the option of imposing community service for fine defaulters. It is now more than a year since I raised this matter with the Home Secretary, and I was pleased to see the recent publicity revealing a change of heart from his initial dismissive attitude. I hope that the Minister will announce real progress tonight, because there is plenty of evidence that magistrates are out of touch with the realities of life for people on poverty incomes, whose numbers—unfortunately—have increased dramatically in the past decade or so.
  Although there are examples of good practice within magistrates courts—I would, for example, commend the South Gloucestershire petty sessional division—magistrates frequently make unreasonable demands for sums of £5 or £10 a week from people whose total income is not much more than £50. But the House should not just take my word for it—hon. Members should listen to a
  1284
  quote from an affidavit from Mrs. P. M. Allen and G. W. Catteral, Esq., magistrates from Wigan, about the case of Debra Fitzmartin:
  "Since the last hearing the defendant had paid only a total of £10 resulting in the 21 day term being unaffected. Mr. Rigby then informed the Bench of the contents of Debra Fitzmartin's letter before the Court today. Her written response was to ask the Court to once more grant her a further opportunity to pay, by again postponing the issue of the committal warrant. She had referred once more to her difficulties in making payments due to being a single mother coping with two children, and also that she was now pregnant and experiencing some haemorrhaging resulting in her having to attend her local hospital. She also requested that the arrears outstanding be deducted from her Income Support benefits. Mr. Rigby informed us that case law permitted a committal warrant being issued in a defendants absence provided a means inquiry had previously been held in the presence of the defendant … Taking everything that had been stated in open court into consideration, we were advised by the Clerk that we had to decide if there was before us a sufficient change in Debra Fitzmartin's circumstances so as to justify not issuing the committal warrant. We decided that although there had been a slight change in that she was now expecting a third child and experiencing some difficulty in that pregnancy, such did not amount to a sufficient change. We also concluded that to instruct the Local Authority to withdraw today's proceedings and arrange a deduction from her Income Support benefit was inappropriate in all the circumstances."
  The magistrates ended up issuing a new warrant, committing Debra Fitzmartin to prison for a term of 21 days. This imprisonment was declared unlawful by the High Court in December 1995.
  What troubles me is that no penalty, no inquiry, no retraining or no public censure is imposed on magistrates—there is absolutely nothing. They are carrying on with the same attitudes today.
  Take also the case of Ann, a 25-year-old widow, whose husband committed suicide after being made redundant in January 1993. She was living on income support, with two children aged eight and six. She suffers from severe depression and has attempted suicide. At a hearing before Mold magistrates in respect of poll tax arrears, she told the court of her problems. The magistrates imposed a prison sentence of 28 days, suspended on payment of £10 a week. Not surprisingly, she found that difficult to pay, asked for deductions at source from her income support, and believed that £5 a week was being deducted. However, on 10 November 1995, she was arrested and taken to Risley prison, having been told that there had been a hearing in her absence on 3 November at which she had been committed to prison. After spending four days in gaol, she was released on bail and applied for judicial review.
  A series of cases have been taken to judicial review, which shows that magistrates are breaching their powers in committing fine defaulters to gaol. Since the abandonment of the system that made magistrates take into account people's income when setting the level of fine, poor people have been expected to pay sums that are completely beyond their means and further exacerbate their already parlous financial circumstances. Despite their poverty, it is amazing that many fine defaulters make considerable efforts to pay off their debts.
  Let us consider the example of a woman in Calderdale who, in June last year, was sentenced to 16 days' immediate imprisonment for poll tax default. She is a 40-year-old married woman with four young children—the youngest is one year old. Since the birth of the youngest, she has suffered from a heart condition and

  1285
  general ill health, and in January 1995 had a stroke which caused paralysis. She was in a wheelchair for five months. She tried to pay off arrears, as ordered by the magistrates, but after making some payments had a stroke and entered hospital. She told the magistrates of her ill health and asked for deductions from her income support, but they committed her to prison immediately.
  There is even an example of one woman who was imprisoned for a day at Risley when 74p remained outstanding from a £48 fine for theft. I have here the warrant, which clearly states the amount outstanding as 74p.
  Rona Epstein's research, which I drew to the attention of the House more than a year ago, confirms that there are many unlawful committals, for example, of women with debts of less than £200, who have been gaoled for more than the prescribed seven days.
  Of course, many of the sentences may be considered to be quite short, which means that, although around a third of prison receptions are for fine defaulters, the prison population of such people at any one time is quite small. Those short sentences should not, however, be dismissed as trivial in terms of their effect on people's lives. They may have devastating effects on the imprisoned debtor and her children.
  It is now nearly two years since I introduced a Bill that would have removed the power of magistrates to gaol fine defaulters for culpable neglect. No one would argue against gaol as the ultimate sanction for people who have the money but wilfully refuse to pay, but I hope that I have demonstrated that many fine defaulters, particularly women, do not come into that category.
  Our women's prisons are bursting at the seams, not because there are more criminals—their numbers have gone down—but because petty offenders and fine defaulters are increasingly being sent to gaol, where they will come into contact with the drug culture that pervades those institutions. According to Judge Tumim, they go in as shoplifters and come out as drug addicts. Public money is being wasted. It costs more than £500 a week to send someone to gaol and lives are thrown into disarray by the policy.
  Magistrates must be given the option of passing non-custodial sentences for fine defaulters. Those who cannot pay simply because they are poor must be offered debt counselling and helped into work. Gaoling should never be the option for people who cannot afford to pay their television licence, and I know that many magistrates agree.
  Let us stop sending women petty offenders to gaol and use those institutions to punish and offer effective rehabilitation for persistent and serious offenders, who really are a danger to society. Perish the thought that, at this very moment, the Home Secretary is contemplating building another women's prison. Just a fraction of the money that that would take would work wonders if spent in the community.
  10.18 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Although I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on obtaining this debate on what should be an important subject, it was marred by her introduction and some considerable factual
  1286
  errors. She suggested that somehow there had been a deliberate plot to prevent her from having this debate earlier; so great was the national interest in the debate, that we had deliberately frustrated not only her previous debate but the one before and the one before that—all to prevent her from delivering a 15-minute speech. I find that unlikely, but the truth should be put on record.
  The Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were not present to move their motions as they should have been, and the business of the House collapsed. I was most disappointed, because I could not respond to the hon. Lady. She said that I had visited Holloway six months before the inspection. That is amazing. I certainly would not have any locus to do so, because I was not in this office six months before the inspection. Eastwood Park opened not late but on time. The increase in the number of women prisoners is not, as I think I heard her say, 40 per cent. but 21 per cent.
  I object most of all to the hon. Lady saying that I wished to avoid the spotlight falling on the Prison Service. Not at all; I welcome any opportunity for the spotlight to fall on the Prison Service and on its achievements, and especially on its achievements in the three years since it became an agency. I start my reply by again paying tribute to the amazing achievements of both management and staff in the Prison Service.
  Since the Prison Service became an agency in 1993, it has had to cope with a sustained increase in the prison population. As of today, that increase stands at 24.3 per cent. Despite those pressures, by the end of December 1995, escapes were down 83 per cent. compared with the December 1992 figure. When I spoke in the House on 24 January, I reported that 96 per cent. of prisoners had 24-hour access to sanitation, compared with only 70 per cent. in March 1992. I take pleasure in telling the House that that figure has risen to 99 per cent. and will be 100 per cent. by the end of next month.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Although I commend the achievement of having sanitation in cells, I have visited Winson Green, which admittedly is not a women's prison, where I found the facilities somewhat objectionable. As I said, toilet bowls are close to beds and prisoners often have to sit next to a lavatory, which they sometimes share with another prisoner, and eat their food. That is not a high standard as we approach the 21st century.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is a considerable improvement on slopping out, which in-cell sanitation has replaced. If I have time, I will return to prisoners sleeping with their heads up against lavatories. That allegation was levelled at Eastwood Park. That is untrue, because there is a screen.
  I was talking about the achievements of the Prison Service, and before I reply to the main points that the hon. Lady made about Eastwood Park, the shackling of the lady who attended her baby's funeral and fine defaulters, I want to finish my remarks on the Prison Service. The hon. Lady rightly agreed with my statement on security and rehabilitation. It is worth recording that the service provides almost 300,000 more hours of purposeful activity for prisoners than when it first became an agency. That has been done while the number of prisoners spending more than 12 hours out of cell has risen from 10,400 to 18,700.

  1287
  In keeping with the Prison Service goal to prepare prisoners for their return to the community, which the hon. Lady rightly said was an important goal. provision is being made for national vocational qualifications to be achieved during sentence so that prisoners have tradeable skills in the outside labour market. To the end of December 1995, prisoners had accrued between them 12,447 accredited units. In the past few years, the Prison Service has developed some excellent offending behaviour programmes and we are very confident of their quality and their worth. Although I would like to go on praising the Prison Service, I must turn to the main points that the hon. Lady raised.
  First, I must comment on Eastwood Park—particularly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) is interested in the subject. I believe that Eastwood Park is located in his constituency, and I am grateful for his presence in the Chamber tonight. The cells at Eastwood Park are exceptionally well laid out. There are screens for the toilet and for the sink. The door opens to a full 90-degree angle and the cells measure 8 ft 9 in by 6 ft ½ in. They do not hold people for 22 hours a day, as a newspaper article alleged. The cells are bedroom cells and prisons will be out of their cells from 8.30 am and will not return to them until 7.45 pm, with just two 15-minute periods per day when there is a roll call.
  The very smallest cells in the prison are below the recommended standard by only 4 in on either side. Some cells in the prison are well above the average and there are segregation facilities and good hospital care facilities. Prisoners at Eastwood Park have moved from a prison where they spent far more time in their cells. At present, no one at Eastwood Park was imprisoned for non-payment of fines. The chief inspector of prisons has conducted an unplanned spot check of Eastwood Park and his report will be published shortly. I do not expect it to be in the same lurid terms as the hon. Lady's description.
  Sir John Cope: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. I have visited the prison in my constituency and I visited the facility when it was a young offenders centre. The old Pucklechurch prison was also located in my constituency and the new prison is a great improvement on that facility. It is very unfair to judge the regime at Eastwood Park in the first three weeks of its operation before it is working properly. Of course it has teething problems, but it will be a much better prison than Pucklechurch.
  Miss Widdecombe: There is no doubt that it is a vast improvement on Pucklechurch. Teething problems in a newly opened prison are not exactly unusual.
  I turn now to the case of the lady who was shackled while attending her baby's funeral. The hon. Lady said as a matter of fact—with amazing confidence—that the lady was not a risk. However, she failed a risk assessment which was carried out before her attendance at the funeral because of
  "her attitude, behaviour and aggressive state together with an alleged assault on a member of Prison Service staff during a previous escort".
  Therefore, she was considered
  "too great a risk to attend the funeral without handcuffs".
  1288
  It is true that the lady was not handcuffed during her visits to her baby while the baby was in hospital. That is because the room in which the baby was kept was secure: it is not because she was considered fit to be in public without restraints. It is essential that, when prison officers and governors are criticised—that is what it comes down to—we get the story absolutely right.
  I turn now to the other points raised by the hon. Lady. She did not leave me a full quarter of an hour in which to reply, so if I run out of time I shall endeavour to respond to her in writing regarding the issues that I do not cover.
  Mr. George Howarth: It is her debate.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is true: the hon. Lady could have left me only one minute in which to respond—or no time at all. I am merely explaining why I shall not be able to cover all the points that she raised. It is merely a courtesy—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that fact.
  We must be clear about the types of crime for which women are held in prison under sentence—that subject formed quite a significant part of the hon. Lady's speech. Provisional figures show that one third of sentenced female prisoners held in prison in mid-1995 had been convicted of a primary offence of a violent or sexual nature or an offence of robbery or of burglary. More than one quarter were held for a drug-related offence, with one fifth held for theft or handling and 7 per cent. held for fraud or forgery. At the same time, 26 females were held in prison for non-payment of fines.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Have those percentages increased at the same time as the prison population has increased, bearing it in mind that the number of crimes has decreased?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am citing the latest figures that we have: I would not give the hon. Lady selective figures. I do not have comprehensive figures beyond those, so I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question precisely. However, I shall look into the matter and, if I can later respond later, I shall certainly do so.
  The hon. Lady also expressed concern—I think reasonably—about imprisonment for fine default. She will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recently announced a review of the powers and procedures available to the courts to ensure that they can enforce the payment of fines without resorting to imprisonment, save in the most exceptional circumstances. I am sure that that undertaking meets the spirit of the hon. Lady's speech.
  I believe that the Prison Service gets a very unfair press and that individual incidents are blown out of all proportion. The day-to-day work done in both our male and our female prisons is impressive and extremely hard and it is carried out in the most difficult circumstances. I have pleasure in paying a tribute that is so noticeably lacking from the Opposition.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Frigate Procurement Study
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will establish the full cost of the National Audit Office study into the type 23 frigate and the common new generation frigate indicating what proportion of that cost is represented by the part of the study which was reported to Parliament in the NAO report "Procurement Lessons for the Common New Generation Frigate", HC 692, Session 1994–95. [21655]

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The National Audit Office's work on the type 23 frigate programme is not complete. Further information will be reported to the Public Accounts Committee later this year.

  National Audit Office Defence Studies
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will estimate the cost of all NAO full studies into defence matters since 1987 which have not been reported to Parliament. [21654]

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The Comptroller and Auditor General reports to Parliament all National Audit Office defence studies when they are complete. In accordance with the long-standing and traditional practice of external auditors, he may also provide audit advice direct to audited bodies as subsidiary outputs to promote value for money and good stewardship of public resources.

SCOTLAND

  Cytology Service (Inverclyde Royal Hospital)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many women are pursuing legal claims against the Argyll and Clyde health board in respect of the mis-reading of cervical smear slides at the Inverclyde royal hospital; and if he will make a statement; [21663]

  (2) how many compensation claims against the Argyll and Clyde health board's cytology service at the Inverclyde royal hospital, Greenock (a) have been settled and (b) are still outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [22724]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 16 legal claims are being pursued by women against Argyll and Clyde health board as a result of the mis-reading of cervical smear slides at the Inverclyde royal hospital. Eight claims have been settled and negotiations are under way to achieve a settlement in the other eight cases, two of which have been, or will be, given interim settlements.
  668
  The Government are committed to ensuring that a service of the highest quality is available to women as evidenced by the issue of three key documents in Scotland during 1995; "Guidelines on Fail-safe actions", "Guidance to Health Boards on Purchasing for Cervical Screening" and the "Report of the Working Party on Internal Quality Control for Cervical Cytopathology Laboratories". The then Minister of State also announced the establishment of a central co-ordinating unit for the breast and cervical screening programmes in Scotland, and a national co-ordinator was appointed in December 1995. Quality assurance guidelines for the cervical screening programme were issued this week, pulling together many of the initiatives which have been undertaken at a UK level.

  This is being copied for information to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

  Research Institutes
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [21946]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office has not privatised any public sector research establishments since 1979.

  As part of their response in September 1995 to the report of the multi-departmental efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments, the Government announced their intention to conduct a series of prior options reviews of public sector research establishments. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 26 January 1996 the timetable for the reviews, which are due to be completed by the end of this year. The establishments covered include the five Scottish agricultural and biological research institutes—the Hannah research institute, the Macaulay land use research institute, the Moredun research institute, the Rowett research institute and the Scottish crop research institute—the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency and the Fisheries Research Services. Under the prior options procedure, all options, including privatisation, rationalisation or continuing with the current arrangements, have to be examined rigorously.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about prior options reviews of the Hannah research institute and the Moredun research institute. [24066]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Government's response to the report of the multi-departmental efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments announced a series of prior option reviews. As part of this series, the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department will conduct prior options reviews of the Hannah research institute and the Moredun research institute.
  669
  The reviews will address the actual and potential relationship of the establishment to any others in similar or related fields, and will consider the potential for privatisation or rationalisation.

  I would welcome comments from interested parties. They should be sent by 30 April to:

  Mrs. B. McGee

  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Pentland House

  47 Robb's Loan

  EDINBURGH

  EH14 1TY.

  EU Funding
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each European social fund and European regional development fund allocation by (i) name, (ii) expenditure and (iii) area made for objective 1 projects in the highlands and islands on 2 February. [22210]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The list of approved projects has been provided with an indication of which local enterprise company area each project falls within. As the information requested is somewhat lengthy, I have arranged for the information to be placed in the House Library.

  Fair Play Consortium
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans exist for a fair play consortium in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [22538]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  A fair play consortium for Scotland was established early this year. The initiative is led by the Equal Opportunities Commission (Scotland) and supported by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average cost to public funds of each job created or protected in the tourist industry by grants awarded by Highlands and Islands Enterprise; [22658]

  (2) what is the average cost to public funds of each job created or protected in the skiing industry by grants awarded by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. [22659]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As the information requested relates to the operational activities of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the electorates of each of the new parliamentary constituencies in Scotland as at 16 February. [22652]
  670
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Constituency

  Number

  Aberdeen Central

  56,162

  Aberdeen North

  54,580

  Aberdeen South

  60,877

  Airdrie and Shotts

  58,549

  Angus

  60,255

  Argyll and Bute

  49,869

  Ayr

  56,199

  Banff and Buchan

  59,128

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  41,813

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  66,690

  Central Fife

  58,889

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  52,057

  Clydesdale

  63,338

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  52,663

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  48,112

  Cunninghame North

  56,137

  Cunninghame South

  49,961

  Dumbarton

  56,858

  Dumfries

  63,259

  Dundee East

  58,659

  Dundee West

  57,131

  Dunfermline East

  51,630

  Dunfermline West

  53,399

  East Kilbride

  65,455

  East Lothian

  57,516

  Eastwood

  66,884

  Edinburgh Central

  62,521

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  59,535

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  61,527

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  60,089

  Edinburgh South

  62,832

  Edinburgh West

  61,590

  Falkirk East

  57,104

  Falkirk West

  53,440

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  53,380

  Glasgow Anniesland

  52,815

  Glasgow Baillieston

  51,159

  Glasgow Cathcart

  49,667

  Glasgow Govan

  49,600

  Glasgow Kelvin

  56,181

  Glasgow Maryhill

  51,589

  Glasgow Pollok

  49,403

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  51,127

  Glasgow Shettleston

  48,374

  Glasgow Springburn

  52,830

  Gordon

  59,033

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  49,964

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  54,039

  Hamilton South

  47,019

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  65,424

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  62,359

  Kirkcaldy

  52,174

  Linlithgow

  53,948

  Livingston

  59,666

  Midlothian

  47,893

  Moray

  58,983

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  52,513

  671

  Constituency

  Number

  North East Fife

  58,493

  North Tayside

  61,661

  Ochil

  57,141

  Orkney and Shetland

  32,635

  Paisley North

  49,905

  Paisley South

  53,909

  Perth

  60,217

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  55,653

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  47,520

  Stirling

  52,634

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  63,386

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  50,999

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  58,797

  Western Isles

  23,208

  West Renfrewshire

  53,066

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [22857]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 19 March,Official Report, column 166. Single negotiated tenders are acceptable only in exceptional circumstances such as where there is effectively no choice of contractor—for example, for reasons of compatibility—or where such action is judged to offer economic advantages; or where there is extreme urgency to provide or restore a service.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [22873]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not recorded centrally within the Department, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of answering parliamentary questions in each Session since 1989–90. [22905]
  672
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This Department does not calculate the data requested, and they could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits for 1995–96 within his responsibility. [24065]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The non-voted cash limit Scottish Office/LA1, which covers local authority non-housing capital expenditure, is to be increased by £10,500,000 from £599,303,000 to £609,803,000. There will be an increase in net capital allocations to meet a fall in anticipated European regional development fund receipts and to meet the effect of severe weather. This increase is fully offset by a reduction of £5,000,000 in the non-voted cash limit SO/ERDF from £120,025,000 to £115,025,000 and a reduction in roads and transport class XIV, vote 2 amounting to £5,500,000 so that it will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) clinical nurse managers and (b) practice development nurse posts are to replace the existing 74 ward sister and charge nurse posts employed by Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust. [21731]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 March 1996]: Ward sister and charge nurse posts in Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust will, on implementation of the trust's revised nursing management and organisational structure, be replaced by 46 clinical nurse manager posts and six practice nurse development posts.

  These changes will enable the number of nursing posts involved in direct patient care to increase from 210 to 230.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [21831]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: All the 47 NHS trusts, 15 health boards and five special health boards in Scotland are subject to investigation by the health service commissioner and scrutiny by the National Audit Office. They are also all subject to scrutiny by the Accounts Commission, the equivalent body in Scotland to the Audit Commission England and Wales. Those bodies are subject to any statutory provisions for open government and provisions under the citizens charter which may be relevant to them and to any performance indicators as may be deemed appropriate.

TREASURY

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest annual(a) inflation, (b) unemployment, (c) growth rate and (d) balance of payments figures for each of the members of the European Community. [22062]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest comparable data for these inquiries are set out in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication "Main Economic Indicators", which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Pound Coin
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what means the differing traditions in Northern Ireland are represented on the 1996 Northern Ireland £1 coin; [22011]

  (2) who was the designer of the 1996 £1 coin for Northern Ireland. [21983]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The design shows a gold collar of the first century BC, found at Broighter, County Londonderry in 1896, an ornate cross of the style used in the old Celtin Church of Britain, and the flower of the yellow pimpernel which flourishes around Lough Neagh. The designer is Mr. Norman Sillman.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the United Kingdom percentage share of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries in terms of volume for each year since 1985. [22965]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The data requested are set out in the table.

  UK percentage share of OECD exports of manufactures1

  Year

  Percentage

  Year

  Percentage

  Year

  Percentage

  1975

  9.4

  1982

  7.5

  1989

  7.2

  1976

  9.1

  1983

  7.2

  1990

  7.3

  1977

  9.2

  1984

  7.1

  1991

  7.3

  1978

  8.7

  1985

  7.1

  1992

  7.1

  1979

  8.3

  1986

  7.9

  1993

  7.1

  1980

  8.0

  1987

  7.5

  1994

  7.1

  1981

  7.3

  1988

  7.2

  Note:

  1 Calculation of shares follows OECD practice of converting constant price volume data into a common US dollars basis at 1991 exchange rates.

  Source:

  OECD, Datastream, CSO.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the United Kingdom percentage share of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries giving the figures in United States dollars for each quarter since 1992. [22960]
  674
  Mrs. Knight
  The data requested are set out in the table.

  UK percentage share of OECD exports of manufactures1

  Year/Quarter

  Percentage

  Year/Quarter

  Percentage

  1992 Q1

  7.0

  1993 Q4

  7.1

  1992 Q2

  7.2

  1994 Q1

  7.1

  1992 Q3

  7.1

  1994 Q2

  7.0

  1992 Q4

  7.3

  1994 Q3

  7.1

  1993 Q1

  7.3

  1994 Q4

  7.1

  1993 Q2

  7.1

  1995 Q I

  6.6

  1993 Q3

  7.1

  1995 Q2

  6.5

  Note:

  Calculation of shares follows OECD practice of converting constant price volume data into a common US dollars basis at 1991 exchange rates.

  Source:

  OECD, CSO.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the scale of the rise in exports of manufactures in the fourth quarter of 1995 relative to the fourth quarter of 1994. [22958]

  Mrs. Knight
  The growth of exports of manufactures depends on a number of factors, such as the growth of world trade, the competitiveness of British exports and the degree of spare capacity.

  Inflation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were(a) the Bank of England and (b) the Treasury forecasts two years ago of the rate of inflation in February 1996. [22962]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Neither the Bank of England nor the Treasury publishes monthly forecasts of inflation. The Bank of England publishes its quarterly forecasts for inflation in its inflation reports. The Treasury publishes its forecasts in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" and in the "Summer Economic Forecast". Copies of all these documents are available in the House of Commons Library.

  House Insurance
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which section of which Act owners of domestic properties were given the right to alter the insurer of their home from the one specified by their building society as mortgagee. [19514]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: The practice of building societies allowing borrowers to alter the insurers of their homes flows form the code of practice on the linking of services which the Building Societies Association brought into effect on 1 January 1988. It does not depend on any statutory underpinning.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the population of working age in(a) 1979 and (b) 1995 was accounted for by (i) full-time employees of more than six months' duration, (ii) full-time self-employed persons, (iii) full-time employees of less than six months' duration, (iv) full-time

  675
  temporary employees, (v) those in part-time employment, (vi) the unemployed and (vii) those who are economically inactive. [22579]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: Comparable information is available from the labour force survey for 1984 and 1995:

  Spring 1984

  Spring 1995

  All persons of working age in Great Britain

  33,172,000

  34,445,000

  of whom: (per cent)—Total

  100

  100

  Full-time employees who have been with their current employer for 6 months or more

  44

  43

  Full-time employees who have been with their current employer for less than 6 months

  4

  4

  Full-time self-employed

  6

  7

  Full-time temporary employees

  1

  2

  Part-time workers

  13

  16

  ILO unemployed

  9

  7

  Economically Inactive

  22

  22

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total annual revenue yield from stamp duty on property purchases, for the latest year for which the information is available. [22829]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The yield from stamp on all land and property—other than shares—was £783 million in 1994–95, of which an estimated £520 million was due to residential property transactions.

  Tax Revenues
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional tax revenues which would accrue to the Exchequer for each of the next five years if the annual rate of growth of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom were to be 0.25 per cent. per annum higher than assumed in the forecasts contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97"; and if he will make a statement. [22761]

  Gross total national health service spending per capita

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (estimated outturn)

  Northern Ireland1

  581

  639

  678

  705

  729

  768

  Scotland

  600

  678

  740

  762

  799

  849

  Wales

  536

  612

  684

  705

  732

  770

  England

  493

  556

  607

  626

  657

  694

  1 The figures for Northern Ireland are estimates, due to the fact that Northern Ireland's health services and personal social services are provided on an integrated basis.

  676
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: Tax revenues as a ratio of GDP vary automatically with cycles in economic activity. The alternative projection below uses the relationship set out in HM Treasury occasional paper No. 4 "Public Finances and the Cycle":

  General government receipts projections

  Percentage of money GDP

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  FSBR projection

  37¾

  38¼

  38½

  38¾

  39

  ¼percentage point higher growth

  37¾

  38¼

  38¾

  39

  39¼

  This implies additional revenues of:

  Additional revenues (£ billion)

  ½

  2

  3

  5

  6

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visit (North Tayside)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the North Tayside constituency. [21636]

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21966]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21967]

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

  National Health Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the spending per head of population on health provision in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England in each of the last five years; and what is the projected spending in the current financial year per head of population in each country; [22948]

  (2) what percentage of patients in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England are currently covered by general practitioner fundholders. [22949]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is as follows:
  677

  Percentage of population covered by GP Fundholding Practices (at April 1995)

  Country

  Percentage population covered

  Northern Ireland

  29

  Scotland

  23

  Wales

  40

  England

  41

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has yet received the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee in accordance with the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement on the membership of the Committee. [23957]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received the first annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee and am presenting it to Parliament today. Copies are also being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am grateful to the Committee for the careful and thorough way in which it has carried out its work. Certain portions of its report contained material which fell within the provisions of section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, and which has accordingly, after consultation with the Committee, been deleted from the published report.

  The House will wish to be aware that, following consultations with the Leader of the Opposition and in accordance with section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act, I have appointed the right hon. Lord Blaker as a member of the Committee to succeed the right hon. Lord Howe of Aberavon who has indicated his wish to step down from the Committee. I am very grateful to Lord Howe for the part he has played in the Committee's work.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Brigades (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents the fire brigades in Cheshire attended in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement; [22407]

  (2) how many incidents the fire brigades in Crewe and Nantwich attended in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [22406]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is given in the following table. The information for Crewe and Nantwich is not available centrally.

  Incidents attended by local authority fire brigades in Cheshire in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 1994

  Year

  Cheshire

  19801

  9,273

  1990

  15,588

  19942

  16,449

  1 Includes estimates for periods of industrial action when data were not recorded.

  2 Provisional data for the latest year available; includes special services attended between April 1994 and March 1995.

  678

  Sentencing
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish his White Paper on sentencing. [22666]

  Mr. Maclean
  We plan to publish the White Paper very shortly.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 536–37, what plans he has to review the use of Gatsometer speed cameras on trunk roads; and if he will make a statement on the results of the police procedures for assessing the effectiveness of this equipment. [22669]

  Mr. Maclean
  The deployment of speed cameras is an operational matter for the chief officer of police for the area concerned and the highway authority. The effectiveness of the cameras is being assessed in a cost-benefit study which has been commissioned by my Department.

  Mr. Ibrahima Sey
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restraint measures were used in the case of Mr. Ibrahima Sey; and if he will make a statement. [22495]

  Mr. Maclean
  This case has been referred to the Police Complaints Authority. It would not be right for me to comment at this stage.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which companies have been granted licences under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to handle, distribute, store or manufacture electro-shock batons in the last five years. [22969]

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibits the possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale and transfer of electric shock weapons without the authority of the Secretary of State. No company has been granted or has held authority under this section specifically in respect of electric shock weapons in the last four years. No current authorities are in place in respect of electric shock weapons. Information about the granting of authority for that purpose in earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in Britain have acquired electro-shock batons, for any purpose, including as samples, in the last five years; and if section 5 firearms licences have been granted in relation to these items. [22968]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office does not collect information on this subject. I understand that a survey by the Association of Chief Police Officers of electric shock devices held by police forces in England and Wales in February 1995 found that 22 had obtained electric shock shields and, in some cases, cattle prods for use against
  679
  ferocious dogs. Police forces do not require licensing or authorisation under the Firearms Act 1968 in relation to these articles.

  Artyom M. Tarasov
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will rescind the alien registration certificate granted to Artyom M. Tarasov, holder of Dominican Republic passport No. 0311705 issued on 19 February 1991, and Soviet diplomatic passport No. 0035492. [23051]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I am aware of no reason to depart in this case from the requirement to register with the police, as provided for in paragraph 325 of the immigration rules.

  Cock Fighting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been convicted of organising cock fighting tournaments in each year since 1987. [22956]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested cannot be identified separately from other summary offences.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many publicly funded CCTV cameras have been reported stolen; and if he will make a statement. [23138]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total finances made available, by source, for each fire service in England and Wales, as indicated from returns from local authority budget setting for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [23139]

  Mr. Sackville
  Returns from local authorities showing expenditure on fire services do not provide the requested information about the source of revenue spending. Local government revenue settlement resources are, in general, not hypothecated to specific services such as fire.

  Abiodun Igbinidu
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has made in respect of the application for asylum made by Abiodun Igbinidu from Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [23142]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Abiodun Igbinidu's application to stay in the United Kingdom was refused on 1 August 1995 and his appeal was dismissed on 15 November. Leave to appeal to the tribunal was subsequently refused on 29 November. Further representations and evidence on Mr. Igbinidu's behalf have been submitted. His application is being given further consideration and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Farm Watch
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on farm watch crime prevention schemes. [23145]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government recognise that the most effective response to rural crime is a partnership between the police and the local community. We encourage crime prevention schemes which enable members of the public—with the support of the local police—to do something positive in the fight against crime.

  We believe that over 500 farm watch schemes across England and Wales can make a significant impact on crime in the countryside.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated number of people involved in farm watch crime prevention schemes.[23146]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are over 500 farm watch schemes across England and Wales. These vary in size; information on the number of people involved is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Research Group
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the specific topics for which an application was received by his Department under each round to date of the police research group programme and indicate (a) which was successful and (b) the amount of money agreed in respect of each successful application. [23012]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 March 1996]: Phase 1 of the Home Office police research group's police operations against crime programme was launched in 1993. One hundred and forty-one applications for research funds were received under this round, and 19 were successful. Phase 3 was launched in 1995, producing 113 applications, of which 12 were successful. In both phases, some applications covered the same topic. The following tables list each of the applications received under each of these phases of the programme. Applications for research topics were not invited under phase 2 of the programme, which commissioned work to develop specific topics begun under phase 1. All costs shown exclude value added tax and travelling and subsistence expenses.

  Police operations against crime: police research group programme

  Phase I

  Successful applications

  Cost (£)

  Review of the management of serious crime investigations

  40,718

  Skill gaps in specialist investigative interviewing

  35,000

  Recruitment, development and handling of informants

  24,625

  High volume crime and the efficacy of scientific support

  40,513

  Forensic expertise/services in investigation of major and serious crime against the person

  25,320

  Investigation and detection of child sex abuse

  16,850

  Crime profiling for residential burglaries

  92,740

  The prevention and detection of repeated burglary and car crime

  86,829

  Efficiency and effectiveness of central squads

  77,330

  The crime allocation system: police investigations

  681

  Police operations against crime: police research group programme

  Phase I

  Successful applications

  Cost (£)

  into burglary and auto crime

  75,950

  Performance indicators for local anti-drugs strategies: a preliminary analysis

  89,708

  Development and evaluation of a national crime management model

  102,257

  An evaluation of police response to armed robbery

  39,723

  Asset investigation, seizure and confiscation

  38,118

  Intelligence, surveillance and informants

  36,910

  Combating burglary: an evaluation of three strategies

  37,567

  Presenting police evidence in court

  36,438

  Disrupting the distribution of stolen electrical goods

  41,000

  Evaluation strategy for resource management

  68,126

  Unsuccessful applications

  Evaluation of Operation Gemini II

  Managing crime: a sequential analysis

  Detective profiling

  Policing of firearms crime

  Evaluation of crime response strategy

  Examination of practice and procedure of witness interviews

  Evaluating the performance of investigators

  Truancy and impact on high volume crime in West Yorkshire

  Partnership initiatives: multiple victims

  Quick response alarms in clearing crime

  Interviewing children with 'particular needs'

  Cognitive investigative interviews: quality control

  Strategies to counteract high volume crime

  Good practice review of criminal intelligence systems

  Evaluation of contribution of current intelligence practices to detecting/reducing crime

  Detective skills and personality characteristics facilitating advanced investigative interviews

  Review and evaluation of victims of crime follow up procedure

  Detecting deception

  Resource management—managing demand

  Presenting information

  Witness intimidation: consequences and prevention

  Qualitative issues in meeting public expectations

  Preparing/presenting information to the Crown Prosecution Service

  A holistic approach to high volume crime on estates

  Primary detection of autocrime/burglary

  Burglary at people's homes: improving detection

  Cross border trafficking in stolen motor vehicles

  Property-oriented strategies to reduce crime

  Estates policing in high crime residential areas

  Evaluation of targeted policing at locational hot spots

  Reducing repeat calls for service at single locations

  Review of strategic approach to high volume crime

  Development and implementation of new CID strategy

  Development of effective crime management systems and processes

  Work investigating and processing a sample of crimes

  Effective detection of residential burglaries

  Appraisal of the Warwickshire crime desk

  Burglary dwellings in Merseyside: E2 sub-division

  682

  High volume crime

  Managing demand and the investigative process

  Identification of good practice and benefits from the use of surveys

  Junior wheels project

  Plymouth administrative services unit

  High volume crime management

  Role of stolen vehicle squads

  Tourists as victims of crime

  Making the best use of crime analysis information

  Major crime investigation: strategy, tactics and operational policies

  Responding to burglary: strategies and resources

  Managing burglary and car crime: offence patterns

  Models for managing volume crime

  Estates policing evaluation

  Police evidence: credibility and presentation

  Police information systems and their contribution to prevention/detection of crime

  Crime control functions of multi-agency policing

  Campus crime

  Development of successful strategies to combat high volume crime

  Review of Bumblebee

  Surrey Safe Shops

  Evaluation of burglary strategies

  Management framework for crime prevention

  Processes for gathering information in crime detection

  Drug related problems and response: Greater Manchester Police

  Management skills for reduction in high volume crime

  Resource management: responding to crime

  Practical geographical analysis of large volume crime

  Making the best use of crime analysis information

  Effects of Sheehy on police performance and morale

  Study of police

  Drug-related crime and the police response

  Investigative strategies for residential burglary

  Policing with CCTV: developing its future potential

  Indicators to evaluate police anti-drug activities

  Methods for improving crime manager performance

  Resource management: organisational issues

  Managing the investigative process

  Managing demand

  Evaluation of video evidence for robberies

  Increasing arrest rates for burglaries

  Selecting effective detectives

  A strategic approach to firearms incidents

  Divisional crime desks: flow of crime solving information

  Operation Bumblebee: public and police perceptions

  Multi agency approach to organised crime

  Effectiveness of Operation Bumblebee

  Target hardening

  Reducing lost days at court

  Methods of handling witnesses

  Understanding and resolving organisational issues of centralisation and devolution

  Effective management of interfaces with other bodies

  Resource management priorities

  Employing civilians in surveillance teams

  683

  Review of minor office crime

  Catalysing new strategic thinking to address local crime

  Review of communications of individual research findings

  Resource allocation decisions in CIDs

  Countering ambush defence in serious investigations

  Developing of a new criminal investigation management system

  Evaluation of burglary control and prevention

  Fear of crime and car park design

  Examination of the policing of racial attacks

  Cross border crime and inter-force collaboration

  Detection of serious crime against homosexuals

  Central or specialist units dealing with crime

  Use of forensic evidence in investigation of burglary

  Evaluating Metropolitan Police's evidence project (EPIC)

  Incidence and migration of burglary and autocrime

  Computer aided targeting: response to high volume crime

  Resource implications of different types of police activity

  Research consultancy to No. 5 region

  Review of factors affecting the ability and willingness of officers to cultivate informants

  Prevalence of informant handling among specialist and non-specialist Met. Police officers

  Assessment of interview practice in child abuse cases

  Improving and refining video child witness interviews

  Strategic crime management and improving service delivery

  Linguistic model of eliciting/interpreting responses of victims

  Schools liaison: best practice for the 1990s

  Burglary investigation process

  Workload planning in the police service

  Intelligence process review: from Basic Command Unit to mid-tier

  Effect of the right to silence

  Using squads effectively

  Phase III

  Successful applications

  Cost (£)

  Proactive policing in Merseyside

  35,680

  The British organised crime survey: a pilot

  8,973

  An audit of training for child sexual abuse investigators

  36,483

  The use of medical specialists by police forces

  27,548

  Tackling the rural drug problem

  47,035

  Police operations against child sexual abuse: prevention and detection

  57,464

  Criminal use of firearms: a qualification and comparison of force strategic responses

  60000

  Comparative evaluation of Operation 'Eagle Eye'

  82,440

  Solving non-residential burglary

  1—

  Investigation of training initiatives taken to reduce level of abstractions

  1—

  Study into the theft of computer hardware and component parts

  53,186

  Unheralded successes in crime control

  40000

  1 The cost of these projects are still to be formally agreed.

  Unsuccessful applications

  The impact of crime upon small business

  Controlling crime in shopping centres: public policing or private security

  An investigation of firearms officers' memory for firearms incidents

  An evaluation of cognitive interview training

  Targeting offenders: proactive intelligence gathering and processing

  684

  Review of drugs intelligence procedures

  Local area policing as a vehicle for integrated crime management

  Evaluating police response to commercial burglary: a good practice guide

  The targeting of offenders

  Development of effective tasking and coordinating strategies for area management teams

  The community impact of drug law enforcement strategies

  An analysis of the targeting and displacement of violent crime

  The targeting of sexual offenders

  Police perceptions of nature and extent of organised crime in UK

  An evaluation of the Basic Command Unit system of policing

  Impact of limited tenure policies on investigation of serious crime

  Review of the strategic management and effectiveness of volunteers supporting proactive policing

  Police/juvenile crime: strategic resource model for multi-agency partnerships

  Police resource deployment and crime control strategies

  The impact of arrest and prosecution on domestic violence

  Development of a national intelligence-driven police/prison liaison model for organised crime

  Effectiveness of police arrangements for dealing with domestic violence

  Police response to guidance on tenure

  Maximising the effectiveness of tenure policy

  Assessment of cross-border crime/police issues in English Channel region

  Impact of tenure on police operations

  The development of a demand management strategy for the police service

  Intelligence for proactive policing by shire forces: Cumbria case study

  Impact of female street prostitution for growth of crime and drugs

  Crime against businesses: victimisation and crime prevention on Merseyside

  The investigation of major and serious violent crime

  Investigating organised crime in London

  The firearms market in the UK

  Measuring the nature, extent and effect of computer and microchip theft

  Analysis of commercial computer theft, and development of risk profile

  Impact of mobile telecommunications on the commissioning and execution of crime

  The benefits and costs of proactive policing

  Preventing violence in pubs and clubs

  The replacement of arrested street-level drug dealers

  Prioritising the investigation of serious and criminal gangs

  Offender—directed investigations and resource management Thresholds in child protection investigation

  Police strategies to tackle burglaries against commercial premises

  Proactive approaches to 'shoplifting'

  Intelligence from crime scene imagery

  A study into the completeness and availability of fraud information

  Evaluation of Toiler Lane proactive crime management model Application of tenure policies and practices

  Disrupting the distribution of stolen electrical goods: phase I in Suffolk

  685

  Burglary from commercial premises of information technology: a comparison of force strategies

  Resourcing crime-related work: good practice in workload allocation

  Credit card abuse/fraud: can businesses help improve police detection?

  Networks against crime: investigation into organised computer based crime

  Investigation of child sexual abuse: criteria in police decision-making

  Criminal intelligence in prisons

  The deployment of detectives

  The impact of tenure on police operations

  Caravan thefts

  Art and antique theft

  The security of Post Office counters

  Diverting drug misusers from the criminal justice system: evaluation of a rural multi-agency strategy

  Examining dynamics of repeated victimisations of domestic dwellings

  Examining dynamics of repeated armed robbery involving commercial premises

  Violent crime on Merseyside: evaluation of proactive policing Organised crime: a literature review

  Evaluating special policing initiative against organised high value car theft

  Targeting criteria: research on drugs enforcement in Kent

  Comparative, process approach to evaluating measures against organised crime

  Careers of organised criminals and the structuring of organised crime in England/Wales

  Improving usefulness of forensic science in investigation of volume crime

  The implication of changes in retailing

  Intelligence issues in `civilianisation' of drugs enforcement in the Metropolitan Police

  An operational BCU model for multi-agency action on community safety

  Shoplifting: the effects of changes in location/organisation of retail shopping

  A strategic approach to targeting offenders

  The impact of deploying proactive resources against targeted offenders

  Impact of tenure on police operations

  Succeeding with integrated proactive policing

  Organised crime: the theft of stolen high value vehicles

  Potential of commercial business analysis models against organised crime

  Impact of models of resource allocation on service strategy and performance

  Evaluation of investigations into female sexual assaults: Northumbria

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by malice force area and offence group

  England and Wales 1995

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Avon and Somerset

  152,885

  7,643

  1,026

  1,582

  34,111

  82,456

  4,017

  Bedfordshire

  51,104

  1,911

  294

  664

  11,026

  27,285

  1,781

  Cambridgeshire

  67,652

  2,755

  430

  352

  14,267

  38,290

  1,369

  Cheshire

  73,202

  3,487

  574

  316

  18,155

  34,326

  2,639

  Cleveland

  79,719

  2,961

  279

  487

  23,536

  36,488

  1,481

  686

  Police responses to computer-related theft from non-residential premises

  How different models of proactivity affect resourcing of crime-related work

  Impact of tenure policy on police operations/implications for resource management

  Investigating and detecting street robbery

  Managers' use of crime pattern analysis system in resource allocation

  The development of effective proactive policing schemes

  Targeting schemes: what works?

  Business Watch Schemes: a three site review

  The 'Counter Action' initiative: an evaluation

  Tagging vehicles: asset tracking to combat theft and fraud

  Local crime analysis: good practice in proactive policing of robbery and drug street crimes

  The role of middle managers in the police

  The security of filling stations

  Tackling non-residential repeat burglary

  Improving the effectiveness of crime prevention in the planning system

  Measuring and evaluating performance in the detection of organised crime

  Measuring/evaluating performance of inter-agency approaches to violent crime

  Evaluation of police response to violent crime in an interagency context

  Assessing admissibility/sufficiency of evidence in child abuse prosecutions

  Crimes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded in each borough by the Metropolitan police within each category of crime in 1995; how many incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded in each borough; how many of the burglaries recorded in each borough were in a dwelling; and how many were in another building. [22701]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 March 1996]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded by each police force in England and Wales within each category of crime in 1995; how many incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded by each force; how many of the burglaries recorded by each police force in England and Wales in 1995 were in a dwelling; and how many were in another building. [22700]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 March 1996]: The information requested is contained in the following table.

  687

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by malice force area and offence group

  England and Wales 1995

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Cumbria

  41,230

  2,411

  228

  96

  9,422

  19,530

  930

  Derbyshire

  82,380

  3,971

  550

  398

  19,875

  39,658

  1,399

  Devon and Cornwall

  102,193

  4,709

  792

  444

  26,400

  51,651

  2,674

  Dorset

  54,582

  2,158

  331

  205

  12,347

  29,026

  1,501

  Durham

  57,817

  2,030

  373

  164

  15,463

  25,515

  1,661

  Essex

  98,097

  4,488

  692

  361

  19,804

  51,077

  2,465

  Gloucestershire

  55,448

  1,885

  324

  299

  13,872

  30,010

  1,986

  Greater Manchester

  327,994

  9,033

  1,279

  5,714

  85,848

  149,454

  5,840

  Hampshire

  134,319

  5,969

  1,049

  485

  24,726

  71.788

  3,892

  Hertfordshire

  55,891

  2,039

  281

  281

  11,318

  29,894

  1,232

  Humberside

  128,393

  5,804

  781

  680

  39,113

  59,072

  2,966

  Kent

  155,251

  7,444

  994

  779

  33,865

  77,488

  3,627

  Lancashire

  124,921

  3,467

  580

  759

  29,845

  59,028

  3,484

  Leicestershire

  93,607

  5,138

  538

  1,244

  25,487

  44,520

  2,681

  Lincolnshire

  48,015

  2,514

  367

  128

  12,243

  22,774

  1,163

  City of London

  5,727

  126

  17

  32

  712

  3,924

  488

  Merseyside

  153,385

  8,098

  937

  2,768

  34,497

  74,797

  4,259

  Metropolitan Police

  840,478

  43,714

  6,652

  29,859

  176,213

  389,772

  34,139

  Norfolk

  51,716

  1,955

  315

  193

  13,097

  26,420

  1,345

  Northamptonshire

  56,524

  2,672

  308

  332

  14,004

  26,390

  1,217

  Northumbria

  194,141

  5,735

  556

  1,581

  52,870

  78,837

  2,606

  North Yorkshire

  63,539

  2,133

  247

  167

  16,641

  31,574

  1,032

  Nottinghamshire

  151,371

  8,107

  970

  1,513

  37,932

  65,095

  3,701

  South Yorkshire

  154,293

  4,909

  600

  1,164

  45,504

  71,230

  2,524

  Staffordshire

  91,496

  6,471

  563

  500

  24,838

  41,470

  1,905

  Suffolk

  38,234

  2,051

  357

  129

  7,114

  19,282

  1,243

  Surrey

  44,313

  2,288

  397

  198

  9,175

  22,821

  1,442

  Sussex

  110,300

  4,441

  738

  608

  23,224

  56,376

  2,763

  Thames Valley

  178,702

  6,167

  762

  1,319

  38,748

  98,074

  4,732

  Warwickshire

  38,906

  1,258

  214

  174

  9,302

  20,277

  901

  West Mercia

  80,013

  3,222

  467

  289

  15,075

  42,975

  1,739

  West Midlands

  318,087

  8,621

  1,245

  7,872

  89,941

  148,736

  7,624

  West Yorkshire

  283,938

  8,358

  1,416

  3,344

  90,130

  128,196

  4,818

  Wiltshire

  36,428

  2,173

  368

  137

  8,092

  17,852

  1,012

  Dyfed Powys

  19,419

  1,952

  256

  26

  3,515

  8,103

  577

  Gwent

  33,034

  2,549

  309

  133

  6,517

  15,949

  933

  North Wales

  41,645

  2,258

  347

  94

  9,352

  19,665

  1,130

  South Wales

  153,249

  6,460

  587

  537

  36,941

  72,471

  3,399

  England and Wales

  5,123,638

  217,535

  30,390

  68,407

  1,244,157

  2,459,616

  134,317

  England and Wales 1995

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Theft of vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in another building

  Avon and Somerset

  21,097

  953

  16,599

  31,573

  16,878

  17,233

  Bedfordshire

  7,670

  473

  6,141

  10,745

  5,078

  5,948

  Cambridgeshire

  9,742

  447

  7,307

  12,796

  6,347

  7,920

  Cheshire

  12,150

  1,555

  6,739

  11,438

  8,545

  9,610

  Cleveland

  13,748

  739

  9,897

  11,654

  12,438

  11,098

  Cumbria

  8,231

  382

  2,387

  6,831

  4,142

  5,280

  Derbyshire

  15,721

  808

  9,483

  14,164

  8,183

  11,692

  Devon and Cornwall

  14,177

  1,346

  5,916

  20,123

  13,235

  13,165

  Dorset

  8,368

  646

  3,670

  10,191

  6,685

  5,662

  Durham

  11,767

  844

  6,780

  7,779

  7,344

  8,119

  Essex

  18,286

  924

  8,625

  16,472

  8,151

  11,653

  Gloucestershire

  6,396

  676

  3,921

  12,411

  7,127

  6,745

  Greater Manchester

  68,019

  2,807

  45,507

  50,372

  51,724

  34,124

  Hampshire

  24,773

  1,637

  8,471

  25,097

  10,916

  13,810

  Hertfordshire

  10,378

  468

  5,495

  12,989

  4,242

  7,076

  Humberside

  19,284

  693

  11,327

  18,059

  17,518

  21,595

  Kent

  29,523

  1,531

  16,450

  25,163

  15,089

  18,776

  Lancashire

  26,340

  1,418

  9,258

  22,449

  17,603

  12,242

  Leicestershire

  13,365

  634

  9,554

  15,874

  13,790

  11,697

  Lincolnshire

  8,138

  688

  3,538

  5,661

  5,311

  6,932

  City of London

  301

  127

  105

  677

  43

  669

  Merseyside

  25,855

  2,174

  18,230

  18,678

  21,665

  12,832

  Metropolitan Police

  149,500

  10,629

  59,946

  113,241

  108,128

  68,085

  688

  689

  England and Wales 1995

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Theft of vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in building another

  Norfolk

  7,778

  613

  3,378

  8,435

  5,386

  7,711

  Northamptonshire

  11,003

  598

  6,134

  8,752

  6,826

  7,178

  Northumbria

  50,913

  1,043

  21,260

  22,387

  25,920

  26,950

  North Yorkshire

  11,317

  428

  5,260

  10,364

  7,080

  9,561

  Nottinghamshire

  33,181

  872

  16,480

  18,679

  19,951

  17,981

  South Yorkshire

  27,114

  1,248

  20,940

  24,217

  22,235

  23,269

  Staffordshire

  15,121

  628

  8,775

  14,970

  12,090

  12,748

  Suffolk

  7,359

  699

  2,145

  5,348

  2,865

  4,249

  Surrey

  7,334

  658

  2,817

  8,303

  4,002

  5,173

  Sussex

  20,747

  1,403

  6,763

  19,263

  12,493

  10,731

  Thames Valley

  27,266

  1,634

  18,438

  39,336

  19,619

  19,129

  Warwickshire

  6,422

  358

  4,150

  7,330

  3,908

  5,394

  West Mercia

  15,479

  767

  6,752

  14,804

  6,815

  8,260

  West Midlands

  52,163

  1,885

  45,102

  50,494

  46,368

  43,573

  West Yorkshire

  44,805

  2,871

  33,887

  42,919

  54,921

  35,209

  Wiltshire

  6,288

  506

  2,159

  5,890

  3,816

  4,276

  Dyfed-Powys

  4,403

  587

  1,015

  2,072

  1,278

  2,237

  Gwent

  5,895

  749

  3,194

  4,809

  2,903

  3,614

  North Wales

  8,176

  623

  2,406

  7,014

  3,155

  6,197

  South Wales

  31,390

  1,464

  22,703

  24,575

  14,859

  22,082

  England and Wales

  916,983

  52,233

  509,104

  814,398

  646,672

  597,485

DEFENCE

  Greenwich Hospital
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive advice from the special panel he constituted to consider the future of Greenwich hospital. [23540]

  Mr. Portillo
  In answer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 19 December,Official Report, column 1107, I announced that I had invited a group of distinguished experts to advise me on the expressions of interest in, and on the future use and management of, the Royal Naval college, Greenwich, which I hold for the benefit of the Crown charity, Greenwich hospital.

  The advisory group has submitted its interim report. I am most grateful to its members for the way in which they have addressed the issues so far. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the report, amended only to protect matters of commercial confidentiality.

  Much detailed work remains to be done to secure the future of the site, but, with the support of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for National Heritage and for the Environment-the latter as Minister with responsibility for London—I am pleased to be able to announce that I have accepted the central recommendations of the advisory group that, in the event of non-defence occupancy of the Royal Naval college:
  the head lease on the site should go to an independent trust charged with preserving its architectural and historic integrity, with the proper maintenance of the buildings and with ensuring public access. Such a trust would need to have regard also to the wider site for which the Government intend to secure world heritage status from UNESCO. I would also expect it to pay particular regard to the College's historical associations with the Royal Navy. I have invited the advisory group to give further consideration to the issues which will need to be resolved to enable such a trust to be established.
  690
  On the information provided so far, the university of Greenwich appears to be the most appropriate contender to be the main occupant of the site, with the national maritime museum enjoying the use of certain parts. We shall be inviting those organisations to refine their proposals for occupation of the Royal Naval college.

  I have also accepted the recommendation that the Trafalgar quarters, currently occupied by the staff colleges, should be converted by Greenwich hospital to provide sheltered accommodation for retired seafarers and their wives or widows. It seems particularly appropriate that a part of the site should be applied to one of the central purposes in the Crown charity's founding charter of 1694.

  To carry forward the recommendations in the report, new powers are required and I shall seek them in the Armed Forces Bill. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has advised the Select Committee considering the Bill of my intention to table an amendment, whereby I can be empowered to balance the wider interests of the heritage of the site with my responsibilities towards Greenwich hospital.

  I am grateful to those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the debate so far on the future of the Royal Naval college. I am conscious that my announcement will be a disappointment to some who indicated an expression of interest, but whose proposal will not be considered further.

  The Government are determined that the future use of the Royal Naval college should be one worthy of the magnificent site, and in the best interests of the Greenwich hospital and the nation.

  I will keep the House informed of developments.

  Nimrod Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the star window upgrade to the Nimrod R.1 is expected to be completed. [22353]
  691
  Mr. Soames
  All the star window equipment for the Nimrod R.1 has been delivered. It is not my Department's policy, however, to provide detailed information on specific operational capabilities.

  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unmanned aerial vehicles are in service with United Kingdom armed forces; and which service arms have operational control over them. [22588]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no unmanned aerial vehicles in operational service with the armed services. However, some 440 unmanned aerial vehicles are used at various Ministry of Defence ranges as targets or for target towing. They are operated by the Royal Navy, the Army or the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, or by contractors on behalf of the armed services.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [22868]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  For the statistical information requested, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 19 March,Official Report, columns 124–25. The information sought in respect of individual non-competitive contracts could be produced only at disproportionate cost. I have asked the chief executives of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and of the Meteorological Office to write to the hon. Member in respect of their procurement activity in the period for which he seeks information.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 28 March 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence for the number and value of single negotiated tenders awarded by his Department and its agencies in the last three years; for a list of the companies involved, what percentage of contracts awarded this represented and on what basis single negotiated contracts were awarded. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  I am able to give you the total number of single negotiated contracts and the percentage of total contracts awarded that these represent. I cannot give you the other details you request as this information is commercially confidential.

  Year

  Single negotiated contracts

  Percentage of total contracts

  1992–93

  873

  69

  1993–94

  1,294

  68

  1994–95

  8,894

  74

  I hope this is helpful.
  692
  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 28 March 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about single negotiated contracts.
  Unfortunately the information could only be produced at disproportionate costs, although naturally as an Agency of the Ministry of Defence we follow the Department's policy on competitive tendering. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Asbestos-related Compensation Payments
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the letter of 11 March from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, what was(a) the highest individual payment, (b) the lowest (c) the average of the asbestos-related compensation payments made to civilian employees of his Department from 1987 to the end of 1995. [22941]

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with normal legal practice, the level of payments varies greatly accordingly to individual factors such as the person's loss of income, and the number and age of his dependants. The highest individual compensation payment made on behalf of my Department to a civilian employee or ex-employee in respect of an asbestos-related claim during the period in question was £298,080. The lowest was about £1,500. The average settlement—the total amount of compensation paid during the period divided by the number of claims paid—was £18,165; this figure includes claimants' legal costs.

  Land Mines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department last deployed anti-personnel land mines for operational use. [23260]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 22 November 1995,Official Report, column 174.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many anti-personnel land mines British forces have deactivated to date as part of their United Nation implementation force duties in Bosnia. [23261]

  Mr. Soames
  Under the terms of the Dayton agreement, the clearance of mines is the responsibility of the parties. IFOR's role is limited to monitoring their work, except where there is a serious threat to life or clearance is essential to IFOR's own operations. In accordance with this, British forces have deactivated some 160 anti-personnel mines.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the impact of anti-personnel land mines on the duties carried out by British forces in the United Nations implementation force in Bosnia; and what conclusions his Department has drawn from the prevalence of anti-personnel mines in Bosnia. [23263]

  Mr. Soames
  Land mines continue to pose a hazard to IFOR forces in Bosnia, but steps have been taken to reduce the risks. All UK service personnel who deploy to Bosnia undergo mine awareness training and our contribution to IFOR includes personnel who are specially
  693
  trained in explosive ordnance disposal. The damage caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines in Bosnia reinforces our determination to press for tighter international controls on the use and export of these weapons.

  EC (Civil Service Employment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 for service in the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown. [229191

  Mr. Soames
  The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 has no direct effect on service in the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown.

  Pricing and Quality Services Organisation
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the pricing and quality services organisation. [238121

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have decided that the pricing and quality services organisation should be considered as a candidate for defence agency status under the status steps initiative. The agency review process provides an opportunity to align more closely the provision of essential services to customer needs. Once complete, it will establish a framework that allows a much sharper focus on the need for those services, together with pressure to improve performance through the development of clear and rigorous targets.

  Currently, there are four discrete business units within PQS:

  (a) Support to Contract Pricing;

  (b) Quality Assurance;

  (c) Defence Cost Forecasting; and

  (d) The Equipment Accounting Centre.

  The directorate has approximately 935 staff located in 41 offices throughout the UK. The headquarters are currently located in central London and scheduled to transfer to Abbey Wood, Bristol, later this year.

  A "prior options" study is being undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. I would welcome comments from interested parties. Such comments should be sent to:

  J. R. Brown

  AD/PQS/PMIT

  Ministry of Defence

  Room 229

  St. Georges Court

  14 New Oxford Street

  London WC I A 1EJ

  Army Individual Training Organisation
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Army individual training organisation. [239581

  Mr. Soames
  The Army individual training organisation will become a defence agency of the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1996. The aim of the AITO is to provide the appropriate numbers of 694
  well-trained and motivated individuals to meet the operational requirements of the Army. The headquarters of the AITO will be at Upavon, Wiltshire alongside the headquarters of the adjutant general who will be the owner of the agency on behalf of the Secretary of State. The agency will control 32 separate training centres throughout the United Kingdom and have a staff of 6,315 military and 4,546 civilian personnel.

  The AITO chief executive, a major general, who will also be the Army's director general of individual training, will be required to build upon the current organisation's reputation for providing the Army with highly trained personnel while, at the same time, achieving greater efficiency effectiveness and value for money.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:

  1. To meet 95 per cent. of agreed customer training requirements in terms of the quality of trained manpower delivered.

  2. To meet 95 per cent. of agreed customer training requirements in terms of the quantity of trained manpower delivered.

  3. To meet 95 per cent. of agreed customer training requirements in terms of timeliness of delivery.

  4. To ensure success rates for phase 1 officer training are greater than or equal to 85 per cent.

  5. To ensure success rates for phase 1 soldier training are greater than or equal to 85 per cent.

  6.To ensure success rates for apprentices training are greater than or equal to 85 per cent.

  7. To ensure success rates for phase 2 officer training are greater than or equal to 85 per cent.

  8. To ensure success rates for phase 2 soldier training are greater than or equal to 85 per cent.

  9. To ensure success rates for phase 3 officer training are greater than or equal to 85 per cent.

  10. To ensure success rates for phase 3 soldier training are greater than or equal to 85 per cent.

  11. To deliver the approved AITO programme within plus or minus 5 per cent. of agreed cash budget.

  12. To achieve efficiency improvements of £16.07 million in the first year of operation.

  I will arrange for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [218541

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The Government are not required to consult with any of the non-departmental public bodies within my Department prior to legislative proposals.

  The Review Board for Government Contracts reports annually on the profit formula for non-competitive Government contracts and this advice is published. The Government make their response to this available to the House in a parliamentary written answer.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Voluntary Youth Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to allow the voluntary youth service sector more access to public funding. [23279]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has increased its grants to national voluntary youth organisations by 6 per cent. to £9.1 million for the next three years. This has allowed us to fund a larger number of programmes—nearly 70—which promote the personal and social education of young people.

  Schools Funding Council (Bromley)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what money has been given for capital expenditure by the Schools Funding Council; and what facilities it has been spent on at (i) Ravenswood; (ii) Bullers Wood, (iii) St. Olave's, (iv) Newstead Wood and (v) Crofton junior schools in the London borough of Bromley. [22130]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested.

  Selective and Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the parliamentary constituencies which have selective local education authority and grant-maintained schools within their boundaries. [22916]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The 163 local education authority and grant-maintained schools which classify themselves as selective in the 1995 performance tables are located in the following parliamentary constituencies:

  CONSTITUENCY

  Altrincham and Sale

  Ashford

  Aylesbury

  Batley and Spen

  Beaconsfield

  Bexleyheath

  Birkenhead

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  Birmingham, Northfield

  Birmingham, Perry Barr

  Birmingham, Small Heath

  Bournemouth, East

  Bridgwater

  Bristol, West

  Buckinghamshire

  Canterbury

  Carshalton and Wallington

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Chesham and Amersham

  Chipping Barnet

  696

  Colchester, North

  Colchester, South and Maldon

  Dartford

  Davyhulme

  Dorset South

  Dover

  Enfield-Edmonton

  Faversham

  Finchley

  Folkestone and Hythe

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  Gloucester

  Grantham

  Gravesham

  Halifax

  Hendon, South

  Holland with Boston

  Honiton

  Ilford, North

  Kent Mid

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lancaster

  Lindsey, East

  Maidstone

  Medway

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  Orpington

  Plymouth Drake

  Poole

  Reading East

  Ribble Valley

  Rossendale and Darwen

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  Salisbury

  Shropshire North

  Skipton and Ripon

  Slough

  South Hams

  Southend, East

  Southend, West

  Stamford and Spalding

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Stretford

  Stroud

  Sutton and Cheam

  Sutton Coldfield

  Thanet, South

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Torbay

  Tunbridge Wells

  Walsall, South

  Wanstead and Woodford

  Wirral, South

  Wirral, West

  Wolverhampton, South-West

  Wycombe

  Employment Service
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1996–97 will be published. [23955]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Today, I have placed copies of the 1996–97 Employment Service annual performance agreement in the Library. The new targets will require the Employment Service to build on this year's extremely good performance and, in the light of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance in October this year, will be especially challenging. I have set a demanding target of placing a record 1.97 million unemployed people in jobs in the 12 months from April. Related targets for placing long-term claimants and people with disabilities are higher than ever before. I have set the Employment Service no specific target for combating fraud this year because, from April, responsibility for that area of work moves to the Benefits Agency, which has its own target, published in its business plan.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library a list of the schools to be admitted to the assisted places scheme. [23956]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We intend to admit 63 new schools to the scheme, offering 1,111 assisted places for entry in September 1996. I am placing a list in the Library. These additional places form part of the expansion of the scheme which my right hon. Friend announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on 29 February,Official Report, columns 667–68.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  EC (Civil Service Employment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the implications of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 for service in departmental agencies; and if he will list the posts and agencies affected. [22917]

  Mr. Freeman
  The implications of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 for service in departmental agencies in the home civil service are that, since 21 May 1991, they have been able to employ EC (now EEA—since the European Economic Area Act 1993) nationals, and certain non-EEA family members, in any of the posts which do not constitute employment in the "public service" within the meaning of article 48(4) of the EC treaty.

  All departmental agencies in the home civil service are affected by the order. The agencies—98 (plus Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue which operate on next steps lines), employing some 355,000 staff—were listed in "Next Steps Review 1995", copies of which were placed in the Library of the House on 26 February 1996. Since publication, one agency—the Defence Accounts Agency-1,770 staff—has ceased to exist and the following four have been launched.
  698

  Number of staff

  Defence Bills Agency

  650

  Defence Dental Agency

  205

  Medical Supplies Agency

  260

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  965

  Most posts in departmental agencies are non-public service posts; a list could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the implications of the European Communities (Employment in Civil Service) Order 1991 for a person born and resident in Northern Ireland but holding a passport issued by the Republic of Ireland in respect of employment in the public and civil service; and if he will list all the posts, Departments and agencies affected. [22924]

  Mr. Freeman
  Persons born and resident in Northern Ireland, but holding a passport issued by the Republic of Ireland, provided they still hold British nationality, are eligible for employment in almost any post in the home civil service in the same way as any other British national. Those who surrender British nationality in favour of Irish citizenship will, from 1 June 1996, under the arrangements I announced on 1 March 1996,Official Repot, column 771, come within the ambit of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991; they will be eligible, together with nationals of other EC (now EEA—since the European Economic Area Act 1993) member states and certain members of their families, for appointment to approximately 390,000 posts in the home civil service—75 per cent. of all posts—which do not constitute employment in the "public service" in EC treaty terms. These posts are spread across all home civil service Departments and their agencies and could be listed only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Deputy 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 Office of Public Service and its agencies 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. [21704]

  Mr. Willetts
  Details of the cost and, where known, the number of items of equipment and furniture recorded as having been stolen or otherwise unaccounted for from the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and its agencies are as follows:

  Within this period, the only item valued at £5,000 or more stolen or otherwise unaccounted for was a Compaq Systempro file server valued at £10,000 which was stolen from the information technology system branch in the Horse Guards road building during 1992–93.

  699

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  Financial year accounting

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  (a) Stolen Cabinet Office (incl OPS)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  11,000

  —

  —

  6

  4,021

  —

  —

  RAS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  OHSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CS College

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  2,250

  22

  36,362

  5

  2,769

  —

  —

  5

  781

  Chessington

  1

  126

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SAFE1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TBA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  COI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (stolen)

  1

  126

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2,250

  26

  47,362

  5

  2,769

  6

  4,021

  5

  781

  1 The stolen IT items relating to each year for both SAFE and HMSO relate to stolen computer chips, the exact number of which is not available from current records.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  Financial year accounting

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  (a) Stolen Cabinet Office (including OPS)

  5

  6,975

  6

  525

  —

  —

  7

  2,029

  15

  21,996

  13

  2,554

  RAS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1,845

  —

  —

  1

  1,845

  —

  —

  OHSA

  2

  3,000

  1

  200

  1

  500

  —

  —

  3

  3,500

  1

  200

  CS College

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  6,188

  —

  —

  43

  42,550

  15

  5,800

  Chessington

  2

  1,680

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1,680

  —

  —

  SAFE1

  —

  7,000

  —

  —

  —

  8,000

  —

  —

  —

  15,000

  —

  —

  TBA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1,000

  —

  —

  1

  1,000

  —

  —

  COI

  3

  5,000

  —

  —

  33

  9,690

  —

  —

  36

  14,690

  —

  —

  Total (stolen)

  12

  23,655

  7

  725

  57

  27,223

  7

  2,029

  101

  102,261

  29

  8,554

  1 The stolen IT items relating to each year for both SAFE and HMSO relate to stolen computer chips, the exact number of which is not available from current records.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  No.

  £

  (b) Unaccounted for Cabinet Office (incl OPS)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  20

  —

  —

  1

  800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RAS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  15,509

  —

  —

  OHSA

  —

  —

  1

  686

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CS College

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chessington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SAFE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TBA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  COI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  864

  —

  —

  1

  1,441

  —

  —

  3

  276

  —

  —

  Total (stolen)

  0

  0

  1

  686

  12

  864

  1

  20

  1

  1,441

  1

  800

  13

  15,785

  0

  0

  700

  701

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  IT Material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  IT Material

  Other items

  Total (stolen)

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  (b) Unaccounted for

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cabinet Office (incl OPS)

  —

  —

  2

  210

  —

  —

  1

  90

  —

  —

  5

  1,120

  RAS

  4

  1,597

  —

  —

  4

  3,265

  —

  —

  18

  20,371

  —

  —

  OHSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CS College

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  4,089

  —

  —

  6

  4,089

  —

  —

  Chessington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SAFE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TBA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  COI

  4

  1,597

  —

  —

  11

  386

  —

  —

  31

  4,516

  —

  —

  Total (unaccounted)

  8

  3,146

  2

  210

  21

  7,740

  1

  90

  55

  28,976

  5

  1,120

  £

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Total

  IT material

  Other items

  IT Material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  IT material

  Other items

  Calender year accounting

  HMSO1 2

  (a) Stolen

  9,500

  0

  6,050

  0

  51,000

  0

  66,550

  0

  1 The stolen IT items relating to each year for both SAFE and HMSO relate to stolen computer chips, the exact number of which is not available from current records.

  2 HMSO have no items otherwise unaccounted for.

TRANSPORT

  Braer Disaster (Compensation)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legal action the Government are taking against(a) the insurers of the Braer and (b) the international oil compensation fund in respect of the Braer disaster. [21482]

  Mr. Norris
  Under the international convention which establish the international oil pollution compensation fund, which are implemented in United Kingdom legislation in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, rights to compensation are extinguished unless legal action is commenced within three years of the date on which the pollution damage occurred. The Government have initiated a legal action against the owners and third party liability insurers of the Braer and the international oil pollution compensation fund to protect the Government's claim for compensation for eligible costs incurred by the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office following the Braer incident.

  Aircraft Safety Standards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 1996,Official Report, column 309, if he will make a statement on the measures taken by his Department to assess whether aircraft are operated in accordance with international safety standards. [21362]

  Mr. Norris
  My answer of 7 March detailed the particular steps taken by the Department to check that aircraft for which permits are required to operate to the UK have the necessary safety certification. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping
  702
  announced on 10 January a package of new measures to increase the oversight of safety standards of foreign aircraft operating to the UK.

  In brief these measures are as follows:
  The Department, in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, is arranging for more inspection of foreign aircraft where the observance of international safety standards is in doubt.
  The UK is providing experts to the International Civil Aviation Organisation to assist in its recently commenced safety oversight programme.
  As a result of a recommendation by the air accidents investigation branch, new procedures will clarify which airline is responsible for safety in operations where aircraft are leased with crew (wet-lease).

  Induced Traffic
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which schemes in the national roads programme have been reviewed to estimate the effects of induced traffic; and for each of these schemes by how much this review has changed the 30-year traffic level predictions and the net present value of the scheme. [22759]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency is carrying out Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment for all schemes in the national programme. So far, a total of 64 schemes have been provisionally assessed by the agency. These are listed in the schedule at annex A.

  The volume of additional traffic induced by schemes is generally expected to be less than 10 per cent. and in many cases below 5 per cent.

  The economic assessment process for induced traffic is developing and current appraisal techniques are being improved for the future. For now, where induced traffic

  703
  is a significant factor, the agency is undertaking sensitivity tests which impose a fairly severe test of scheme economics. For example, in some cases tests have been undertaken with significantly higher volumes of induced traffic than are expected in practice. So far none of the schemes assessed has failed the tests; even where unrealistically high levels of induced traffic have been assumed all have remained good value for money.

  SCHEMES ASSESSED FOR INDUCED TRAFFIC

  Scheme Title

  Al Gateshead Western Bypass

  Al20 Stansted—Braintree Improvement

  A 13 Ironbridge—Canning Town Improvement

  A13/A112 Prince Regent Lane Junction Improvement

  A13/A117 Junction Improvement

  A14 M11—A10 Widening

  A 19 Norton—Parkway Interchange Improvement

  Al (M) Alconbury—Peterborough

  Al (M) Baldock—Alconbury

  Al (M) Ferrybridge—Hook Moor Improvement

  A2 Lydden—Dover Improvement

  A205 Catford Town Centre Improvement

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass

  A23 Handcross—Warninglid Improvement

  A249 [wade Bypass—Queenborough Improvement

  A259 Bexhill and Hastings Western Bypass

  A259 Guestling Thorn and Icklesham Bypass

  A259 Winchelsea Bypass

  A27 Worthing—Lancing Improvement

  A2/A282 Dartford Improvement

  A3 Hindhead Improvement

  A30 Honiton to Exeter Improvement

  A303 Amesbury—Berwick Down Improvement

  A303 Sparkford—Ilchester Improvement

  A30/A303 Marsh Honiton and A35 Honiton Eastern Bypass

  A34 Chieveley/M4 Junction 13 Improvement

  A34 Newbury Bypass

  A35 Chideock/Morcombelake Bypass

  A35 Tolpuddle—Puddletown Bypass

  A36 Salisbury Bypass

  A40 Western Circus Junction Improvement

  A417 North of Stratton—Nettleton Improvement

  A419 Blunsdon Bypass

  A419 Latton Bypass

  A419/A417 Cirencester and Stratton Bypass

  A43 Geddington Bypass

  A43 Moulton—Broughton Improvement

  A449/A456 Kidderminster, Blakedown and Hagley Bypass

  A453 Clifton Lane Improvement

  A46 Alcester—Stratford Improvement

  A5225 Wigan—Westhoughton Bypass

  A556(M) M6—M56 Link Improvement

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass Contract A

  A564 Doverridge Bypass

  A595 Parton—Lillyhall Improvement

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  A63 Castle Street Hull Improvement

  A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass

  A65 Manor Park Bends Improvement

  704

  A69 Haltwistle Bypass

  A6(M) Stockport North/South Bypass

  Western Orbital Route

  M1 Junctions 10–15 Widening

  M1 Junctions 25–28 Widening

  M1 Junctions 6A–10 Widening

  M11 Junction 5 North Facing Slip Roads

  M2 Junctions 1–4 Widening

  M23 Junctions 8–9 Widening

  M25 Junction 15–16 Link Roads

  M25 Terminal 5 Spur (HEATHROW)

  M4 Junctions 8(9)–10 Widening

  M6 Junctions 11A–16 Widening

  M6 Junctions 16–19 and 19–20 Widening

  M63 Junctions 6–9 Widening

  Speed Limits, Central London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current speed limits for(a) Park lane, (b) the Embankment, (c) the Mall and (d) Birdcage walk; and if he will make a statement. [23109]

  Mr. Norris
  The speed limit on these roads is 30 mph.

  Vehicle Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many(a) coaches and (b) heavy goods vehicles have been found to be unsafe in each of the last five years; and how many prosecutions have resulted; [23302]

  (2) if he will list by police force area, the number of wide prohibition notices issued for each year since 1992. [23301]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 28 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on the number of coaches and heavy goods vehicles found to be unsafe in each of the last 5 years, and the number of "wide" prohibitions notices by police force area.
  The number of prohibitions issued in each of the last 5 years to vehicles inspected for their roadworthiness is shown in the attached table. There is no information for the past 5 years on any resulting prosecutions as we have not kept a separate register of roadworthiness prosecutions until this financial year.
  I would be grateful if you could clarify your second question; I am not sure what is meant by "wide" prohibitions. I should also explain that we do not record data by police force area.

  National roadworthiness prohibition figures 1990–91 to 1994–95

  HGV

  PSV

  1990–91

  19,998

  2,991

  1991–92

  21,284

  3,445

  1992–93

  22,067

  3,026

  1993–94

  22,260

  3,295

  1994–95

  23,304

  3,921

  HGV figures include prohibitions for both motor vehicles and trailers.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he or his fellow Ministers at the Department of Transport have had meetings with
  705
  representatives of the motor manufacturing industry to discuss research being undertaken into the relative safety of different types of vehicle involved in side impact collisions; [23377]

  (2)what research has been commissioned by his Department from the Transport Research Laboratory on the relative safety of different types of vehicle in side impact collisions; which agency stipulated the terms of the research; and how much this research has cost his Department; [23375]

  (3)if he will make it his policy to release immediately public research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory into the relative safety of different types of vehicles involved in side impact collisions; [23376]

  (4)for what reasons his Department has not released information relating to the relative safety of different makes of vehicle in side impact collisions; and what discussions officials of his Department have had with representatives of vehicle manufacturers relating to this research. [23378]

  Mr. Norris
  Research on the feasibility of a new car assessment programme, in which the safety of new models would be evaluated, is being done at TRL and was commissioned by the vehicle standards and engineering division of the Department. It includes side protection and is to see if the results give a reliable indicator of relative performance.

  It is not possible readily to separate the costs of individual tests but the overall cost of the programme is £1.58 million over three years—1995 to 1998.

  Neither I nor my colleagues have had meetings with representatives of the motor industry specifically to discuss this research. There have been discussions with vehicle manufacturers at official level, in particular a meeting in July 1995 at TRL to discuss the test procedure with major car manufacturers. Motor manufacturers have also been invited to witness tests on their own model.

  Whether the published report on the research will include the test results of named car models will depend on the assessment emerging from the research of the reliability of the information as an indicator of performance. It could be misleading to publish information judged to be unreliable.

  Railway Grants
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the grants made by his Department under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 since 1992. [22565]

  Mr. Watts
  Since 1992, three grants have been awarded under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974. Subsequent awards have been made under section 139 of the Railways Act 1993. The full list of awards can be found in "Rail Freight Facilities Grants, England, Scotland and Wales, December 1995", available in the Library.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the freight facilities grants made by his Department. [22564]
  706
  Mr. Watts
  A total of 155 freight facilities grants have been awarded by the Department since 1975. Grant assisted rail projects are listed in full in "Rail Freight Facilities Grants, England, Scotland and Wales, December 1995", a copy of which has been deposited in the Library.

  Search and Rescue Helicopter (Portland)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will continue to provide a search and rescue helicopter at Portland after 31 March. [24009]

  Mr. Norris
  This temporary arrangement for the provision of a Coastguard search and rescue—SAR—helicopter at Portland will be extended for a further eight months, until the end of November. Longer-term decisions on the disposition of SAR helicopters will depend in part on the consultation on the interdepartmental review. We hope to publish the review's findings shortly.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 11 March. [23813]

  Sir George Young
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 11 March. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached a common position on a directive to harmonise roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers.

  The Council also reached a common position on three separate directives concerning market liberalisation, state aid rules and a vessel scrapping scheme in the inland waterways sector. The United Kingdom voted against the scrapping scheme because of our opposition in principle to Community funding for such schemes. The two other proposals were agreed without a vote.

  The Council discussed the Commission proposal for a mandate to negotiate an air transport agreement between the European Community and the United States. The United Kingdom made clear its view that the Commission had not demonstrated that this would add value to the present bilateral arrangements. However a majority of member states were in favour of the principle of limited Community-level negotiations and the proposal was referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER—for further work.

  The Council also discussed the European Parliament's second reading opinion on the proposed Council/European Parliament decision on a transEuropean transport network. It was agreed that the presidency should work to reach agreement with the Parliament on a compromise text as soon as possible.

  The Commission gave a progress report to the Council on the state of play in the negotiations between the European Community and Switzerland in respect of land and air transport agreements.

  Following a general discussion, the presidency concluded that a regulation concerning the collection of aviation statistics should be reconsidered at the next

  707
  Transport Council to allow time for further consideration of a number of outstanding issues, including the application of the regulation to Gibraltar.

  Other issues raised at the Council included Commission Green Papers on the citizens network and external costs in transport and a Commission White Paper on air traffic management. There was also an intervention by the German delegation on air traffic safety and a French intervention on ferry safety.

  Trawlers
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trawlers were registered in(a) 1995 and (b) 1979. [21611]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. David Evans, dated 28 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of trawlers registered in (a) 1995 and (b) 1979.
  The register of fishing vessels is not categorised by type. The total number of fishing vessels on the register at 31 December 1995, however was 8670.
  Before April 1989, registration was the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise (C&E). The C&E records were transferred to the Registry of Shipping and Seamen. I regret that extracting the information relating to fishing vessels from the earlier records for a particular year could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

  Vehicle Inspectorate Testing Stations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Vehicle Inspectorate testing stations are currently in operation in the United Kingdom; and how many have(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four, (e) five and (f) six lanes. [23575]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 28 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on the number of Vehicle Inspectorate testing stations in operation and how many lanes they have.
  Details of the number of stations are given below:

  Full-time stations

  5 lane: 6

  4 lane: 4

  3 lane: 17

  2 lane: 32

  1 lane: 16

  There are 15 part-time stations all with one lane.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 February to the hon. Member for Wallesey (Ms Eagle),Official Report, column 657–58, what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract with EDS; what contracts, at what costs, with what duration and penalty his Department's agencies hold with EDS; and if he will make a statement. [23716]
  708
  Mr. Norris
  The value of contracts and the provisions for termination are classified commercial in confidence.

  There are four contracts between the Department's Agencies and EDS:

  1. DVLA—duration five years

  2. DSA—duration five years

  3. VIEA—duration four years six months

  4. VIEA—duration two years

  Inquests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications there have been in the last 10 years for judicial review of an inquest ruling; and how many have been successful. [22213]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply

  Details of applications for the judicial review of inquest verdicts are not held centrally.

  ENVIRONMENT Waste Incinerators (Fires)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has with his European counterparts with respect to fires at waste incinerators. [22277]

  Mr. Clappison
  I am in regular discussion with my European counterparts on environment issues. I have not found it necessary to discuss the question of fires at waste incinerators.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what research his Department has conducted into the environmental impact, both short and long-term, of fires at waste incinerators; and if he will make a statement on the findings and conclusions; [22285]

  (2) what research his Department has conducted into the health implications of fires at waste incinerators; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions of such research. [22273]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has not conducted any research into this subject.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has with the Secretary of State for Health with respect to the health implications of fires at waste incinerators. [22281]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have had no recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on the health implications of fires at waste incinerators.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has given to hospitals with respect to the treatment of illness resulting from fires at waste incinerators. [22275]
  709
  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has not given any advice to hospitals on the treatment of illness resulting from fires at waste incinerators.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from individuals and organisations concerned with the safety of waste incinerators. [22283]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Health and Safety Executive's field operations division has no knowledge of any representations concerned with safety of waste incinerators. Such inquiries raised with HSE area offices are not recorded centrally. Most representations received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution relate to emissions from the incinerators.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to local authorities with respect to the safety of waste incinerators and with respect to the implications of fires at waste incinerators. [22278]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have issued no guidance to local authorities on these matters.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with respect to the health implications of fires at waste incinerators. [22274]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Health and Safety Executive would expect fire authorities to issue appropriate guidance to the public and employees to avoid exposure to a smoke plume in the event of a fire at a waste storage location, and for the public health authorities to consider the implications for public health.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for investigating the safety of waste incinerators; with particular reference to fires. [22282]

  Mr. Clappison
  The health and safety of employees in the event of fire at storage locations at waste incinerators would be considered by Health and Safety Executive inspectors, but this would not normally be extended to matters of public health arising from exposure to any smoke. Storage of waste at municipal waste incinerators is covered by the authorisation granted to the operator by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which would take account of any findings relating to its authorisation. Appropriate action would then be taken.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been treated in each of the last five years for sickness resulting from fires at waste incinerators. [22272]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department does not keep these figures.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken following the recent fire at the Whitley refuse incinerator in Coventry; and if he will make a statement. [22280]

  Mr. Clappison
  Coventry city local authority is investigating the allegations of adverse health effect following the fire at the Whitley incinerator together with the director of pubic health for the area. Her Majesty's710
  inspectorate of pollution will provide any information to assist in determining the likely effects and will consider these findings in relation to any further action.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the long-term implications for health of fires at waste incinerators. [22276]

  Mr. Clappison
  Health and safety of employees in the event of fire at storage locations at waste incinerators would be considered by Health and Safety Executive inspectors. However, this does not normally extend to public health, which is a matter for the local authority environmental health department.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Health and Safety Executive has spent on its study over the last year on the structural condition of the Forth rail bridge. [22844]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Over the last year, the Health and Safety Executive has spent approximately £221,000 on its assessment of the structural integrity of the Forth bridge.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of answering parliamentary questions in each Session since 1989–90. [22903]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department does not calculate the data requested, and they could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) 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; [22854]

  (2) 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 contacts 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. [22869]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on the award of individual contracts is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department submits the purchase of all goods, materials, services and works to competition wherever possible. Single tender action is used where there is a single source of supply, a need for compatibility, or for one off purchases of very low value. These procedures are set out in the Department's purchasing guide.
  711

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 631, if he will give, in each case of called-in application, the length of time which has elapsed following the local inquiries being completed and the decision from the inspector and the determination by his Department. [22913]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Due to an administrative error within the Department, for which I apologise, the number of called-in planning applications awaiting decision by my right hon. Friend was incorrectly stated in my answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 631.

  The number of applications awaiting decision following receipt of the inspector's report was in fact 22, not 42. For these applications, the information requested is shown by Government office regions in the following table. None of these applications has yet been decided.

  Region

  Development proposal

  Date inquiry completed

  Date Inspector's report received

  North West

  Retail development, Cockermouth, Cumbria

  3 February 1995

  3 July 1995

  West Midlands

  Retail development, Oldbury W. Midlands

  14 July 1995

  8 November 1995

  East Midlands

  Retail development, Daventry, Northants. (3 applications)

  2 March 1995

  5 June 1995

  Eastern

  Highway development, Baldock By-pass, Herts. (2 applications)

  25 May 1995

  23 November 1994

  Motorway service areas, M25, Epping, Essex(5 applications)

  25 May 1995

  25 January 1996

  South West

  Retail development, Tewkesbury, Gloucs.

  11 August 1995

  21 December 1994

  Retail development, Falmouth, Cornwall

  26 July 1995

  17 October 1995

  Residential development, Tredarrup, Cornwall

  6 September 1995

  24 November 1995

  Retail development, Chard, Somerset (2 applications)

  20 September 1995

  28 November 1995

  South East

  Gypsy sitedevelopment, Dunsfold, Surrey

  1 December 1995

  22 January 1996

  Residential development, Wraysbury, Berks.

  6 December 1994

  29 January1995

  London

  Leisure centre/ student accommmodation, Elephant and Castle, SE1

  2 December 1994

  27 February1995

  Residential/leisure complex, Battersea, SW11

  3 August1995

  4 October1995

  Leisure/retail complex, Beckton, E6

  19 October 1995

  28 November 1995

  EC (Civil Service Employment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 for service in local government. [22920]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This order has relevance for the civil service, not local government.

  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when average mortgage interest rates were last at present levels. [23387]

  Mr. Gummer
  Figures from the Halifax Building Society show that mortgage rates are the lowest since April 1968.

  Universal Houses (Asbestos)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a survey of the health of tenants of those Universal houses built between 1925 and 1935 which contain asbestos. [23293]

  Mr. Clappison
  No. Asbestos materials in dwellings present a minimal risk to health. If there are particular local concerns, owners should refer to the comprehensive guidance issued by my Department on the management and treatment of such materials.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority area in England the number of Universal houses built between 1925 and 1935(a) currently standing, (b) currently occupied and (c) assessed by his Department as containing asbestos. [23292]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not centrally available.

  Recycling
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the recycling rates for(a) glass, (b) plastics, (c) steel cans, (d) aluminium cans, (e) paper and card, (f) batteries, (g) tyres, (h) vehicles and (i) electrical and electronic equipment for each OECD country at the latest available date. [23342]

  Mr. Clappison
  The OECD publishes information on the environment every two years. Limited information on the recycling of different materials, which is given in the table is published in the "OECD Environmental Data Compendium, 1995". Information may not be on a consistent basis from one country to another. Information on the United Kingdom is provided by trade associations and published in the "Digest of Environmental Statistics, 17, 1995".

  Recovery of Paper and Cardboard and Glass in OECD countries

  Country

  Year

  Paper and cardboard (percentage)

  Year

  Glass (percentage)

  Canada

  1992

  32.0

  1992

  75.0

  USA

  1993

  34.0

  1993

  22.0

  Japan

  1992

  51.0

  1992

  56.0

  Australia

  1991

  50.0

  1992

  36.0

  Austria

  1990

  78.0

  1994

  76.0

  Belgium

  1993

  11.0

  1994

  67.0

  Denmark

  1992

  36.0

  1994

  67.0

  Finland

  1992

  45.0

  1994

  50.0

  France

  1993

  42.0

  1994

  48.0

  Germany

  1993

  46.0

  1994

  75.0

  Greece

  1993

  30.0

  1994

  29.0

  Ireland

  1991

  3.0

  1994

  31.0

  Italy

  1991

  47.0

  1994

  54.0

  Netherlands

  1991

  53.0

  1994

  77.0

  Norway

  1993

  32.0

  1994

  72.0

  713

  Recovery of Paper and Cardboard and Glass in OECD countries

  Country

  Year

  Paper and cardboard (percentage)

  Year

  Glass (percentage)

  Portugal

  1992

  41.0

  1994

  32.0

  Spain

  1993

  78.0

  1994

  31.0

  Sweden

  1993

  50.0

  1994

  56.0

  Switzerland

  1993

  54.0

  1994

  84.0

  United Kingdom

  1993

  35.0

  1993

  29.0

  Housing (Right to Buy)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants in the United Kingdom have bought their homes under the right to buy since 1979. [23386]

  Mr. Gummer
  In the period between the introduction of the legislation in October 1980 and the end of September 1995, the latest date for which information is available, local authorities in England reported total right to buy sales of 1,235 million homes. In the same period, housing associations and new towns reported right to buy sales of 28,000 and 10,000 respectively.

  For information on sales elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I refer the hon. Member to the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Composting
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the composting rates in each OECD country, at the latest available date. [23373]

  Mr. Clappison
  The OECD publishes information on the environment every two years. Data on the composting of municipal waste, which are given in the table are taken from the OECD Environmental Data Compendium, 1995". Information may not be on a consistent basis from one country to another. Information relating to composting in the United Kingdom is not collected centrally.

  Amounts of municipal waste composted in OECD countries

  Country

  Year

  Composted waste (000 tonnes)

  Total collected (000 tonnes)

  Canada

  1992

  218

  18,800

  USA

  1993

  5,821

  187,790

  Japan

  1991

  57

  50,767

  Austria

  1990

  85

  2,506

  Belgium

  1994

  96

  1,160

  Denmark

  1993

  206

  2,377

  Finland

  1990

  50

  3,100

  France

  1992

  1,300

  20,500

  Germany

  1990

  369

  21,615

  Luxembourg

  1993

  5

  190

  Netherlands

  1991

  475

  7,602

  Norway

  1992

  15

  2,223

  Portugal

  1992

  444

  3,270

  Spain

  1993

  1,560

  14,256

  Sweden

  1990

  100

  3,200

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the bidding guidance for round 3 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund will be published. [23585]

  Mr. Curry
  The bidding guidance for round 3 of the single regeneration budget fund will be published tomorrow, 29 March. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State or the Environment if he has yet considered the response by Reigate and Banstead borough council to the notice served on the authority on 6 November 1995 under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement. [23588]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the response which Reigate and Banstead borough council has made to the notice served on the authority on 6 November 1995. He is still of the view that the authorities' actions during the tender process for the two contracts, worth £363,000, had the effect of distorting and restricting competition.

  He has today given the authority a direction, under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988, requiring it to retender the work, included in the grounds maintenance contracts 1 and 2, which was the subject of the notice, so that new arrangements are in place by 1 January 1997, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent should it wish to reassign the work to the direct service organisation.

  The Government are fully committed to fair and open competition for local authority services and we are determined to ensure that obstacles which stand in the way of such competition are removed.

  Offshore Health and Safety
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing Lord Cullen's recommendations on the review and reform of offshore health and safety legislation following his inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. [23586]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since the Government accepted in full the recommendations in Lord Cullen's 1990 report on the Piper Alpha disaster, a total of four sets of new health and safety regulations for the offshore sector have been made. The latest, the Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc) Regulations 1996 were laid before Parliament today. They mark a significant milestone in the review and reform programme undertaken by the Government as a result of Lord Cullen's report.

  The new legislation effects fundamental changes in the management of safety offshore, as recommend by Lord Cullen. A safety case regime for offshore installations has been established. This requires all installation operators and owners to assess the risks arising from offshore installations, and demonstrate how those risks will be controlled. It is now unlawful to operate an installation without acceptance of its safety case by the offshore

  715
  safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive. Provision has also been made for the prevention of fire and the explosion, for emergency response—areas of high risk identified by Lord Cullen as requiring specific legislation—and for management and administration issues. Moreover, the new regulations complete offshore implementation of a European directive concerned with health and safety in the extractive industries. Much old legislation has been revoked both by these new regulations and other reform initiatives in the programme.

  The Government have therefore met their obligation to review and reform offshore health and safety legislation in the manner set out by Lord Cullen in his report. I commend the Health and Safety Commission for its efforts in taking forward this programme and all parts of the industry for their positive approach to it. Together, they have secured a legislative regime providing a firm foundation or the continued improvement of health and safety standards in the offshore sector.

  Public Paths Regulations
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the results of the recent review of the Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993. [23959]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have accepted the central conclusion of the review into the operation of the Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Path Orders) Regulations, which is that the maximum charge for administrative cost does not, in most cases, cover the costs incurred by local authorities.

  We therefore intend to amend the regulations to remove the current, £400, ceiling. Instead, local authorities will be required to draw up scales of charges, indicating the likely costs for unopposed orders and the maximum cost which they would charge.

  This change will be implemented by amending regulations, which we hope to have in place by the summer.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Environment Agency charging schemes for 1996–97 for regulation under integrated pollution control and the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. [23960]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Act 1995 requires the Environment Agency to make charging schemes so as to recover the costs of carrying out its regulatory functions.

  The Government have consulted those who are likely to be affected by the schemes. In the light of that consultation, and with the consent of the Treasury, of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales and—with regard to the Radioactive Substances Act—of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Environment Agency has now made charging schemes for 1996–97 for regulation under integrated pollution control and the Radioactive Substances Act.

  The schemes will take effect from 1 April 1996. I have placed copies of them in the Library of the House.
  716
  The schemes are similar to those which were previously administered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and there are no changes to the levels of charges as they were set out in the equivalent schemes for 1995–96. This represents a reduction in real terms of around 3 per cent. and has been achieved by continuing improvements in efficiency.

  Since responsibility for these schemes is shortly to pass from the inspectorate to the Environment Agency, now is an appropriate time to acknowledge the hard work which the inspectorate has done over the past three years to reduce the level of direct charges in real terms while maintaining a credible regulatory regime. I am also pleased to see the Environment Agency making these schemes, which demonstrates its intention to build upon the improvements in regulatory effectiveness and efficiency which were achieved by the inspectorate, and to limit any increases in charges to those which are essential in order to reduce pollution and to improve the environment.

  Copies of the schemes will shortly be sent to relevant operators and to other interested bodies.

  Anglian Water (Nitrates)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of Anglian Water's efforts to bring drinking water in Suffolk within the EU standard for nitrate levels; if he will reconsider the imposition of nitrate-vulnerable zones; and if he will make a statement. [22084]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that Anglian Water Services Ltd. has taken appropriate steps to ensure that drinking water supplies in Suffolk comply with the standard for nitrate in the EC drinking water directive. I announced on 22 March the Government's decision to designate 68 nitrate vulnerable zones in England and Wales. We have carefully targeted the designations in those parts of surface water catchments or aquifers where there is a danger of nitrate levels continuing to rise. Designation of the zones followed extensive consultation and advice from an independent review panel.

  Skin Piercers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring in a registration scheme for skin piercers and to enable byelaws, including the imposition of a minimum age limit, to be made under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [22819]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1982 gives local authorities in England and Wales the power to make byelaws requiring acupuncturists, tattooists, ear piercers and electrolysists to be registered. All the legislation relating to the registration of skin piercing by local authorities is currently being reviewed and a consultation paper will be issued shortly.

  The Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 makes it an offence to tattoo someone below the age of 16. The Government have no plans to introduce an age limit for other forms of skin piercing.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in establishing the funding formula for local authorities in respect of the costs that they face in connection with provision for asylum seekers. [19614]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Meetings have taken place between local authority associations, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health. It was decided that grants should be paid covering 80 per cent. of unavoidable additional expenditure, above a certain threshold, incurred by social services departments under the Children Act 1989, and 80 per cent. of the housing benefit subsidy forgone, above a certain threshold, by housing authorities who incur costs in respect of certain asylum seekers and other persons from abroad housed under the homelessness legislation. The precise details of

  The number of people leaving contracted-out occupational pension schemes, by year of scheme membership termination and subsequent scheme.

  Thousands

  Subsequent scheme

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Men

  Appropriate Personal Pension

  101

  31

  74

  43

  27

  13

  SERPS

  309

  332

  329

  264

  246

  n/a

  Women

  Appropriate Personal Pension

  51

  14

  40

  24

  15

  10

  SERPS

  219

  236

  236

  176

  168

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to the United Kingdom.

  2. Figures show changes in active membership. They do not show whether past rights have been transferred or not.

  3. SERPS figures include people who moved to a contribution position where non-contracted-out contributions have been paid either exclusively or in conjunction with class 2 or class 3 contributions or credits.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  5. Includes people who have changed employment and pension scheme, and those who have remained in the same employment and changed pension scheme.

  6. Moves from appropriate personal pensions and SERPS to occupational pension schemes are not reflected in the above figures.

  7. Movements to SERPS are defined as those where the person moves into SERPS after termination of occupational scheme membership and remains only in SERPS in the following tax year. Therefore, to establish whether a 1992–93 termination resulted in a move to SERPS, it is necessary to know the person's status in 1993–94 and this information is not yet available.

  Source:

  1 per cent. sample of national insurance records taken in February 1994.

  Child Support Agency (Departures Scheme)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the Child Support Agency's departures scheme makes no allowance for the cost of maintaining step-children taken on after April 1993; and if he will make a statement on who is expected to pay the cost of maintaining such stepchildren where the absent natural parent of those stepchildren is(a) dead, (b) unemployed and (c) living overseas. [23329]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Parents taking responsibility for stepchildren after April 1993 have done so in the full knowledge that the standard child support maintenance
  718
  the funding formula will depend on further discussions with local authority associations. Officials in the Department for the Environment and the Department of Health will be meeting the local authorities association to discuss the issue of the threshold.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women individuals since 1988 have left their company pension scheme and opted to (a) a personal pension and (b) membership of the state earnings-related pension scheme. [22203]

  Mr. Heald
  Information is not available in the format requested. In the case of those moving from an occupational pension scheme to a personal pension, figures are available only where the appropriate personal pension was started in the same tax year as the termination of occupational pension scheme membership. The available information is given in the table:

  assessment makes no provision for any costs involved in caring for those children. The fact that child support maintenance cannot exceed 30 per cent. of net income leaves absent parents sufficient resources to make such choices.

  Where payment of child support at the rate determined under the standard maintenance assessment would reduce an absent parent's income to such a level that he would be unable to provide adequate support for his new family, the protected income provisions come into play. The protected income assessment makes full allowance for the basic living expenses of all children in the absent parent's household, including any step-children.

WALES

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the real terms increase in the price of NHS prescriptions since 1979 expressed as a cash figure and as a percentage. [21125]

  Mr. Richards
  The prescription charge per item has increased by 774 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Prescription charges in Wales in 1995–96 are expected to raise £18.3 million—money which would otherwise have to be found from within NHS resources.

  Police Budgets
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual budget for each of the Welsh police constabularies for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [22373]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Police authority expenditure on a total standard spending basis:

  £millions

  Police authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  Dyfed-Powys

  40.0

  42.7

  46.2

  45.9

  48.6

  Gwent2

  39.6

  42.1

  43.7

  49.8

  62.4

  North Wales

  57.3

  59.6

  62.4

  66.0

  69.3

  South Wales

  131.3

  134.1

  133.9

  150.7

  151.1

  Notes:

  1 Figures reflect the transfer of responsibility for policing the district area of Rhymney Valley from south Wales to Gwent.

  2 Figures for 1992–93 to 1994–95 are taken from Gwent county council returns and do not include repayment of debt or the receipt of other local income.

  Source:

  Revenue outturn returns for 1992–93 to 1994–95 and budget returns for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [22511]

  Mr. Hague
  No money has been paid out by my Department or its executive agency, CADW, in respect of breaches in equal opportunities.

  Information on non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sum total of revenue arising from non-domestic rates in Wales in each of the past five years, together with his latest estimate for the present financial year. [22198]
  720
  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:Total amounts received in respect of non-domestic rates

  1990–91: £490,925,000

  1991–92: £513,890,000

  1992–93: £527,785,000

  1993–94: £502,389,000

  1994–95: £478,634,000

  1995–96: £516,000,0001

  Estimate.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will(a) obtain and (b) evaluate a copy of John Jilling's report into child sex and physical abuse at north Wales children's homes commissioned by Clwyd county council; [23379]

  (2) what proposals he has to institute a judicial inquiry into the history of child sexual and physical abuse in north Wales children's homes, and if he will make a statement. [23147]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans at present to take any further action beyond the steps outlined in my statement of 11 December, columns 554–56. I understand that Clwyd county council has decided to refer Mr. Jilling's report to the Department. I shall consider what action, if any, to take on it once we have received it.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers and grades of civil servants in the dedicated PFI department established in his Department. [23389]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of the officials in my Department's private finance unit are as follows: grade 5(1); grade 7(2); higher executive officer (1); administrative assistant (1). In addition, the unit has been strengthened recently by a secondee from the private finance panel executive.

  Theatr Clwyd, Mold
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make available his Department's one-of contribution to Theatr Clwyd, Mold for 1996–97. [23374]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Flintshire county council has until the end of March to provide details of an adequate funding package for Theatr Clwyd for 1996–97 and beyond; my right hon. Friend and I will decide whether to release the funding offered to discharge Theatr Clwyd's capital debt in the light of Flintshire's response.

  Cardiff Bay Development
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his strategic guidance note of 13 March to the Cardiff Bay development corporation, what was the total estimated gross capital cost of the Gwent bird reserve on the assumption of a £5.7 million pubic sector contribution and private finance initiative scheme for the private capital investment. [23132]
  721
  Mr. Hague
  The Cardiff Bay development corporation is committed to providing £5.7 million to the Gwent bird reserve scheme. If the private finance initiative option is pursued, this will be used to maximise the value for money from the public sector contribution.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his strategic guidance note of 13 March to the Cardiff Bay development corporation, if he will list the later developments referred to as providing the justification alongside the corporation's 1995 corporate plan which led him to set the level of grant in aid for 1996–97 at £51.641 million. [23136]

  Mr. Hague
  Developments since August include the issue of a private finance initiative prospectus for the Bute avenue development; faster than expected progress on the £200 million NEG-Schott inward investment at Ocean park; and the prospect of a major private sector investment at Ely fields.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his strategic guidance note of 13 March to the Cardiff Bay development corporation, by what amount he expects the corporation to(a) reduce its consultancy expenditure and (b) increase its direct running cost expenditure. [23137]

  Mr. Hague
  Cardiff Bay development corporation's planned budget in 1996–97 for consultancies has been reduced by £1 million and the budget for running costs increased by £0.49 million. This will reduce total planned expenditure on consultancies and running costs by £0.51 million.

  Tourism
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his strategic guidance note 1996–97 to the chairman of the Wales tourist board, if he will list the principal differences between the recommendations of the English tourist board hotel accommodation grading and classification scheme review and the Wales tourist board scheme; if he will arrange for copies of the English tourist board review and the Wales tourist board research into grading and classification schemes to be placed in the Library; if he will publish the findings of the Wales tourist board report to him in September 1996; and if he will make a statement. [23133]

  Mr. Hague
  The English tourist board has yet to present its proposals for revising its classification and grading schemes to Department of National Heritage Ministers. It will be doing so shortly, with the industry then consulted on any proposed changes.

  The placing of the English tourist board review papers in the Library is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage; however, I will arrange for copies of the Wales tourist board's research to be placed in the Library. When I receive the WTB's report I will consider its publication.

  Cathays Park
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those departments which have moved into those areas of Cathays park previously occupied by staff of the Export Credits Guarantee 722
  Department and of NCM; and if he will list the numbers in each sub-department indicating the buildings that they previously occupied. [23134]

  Mr. Hague
  The fourth floor of Cathays park was vacated by NCM and the Export Credits Guarantee Department on 14 July 1995. As part of a programme of reorganisation of staff in Cathays park the following divisions have been located on the fourth floor.

  Division

  Date relocation

  Number of staff

  Previous location

  Housing

  28 July 1995

  40

  Cathays Park

  Schools Performance

  7 August 1995

  22

  Llanishen

  Schools Administration

  7 August 1995

  34

  Llanishen

  Culture and Recreation

  7 August 1995

  21

  Llanishen

  Further and Higher Education

  7 August 1995

  13

  Cathays Park

  Records Management Unit

  7 August 1995

  10

  Llanishen

  Staff Training Unit

  29 August 1995

  7

  Golate House

  Local Government Finance

  9 October 1995

  22

  Cathays Park

  Local Government Reorganisation

  9 October 1995

  21

  Cathays Park

  Social Services Policy

  9 October 1995

  32

  Cathays Park

  Social Services Inspectorate

  9 October 1995

  16

  Cathays Park

  Health Services

  16 October 1995

  34

  Cathays Park

  Health Management

  16 October 1995

  27

  Cathays Park

  Health Professional Group

  16 October 1995

  36

  Cathays Park

  Health Financial Management

  4 December1995

  40

  Cathays Park

  Health Commissioning

  4 December 1995

  25

  Cathays Park

  Primary and Community Health

  4 December 1995

  36

  Cathays Park

  Public Health

  4 December 1995

  30

  Cathays Park

  Nursing

  4 December 1995

  9

  Cathays Park

  Management Planning and Review

  11 December 1995

  17

  Cathays Park

  Total

  492

  Corporate Plans
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the expected dates of(a) completion and (b) submission to him of the corporate plans of the (i) Welsh Development Agency, (ii) Development Board for Rural Wales, (iii) Wales tourist board, (iv) Land Authority for Wales and (v) Cardiff Bay development corporation. [23135]

  Mr. Hague
  The economic development non-departmental public bodies have been asked to complete and submit their corporate plans by the following dates:

  Date

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  31 March

  Wales Tourist Board

  31 March

  Land Authority for Wales

  31 March

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  30 June

  Welsh Development Agency

  31 August

  723
  Corporate plans are the bodies own internal management documents which are submitted to the Department for information.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph 1.06 of his departmental report, what assessment he has made of the(a) levels of identifiable and geographically attributable expenditure in Wales in 1994–95 in (i) social security, (ii) law and order and (iii) the protective services and (b) changes in those levels since 1993–94; what proposals he has to publish an update of his January publication, "Government Expenditure and Taxation—Wales 1993–94"; and if he will make a statement. [23385]

  Mr. Hague
  Further details on identifiable and geographically attributable Government expenditure in Wales are published by the Treasury in "Public Expenditure, Statistical Analyses 1996–97", Cm 3201. I have no plans to publish an update of "Government Expenditure and Taxation—Wales, 1993–94".

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to table 1.02 of his departmental report, what assessment he has made of the reason for the fall in the forecast outturn of his expenditure in 1995–96 on economic development relative to 1994–95. [23388]

  Mr. Hague
  The economic development chapter of the report provides details.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to table 4.08 of his departmental report, what assessment he has made of the principal reasons for the fall in the numbers of school leavers obtaining NVQs levels 1 to 4 in his forecast outturn for 1995–96 relative to(a) the plans for 1995–96 and (b) the 1994–95 actual outturn. [23384]

  Mr. Hague
  Table 4.08 reports achievements in youth training. In 1995–96, the first full year of modern apprenticeships, significant numbers of young people have converted from YT to MA to aim for higher levels of NVQ attainment. In future years there should be relatively few such conversions. It is not possible at this stage to assess with accuracy how far this one-off factor has affected the 1995–96 NVQ/leaver ratio.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of organisations with(a) over 200 employee and (b) under 200 employees have achieved investors in people status. [23304]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is currently reviewing its database on investors in people performance in conjunction with the training and enterprise councils. The latest figures show that 43 organisations—almost 15 per cent. of those eligible—employing 200 or more people have achieved the investors in people standard. A total of 161 organisations employing less than 200 people have been recognised; a percentage figure is not available.

  Menai Strait
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conclusion he has reached on the proposal by the Countryside Council for Wales to designate the Menai strait as a marine nature reserve. [24004]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has announced that he intends to make a draft order under section 36 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 indicating his intention to designate the Menai strait as a marine nature reserve. Notices concerning the draft order, in accordance with the requirements of schedule 12 of the 1981 Act, will appear in local and national newspapers in the near future.

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the membership of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. [24005]

  Mr. Hague
  I have appointed Mr. Lloyd Fitzhugh as deputy chairman of the commission from 1 April in succession to Mr. Richard Hall Williams. Mr. Fitzhugh has been a member of the commission since 1994.

  I have also appointed Mrs. Susan Smith as a member of the commission.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department has spent in total in answering parliamentary questions in each parliamentary Session since it was established. [22880]

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

  National Lottery
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many applications for national lottery funding have been made to(a) the Sports Council, (b) the Arts Council, (c) the national heritage memorial fund, (d) the Millennium Commission and (e) the National Lottery Charities Board for each of the national lottery regions. [22604]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: This information is not held centrally. The Department of National Heritage is currently developing a lottery database that will make these figures available shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Leg Irons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute an inquiry into the allegations contained in the "Dispatches" programme on the export of leg irons; and if he will make a statement. [20352]
  725
  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 31 January 1995,Official Report, column 614. There has been no evidence of a breach of export controls and I do not propose to institute an inquiry unless clear evidence comes to light of the breach of export controls.

  Torture Equipment Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received alleging involvement of(a) British Aerospace and (b) Royal Ordnance in the sale of torture equipment abroad; and if he will make a statement. [20353]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I am aware of allegations made in the Channel 4 television programme "Dispatches" originally screened on 11 January 1995. British Aerospace's Royal Ordnance made public denials of the allegations. We will, of course, act on clear evidence of breaches of export controls.

  Military Ordnance (Nigeria)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken since November 1995 to prevent the undertaking by British companies of contracts for the supply to the Government of Nigeria of equipment which is likely to be used in support of the use of military ordnance; [22094]

  (2) what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken since November 1995 to prevent the undertaking by British companies of contracts for the supply of military ordnance to the Government of Nigeria; [22095]

  (3) what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken since November 1995 to prevent the fulfilment by British companies of contracts for the supply of military ordnance to the Government of Nigeria. [22093]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 21 February 1996,Official Report, column 249.

  Export Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences have been granted to British companies involved in the construction of arms(a) between 1980 and 1984, (b) between 1985 and 1989 and (c) since 1990. [21052]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Records of export licences issued for the earliest period requested were routinely destroyed. The remainder of the question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each type of end user certification sought when export licences are being considered, stating in each case(a) the countries and (b) the type of export to which the type of certification applies. [19242]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 11 January 1996,Official Report, column 293. The specified end user undertakings required in
  726
  support of applications for individual export licences depend on the goods involved. A standard general undertaking covers most goods but in certain circumstances a specific undertaking is necessary. Specified formats are required to cover:

  Chemical Specific Customer End User

  Chemical Trader/Distributor

  Biological Specific Customer End User

  Biological Trader/Distributor.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [22508]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The DTI, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations sponsored by the DTI—excluding those sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology and the DTI's executive agencies—for which I am accountable have not made any payments in respect of equal opportunities breaches over the past three years.

  The chief executives of DTI executive agencies will respond direct to the hon. Member.

  It would involve disproportionate cost to provide a response in respect of the NDPBs sponsored by OST.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. David Shaw, dated 28 March 1996:
  I am responding for the Patent Office to your question to the President of the Board of Trade about amounts of money paid out in respect of equal opportunities breaches. No money has been paid out by the Patent Office for alleged, or actual, breaches of equal opportunities legislation since the Office was established as an executive agency in 1990.

  Letter from D. Durham to Mr. David Shaw, dated 28 March 1996:
  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade about amounts of money that have been paid out by Executive Agencies to staff because of alleged equal opportunities breaches whether or not they have been taken to tribunals or courts. I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House.
  This Agency is very aware of its responsibilities under the equal opportunities regime and to date we have not had to make any such payments.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. David Shaw, dated 28 March 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question concerning the payments made to existing and/or former members of staff in respect of alleged equal opportunities breaches which did not proceed to tribunals or courts and equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts.
  The Insolvency Service assumed responsibility for matters relating to equal opportunities on 1 January 1995. Since that date no payments have been made to any person previously or currently employed by The Service in respect of equal opportunities breaches, alleged or otherwise.
  727
  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. David Shaw, dated 28 March 1996:
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amounts of money have been paid out 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.
  The Radiocommunications Agency has not paid any money to any staff in respect of equal opportunities breaches.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. David Shaw, dated 26 March 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about discrimination payments with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC).
  LGC has not paid out, either in the current financial year or the two previous years, any money 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 court.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. David Shaw, dated 28 March 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about payments to staff or former staff in respect of equal opportunities breaches. I am pleased to be able to say that this Agency has not made any such payment, nor have we had any cases of alleged equal opportunities breaches in either of the categories in your question.

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the effectiveness of the monitoring of licensed insolvency practitioners. [22533]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Officials are, and will continue to be, in close contact with the recognised professional bodies as part of the on-going development of monitoring of practitioners. In particular, there is in place a programme of visits by officials to the bodies to look at monitoring procedures and appropriate recommendations are made where there appears to be scope for improvement.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licensed insolvency practitioners have had their licenses suspended or withdrawn in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [22534]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of insolvency practitioners who have had their authorisations revoked or their application for renewal of their authorisation refused is as follows:728

  Year ended 31 December 1991: 1

  Year ended 31 December 1992: 0

  Year ended 31 December 1993: 2

  Year ended 31 December 1994: 8

  Year ended 31 December 1995: 11.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licensed insolvency practitioners who have been subject to monitoring have been found not to have complied fully with the Insolvency Act 1986 and other related statutes; and how many such practitioners have had disciplinary action taken against them. [22535]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information is not maintained in this form.

  The monitoring of insolvency practitioners is undertaken in order to assist the authorising body in determining whether a practitioner is and continues to be fit and proper and to promote compliance not only with statutory obligations but with best practice.

  Where a failure in compliance is identified, this is reported and undertakings are sought where appropriate from the practitioner. The authorising body will consider whether further action is appropriate in more serious cases.

  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licensed insolvency practitioners there are; and how many have had monitoring visits from the supervisory bodies in the last three years for which figures are available. [22536]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As at 31 December 1995, there were 1,939 individuals authorised to act as insolvency practitioners.

  The figures show the number of monitoring visits to practitioners carried out by the recognised professional bodies and by officials on behalf of the Secretary of State. Some practitioners will have been visited on more than one occasions during the period in question.

  Year ended 31 December 1993: 199

  Year ended 31 December 1994: 459

  Year ended 31 December 1995: 527.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the areas of discussion between his Department and trade unions in the Insolvency Service during the period of consideration of contractorisation of the Insolvency Service. [22756]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  During the period from October 1994, when the Government announced their intention to pursue the study of the preferred contracting out option identified by consultants, to the announcement on 28 February 1996 of the outcome of the contracting-out study, the Insolvency Service had a number of meetings with the trade unions. The main areas of discussion were:Matters arising from the feasibility study report prepared by Stoy Hayward;
  Potential conflicts of interest and implications for insolvency practitioners;
  The possible application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in interviews with insolvents and other investigation implications;

  729
  The timetable for the exercise;
  Staffing matters, including the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, equal opportunities, competencies, changes to terms and conditions of service and the practice of rotating specialist staff between vetting and investigations duties;
  Matters arising from the preparation of an enabling order, including consultation with officials receivers;
  The question of rights of audience for any successful contractor;
  Matters arising from the draft specification of requirements and subsequent invitation to tender;
  Management-employee buyouts;
  The possibility of pilot schemes;
  Matters connected with a residual service in the event of any contracting out;
  The benchmarking methodology used by the service; The identity of the final six bidders;
  Insider dealing;
  Provisional post-contracting out consultation arrangements.

  In addition, there was discussion of issues not related to the contracting out exercise including pay and grading, reporting standards, health and safety issues, the use of the service's dedicated IT systems, the user survey conducted by the service and the service's management information system for Ministers (resource) bids.

  EU Funding
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects approved and projects awaiting approval and their value in each region under rounds 1 and 2 of objective 2 programmes of the European regional development fund. [22826]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A list of all ERDF projects approved and awaiting approval could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, and publication of the latter category would be in breach of commercial confidentiality.

  The ERDF projects which have been approved in the west midlands are

  Applicant

  Project title

  Grant (£)

  Birmingham City Council

  West Northfield Area Regeneration

  7,000.467

  Birmingham City Council

  Jewellery Quarter Resource Centre, Birmingham

  200.000

  Birmingham City Council

  Destination Marketing

  1,707.207

  Birmingham City Council

  Inward Investment Marketing Initiatives

  400.000

  Birmingham City Council

  Small Business Assistance Scheme

  2,165.000

  Birmingham City Council

  Aston Science Park Phase 7 Site

  1,754.958

  Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation

  Central South Heartlands Star Site

  4,880.375

  Birmingham Settlement Ltd

  Business Debtline

  120.000.

  Birmingham TEC

  Creating a World Class Supplier Base in the WM

  5,840.000

  Birmingham Voluntary Service Council

  Voluntary Sector European Support Unit

  14.820

  730

  Applicant

  Project title

  Grant (£)

  Black Country Co-operative Development Agency Ltd

  Business Enterprise Development, Black Country

  251.000

  Black Country Development Corporation

  Small Industrial Units Development Package

  1,276.200

  Black Country Development Corporation

  Automotive Components Park Phase2 Infrastructure

  2,621.000

  Black Country Development

  BCSR Corridor Reclamation and Infrastructure

  3,404.000

  British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

  HEM Heath Enterprise Park

  913.000

  Cannock Chase Council

  Hednesford Brickworks Reclamation

  3,100.000

  CBSO Society Ltd.

  CBSO Centre

  750.000

  Coventry City Council

  Manufacturing Investment Programme

  122.200

  Coventry City Council

  Inward Investment Aftercare Programme and Network

  38.474

  Coventry City Council

  Loss Control Services to SME in Manufacturing

  193.600

  Coventry City Council

  World Class Manufacturing Programme

  187.000

  Coventry University

  Starting with an Advantage: Development and Pilot of GES

  345.016

  Coventry University

  Starting with an Advantage: Development and Pilot of GES

  1,639.760

  Dudley College of Technology

  Integrated Technological Man Systems Centre, Dudley

  96.800

  Dudley MBC

  Brierley Hill Town Centre Renewal

  189.500

  Dudley MBC

  Castle Gate/Infrastructure, Dudley

  3,722.337

  Dudley MBC

  Canal Based Regeneration

  755.910

  Dudley MBC

  Glass Quarter

  85.000

  Dudley MBC

  Invest in Dudley Bureau—(IDSS)

  148.500

  Dudley Training and Enterprise Council Ltd.

  Centre for Competitive Manufacturing (Revenue)

  198.721

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  International Business Development Project, Burton on Trent

  67.000

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Canal Street—Small Industrial Units

  52.296

  Economic Development Partnership

  Post Start Business Support

  485.000

  Groundwork

  Environmental Management Scheme

  100.400

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  Themed Tourism Marketing Campaigns, HETB

  240.323

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  Tourism Enterprise Growth Support Services

  475.304

  Ikon Gallery

  New Premises for Ikon Gallery

  991.500

  Newcastle Borough Council

  Silverdale Small Firms Centre(Phase 1)

  282.000

  731

  Applicant

  Project title

  Grant (£)

  Rowley Regis College

  Advanced Technologyand Design Centre,Rowley Regis

  122.000

  Sandwell College of FE and HE

  The West Midlands Digital Imaging Centre, Sandwell

  212.070

  Sandwell Enterprise Limited

  Management Admin. of Financial Support Fund for SMEs

  19.635

  Sandwell Enterprise Limited

  Innovation Support Services—New and Indigenous Businesses

  9.900

  Sandwell MBC

  Technology Support and Innovation Project

  255.000

  Sandwell MBC

  Brook Street Business Centre Phase 2 and 3

  727.000

  Sandwell MBC

  Environmental Business Advice Project

  38.302

  Sandwell MBC

  Black Country Automotive Components Unit, Sandwell

  160.300

  Shropshire County Council

  Support for Small Businesses

  31.100

  Shropshire TEC

  Step into Innovation

  4.740

  South Staffordshire Council

  Hilton Cross Premium Peripheral Site

  400.000

  Staffordshire County Council

  Holditch: reclamation, access servicing and redevelopment

  2,500.000

  Staffordshire University

  Support for Innovation in Manufacturing

  49.700

  Stoke on Trent

  Trentham Lakes

  3,000.000

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  Etruria Valley

  3,500.000

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  Gladstone Environmental Improvements

  160.056

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  Burslem Resource and Exhibition Centre

  18.346

  The Institution of Electrical Engineers

  Kingston BIds. Birmingham

  817.200

  University of Birmingham,

  Environmental Research, Management and Technology

  105.500

  University of Birmingham

  Nanoscale Physics Research Centre, Birmingham

  560.000

  University of Birmingham

  Environment Research Man. And Technology, Birmingham

  120.000

  University of Central England in Birmingham

  A Research and Support Centre for Multi-Media

  585.000

  University of Central England in Birmingham

  A Research and Support Centre for Multi-Media

  325.000

  University of Warwick

  International Manufacturing centre phase 1, Warwick University

  890.500

  Walsall College of Arts and Technology

  Euro Design and Industrial Training Centre

  700.000

  Walsall MBC

  Advice for new and ethnic minority businesses, Walsall

  289.000

  Walsall MBC

  Pleck Gas Works

  1,650.000

  Walsall MBC

  Economic Regeneration

  370.600

  732

  Applicant

  Project title

  Grant (£)

  Initiative, Walsall

  Warwickshire County Council

  North Warwickshire Investment Campaign

  40.700

  West Midlands Enterprise Board Ltd.

  Loss Control Support for SMEs

  110.333

  West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive

  Midland Metro Line 1

  31,033.000

  West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive

  Dudley-Rugeley Railway Line

  1,062.500

  West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive

  Minor Rail Corridor improvement-6 Corridors

  1,156.562

  West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive

  Birmingham City Centre Rail Station improvements

  239.000

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Molineux Managed Workspace and Youth Enterprise Centre

  901.300

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Wolverhampton Privately Led Site Infrastructure Improvements

  725.000

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Springvale-site Preparation and Infrastructure

  2,250.000

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Clothing Centre Cadcam Enhancement

  69.600

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Environmental and Resource Management

  194.000

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Engineering Industry Development

  432.000

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the administrative arrangements for objective 2 programmes of the European regional development fund. [22827]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Structural funds objective 2 programmes are administered by the Government offices in England and by the Scottish and Welsh offices and the Government of Gibraltar.

  The programmes are monitored by monitoring committees in accordance with the Council regulations governing the funds and the requirements of single programming documents which set out the amounts, purposes and conditions of the grants.

  Military Exports (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions export licences have been granted for the export of military, security or police equipment to Indonesia since 1987. [23025]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to disclose details of applications for export licences unless the requirements of confidentiality are outweighed by the public interest.

  A statistical analysis of all export licences issued in 1995 has been placed in the Library of the House. A similar analysis for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  733
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences have been granted for the export or transhipment of anti-ambush grenades to Indonesia since 1988. [23029]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since the beginning of 1991—the point from which full records are readily available—there have been no licences issued for anti-ambush grenades to Indonesia.

  Information on earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences have been granted for the export or transhipment of anti-personnel fragmentation grenades to Indonesia since 1988. [230301

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since the beginning of 1991—the point from which full records are readily available—there have been no licences issued for anti-personnel fragmentation grenades to Indonesia.

  Information on earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police and Security Equipment (Arabian Peninsula)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) funding and (b) authorisation his Department gave to the report "Police and Public Security Requirements for Equipment and Services in the Countries of the Arabian Peninsula", published in June 1994. [230311

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The report was partially funded through the export marketing research scheme under the terms and conditions applicable at the time for trade associations using the scheme for the first time-75 per cent. The report covered six countries in the Arabian peninsula and was restricted to marketing research only.

  The Department's role is to facilitate and encourage the use of export marketing research. It does not confer any "authorisation" to the result of that research.

  Goods with potential military or public order applications normally require an export licence. The Government's policy is not to permit the export of such goods which may be used for the purposes of internal repression.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department has spent in total in answering parliamentary questions in each parliamentary Session since 1989–90. [22877]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department does not calculate the data requested, and they could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Competition Law
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made with issuing a consultation document on the reform of competition law. [24008]
  734
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have now issued the consultation document: "Tackling Cartels and the Abuse of Market Power: Implementing the Government's Policy for Competition Law reform." Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Director General of Telecommunications
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for the year 1995, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1995. [24006]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Yes. The 12th report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1995. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Firework-related Injuries
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many fireworks-related injuries were referred to hospitals in the period around 5 November 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24007]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An analysis of the figures for 1995 and for the previous four years will be placed today in the Library of the House.

  Accident and emergency units in hospitals in Great Britain treated 1,530 people for injuries caused by fireworks, a decrease of 3 per cent. over the total reported for 1994. I am heartened that, despite the increases in sales of fireworks in recent times, we have seen a small reduction in the figures this year, and no fatalities. I believe this is in part due to the successful publicity campaign run by my Department and the fireworks industry, and planning for the 1996 fireworks safety campaign is already under way.

  Nevertheless, I am concerned that firework injuries remain near 1994 levels. Particularly worrying is that a third of the injuries appear to be due to illegal misuse.

  In addition, I am conscious of a number of wider concerns, illustrated by the representations my Department receives on the power and variety of fireworks now available to the general public and, in particular, growing concerns about whether the public should have access to types of fireworks which can cause particular distress to people and animals alike and have the potential to cause serious injury.

  In the light of these considerations, and mindful of the review of explosives legislation which the Health and Safety Executive is carrying out and which may have implications for fireworks, I believe the time is now right for a review of the effectiveness of both voluntary and legislative measures dealing with the availability of fireworks. Accordingly, I have asked my officials, working with those in other interested Departments, to put in hand such a review.

  I intend that we should seek views about the current controls on fireworks, and on possible ways in which such controls might be improved, from a wide range of interested groups and individuals. These consultations will take place during the summer.
  735

  Company Support (South-West)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of financial support given by his Department to companies in the south-west in each of the last eight years; and how many companies received such financial support in each of those years. [20794]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 14 March 1996]: Financial support in the south-west under each of the Department's principal regional, enterprise and technology schemes is shown in the table. Companies may have received support under more than one scheme or have received more than one payment under the same scheme; the absolute number of companies receiving support in any one year could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Selective Assistance

  Year

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £ million

  1988

  77

  3.054

  1989

  91

  4.733

  1990

  95

  5.035

  1991

  107

  6.324

  1992

  94

  4.346

  1993

  108

  6.016

  1994

  118

  7.058

  1995

  125

  7.470

  Regional Enterprise Grant

  Year

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £ million

  1988

  9

  0.030

  1989

  70

  0.284

  1990

  134

  0.713

  1991

  161

  0.931

  1992

  136

  0.830

  1993

  124

  0.700

  1994

  110

  0.817

  1995

  105

  0.834

  Regional Development Grant Scheme II

  Year

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £ million

  1988

  683

  6.929

  1989

  247

  2.906

  1990

  81

  2.391

  1991

  25

  0.363

  1992

  2

  0.003

  1993

  0

  0.000

  1994

  1

  0.209

  1995

  0

  0.000

  (Regional development grant scheme I closed in 1988, although relatively small volumes of payments continued after that date).

  Small firms Merit Award for Research and Technology

  Year

  Number of businesses

  Total amount paid £ million

  1988

  0

  0

  1989

  2

  0.075

  1990

  15

  0.575

  1991

  30

  1.228

  1992

  28

  1.205

  736

  Small firms Merit Award for Research and Technology

  Year

  Number of businesses

  Total amount paid £ million

  1993

  30

  1.466

  1994

  33

  1.487

  1995

  47

  1.790

  Support for Products under Research

  Year

  Number of businesses

  Total amount paid £ million

  1988

  0

  0

  1989

  0

  0

  1990

  0

  0

  1991

  0

  0

  1992

  1

  0.040

  1993

  4

  0.163

  1994

  9

  0.501

  1995

  18

  1.225

  Loan Guarantee Scheme

  Financial year

  Number of loan guarantees issued

  Total value of guarantees £ million

  1988–89

  213

  5.62

  1989–90

  350

  9.46

  1990–91

  389

  8.92

  1991–92

  472

  10.16

  1992–93

  373

  6.90

  1993–94

  617

  21.91

  1994–95

  959

  33.66

  1995–96 (to date)

  5681

  19.43

  Consultancy Assistance (closed to new applications from September 1994)

  Year

  Number of completed projects

  Total amount paid £ million

  1988–89

  15

  0.778

  1989–90

  1,181

  2.777

  1990–91

  1,028

  3.420

  1991–92

  1,183

  4.476

  1992–93

  903

  3.670

  1993–94

  840

  2.956

  1994–95

  361

  0.931

  1995–96

  n/a

  n.a

  1 n/a = not available.

  2 For RSA, REG, RDG and the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme the figures shown are of the number of payments made in any year. The same company may have received more than one payment in any year.

  3 For LGS, the figures shown are of the number of loans guaranteed. A company may have had more than one loan guaranteed.

  4 For EICS, the figures shown are of number of completed projects. Projects may have involved more than one payment. The total amount figures include the cost of initial business reviews which were free to companies. EICS payments were to the contractor consultants employed by DTI and not direct to companies who met the balance of the cost.

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) handguns, (b) semi-automatic weapons and (c) automatic weapons were imported into the United Kingdom for non-military activity for each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [21713]
  737
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 19 March 1996]: The information is not available because the system of classification under which United Kingdom trade is recorded does not separately identify handguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

  The total figures are given:

  UK Imports of Non-MilitaryArms

  Year

  Number

  Year £000

  1985

  192,605

  12.578

  1986

  192,001

  16,093

  1987

  182,203

  16,438

  1988

  179,696

  13,584

  1989

  178,153

  14,986

  1990

  167,799

  14,504

  1991

  167,796

  13,081

  1992

  184,161

  11,753

  1993

  R

  12,657

  1994

  R

  13,845

  1995

  R

  15,599

  Notes:

  1. Non-Military arms are defined by heading 894.6 of the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2) for 1985–1987, and heading 891.3 of SITC (REV 3) for 1988–1995.

  R = Restricted due to commercial confidentiality.

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the loan guaranteed by his Department to Queensbury International Ltd., Plymouth under the loan guarantee scheme in 1994. [22568]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: This information is commercially confidential between the Department and the lender.

  Merseyside Dock Dispute
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest development at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in respect of the Merseyside dock dispute; and if he will make a statement. [22124]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: I understand that the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is in touch with the parties and is available to become involved if both sides so wish.

  Departmental Secondment
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, columns 637–40, he will describe the role of those on temporary secondment to his Department through (a) the export promoter initiative and (b) the programme of interchange of staff with the private sector; and if he will state the duration of the secondments. [22789]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 27 March 1996]: The role of individuals seconded into the Department as part of the export promoter initiative is to identify export opportunities and to advise UK companies on the best ways in which to pursue them. The role of individuals seconded
  738
  into the Department as part of the on-going programme of interchange of staff with the private sector varies according to the division in which they work. Details can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The duration of export promoters' secondment is usually about two years. Other secondments vary in length, and are usually between one and three years.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the retention of(a) sovereign bases and (b) troops at sovereign bases in Cyprus. [230401

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the 1960 treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus—Cmnd. 1252—the United Kingdom retained two sovereign base areas at Akrotiri and Dhekelia for use solely as military bases. The bases and the associated garrisons provide facilities for strategic communications, including the major airfield at RAF Akrotiri, as well as hot weather training. We do not envisage any significant changes in the requirement for the sovereign base areas.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultations
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the oral statement by the Prime Minister on 28 February,Official Report, columns 900–12, if he will list the names of the Northern Ireland parties which are qualified to be involved in the intensive consultations beginning on Thursday 4 March; and if he will list the names of those parties with a mandate which have not been invited to participate in the consultations. [18931]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The following parties were involved in the intensive consultations announced in the Prime Minister's statement of 28 February 1996:the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, Democratic Left, Progressive Unionist party, Northern Ireland Conservative Association, Social Democratic and Labour party, Ulster Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Democratic party, Ulster Unionist party, Workers' party and Mr. Robert McCartney QC MP.

  Because of the ending of the IRA ceasefire, Sinn Fein excluded itself from the consultation process and no other parties were invited to participate.

  Quangos
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations there are in Northern Ireland; and how many there were(a) five and (b) 10 years ago. [22441]
  739
  Sir John Wheeler
  The current number of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in Northern Ireland is 98. In 1990 and 1985 respectively, the number was 116 and 117.

  Sir Len Peach
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means Sir Len Peach is informed that persons proposed for public appointments are the nominees of the Government of the Irish Republic; and how many such persons have been appointed to which posts since Sir Len Peach took up his office. [22138]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The role of Sir Len Peach as Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland is to monitor, regulate and approve departmental appointments procedures, to publish guidance for Departments on the new procedures they will be expected to follow in making public appointments from July of this year, and to produce a code of practice and an annual report. The commissioner will not be involved in the process of making any public appointments and will not, therefore, receive identifying information on persons proposed by the Irish Government. Departments' procedures will be subject to audit. In addition, the commissioner will be able to investigate and deal with complaints.

  Four persons proposed by the Irish Government have taken up public appointments since 18 December 1995, the date on which Sir Len Peach took up office. It is not my practice to publish details of individuals so appointed.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland distributed(a) in the last financial year, (b) five and (c) 10 years ago. [22437]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994–95: £208,054,987

  1989–90: £132,339,172

  1984–85: £241,383.006.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints concerning non—departmental public bodies have been received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available; how many complaints were upheld; and what were the equivalent figures for(a) five and (b) ten years ago. [22439]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration investigates complaints of alleged injustice as a consequence of maladministration by Northern Ireland Departments, including their agencies, while the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints investigates similar complaints against local and public bodies.

  In 1995, the Commissioner for Complaints received 291 complaints against non-departmental public bodies and, of these, 24 were upheld. The equivalent figures for five years ago and 10 years ago are as follows: 256 complaints received in 1990 of which seven were upheld; 338 complaints received in 1985 of which 10 were upheld.
  740
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people sit on the boards of non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland; how many people are on more than one non-departmental public body; and if he will list the names of those sitting on more than one non-departmental public body indicating the organisations concerned. [22438]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested by the right hon. Gentleman has been placed in the Library of the House.

  McBride Principle
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those American-owned businesses in Northern Ireland which operate the McBride principle. [22158]

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not held by the Government. It is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the measures taken in Northern Ireland following the recommendations of the 1995 world Government meeting on land-based sources of marine pollution; and if he will make a statement. [22232]

  Mr. Moss
  The UK delegation took a leading part in the conference organised by the UN Environment Programme in Washington DC on 23 October to 3 November 1995, which adopted the global 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 Northern Ireland will, therefore, be achieved by continuing our present policies.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [22505]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Department and their agencies, information in respect of alleged equal opportunities breaches which did not proceed to tribunals or courts is as follows:

  Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments

  (a) Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments

  (b) Next steps agencies

  1995–96

  Staff

  1

  —

  Amount (£)

  3,400

  —

  1994–95

  Staff

  2

  2

  Amount (£)

  11,500

  11,000

  741

  Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments

  (a) Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments

  (b) Next steps agencies

  1993–94

  Staff

  4

  —

  Amount (£)

  31,500

  —

  There have been no alleged equal opportunities breaches that have proceeded to a tribunal or court which have resulted in payment of a compensatory award.

  Information regarding non-departmental public bodies and other organisations is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Students
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the total assessed parental contribution to higher education student's maintenance awards. [22222]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total assessed parental contribution for 1994–95, the last complete year for which information is available, was £13.3 million.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current provision for children in Northern Ireland with special educational needs. [22557]

  Mr. Ancram
  A wide range of provision is available for children in Northern Ireland with statements of special educational needs.

  Education and library boards may place such children at special schools, at special education units attached to mainstream schools or in mainstream schools themselves. Special education may also be provided other than at grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland; such provision may, where appropriate, take the form of tuition in a hospital or at home, at an independent school in Northern Ireland or at an educational institution outside Northern Ireland.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers in Northern Ireland have taken premature retirement due to(a) ill-health and (b) other reasons in each of the past 10 years. [22561]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of teachers who have taken premature retirement due to ill health and for other reasons in each of the last 10 years is set out in the table:

  Financial year

  Ill health retirements

  Other retirements

  1986–87

  58

  226

  1987–88

  82

  224

  1988–89

  70

  314

  1989–90

  105

  306

  1990–91

  103

  409

  1991–92

  85

  383

  1992–93

  115

  280

  1993–94

  136

  248

  1994–95

  159

  258

  1995–96

  191

  229

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nursery places are currently available in Northern Ireland. [22591]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 6,600 full-time equivalent places are available at grant-aided nursery schools and nursery units attached to grant-aided primary schools.

  Department of Finance and Personnel
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing the social and statistics division of the Department of Finance and Personnel as a next steps agency. [23319]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The social and statistics division of the Department of Finance and Personnel, including the census office and general register office, will be established as an executive agency on 1 April 1996. It will be known as the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  I have set a number of key performance targets for the agency to achieve in its first year. These are as follows:

  85 per cent. of key Government users of the agency surveyed rating its overall service as satisfactory or better;

  80 per cent. of registered non-Government users of the agency surveyed rating its overall service as satisfactory or better;

  to produce at least 40 statistical publications;

  to process 95 per cent. of general register office postal and personal applications within eight and three working days respectively;

  to reduce by 2 per cent. the unit cost of producing certificates by the general register office;

  to achieve a minimum 3 per cent. efficiency saving.

  Copies of the framework document, which sets out the terms within which the agency will operate, will be placed in the Library, along with its first corporate and business plan.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients each hospital trust is contracted to treat in accident and emergency in the Eastern health and social services board area; how many each treated in accident and emergency in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage difference from contract in each case. [22921]

  Mr. Moss
  Contracts for accident and emergency services do not specify the number of patients to be treated, as such services are demand led. However, some contracts may include indicative figures based on the number of patients treated in the previous year. These may in some cases be used as a basis for renegotiating contract values during the year.

  The number of actual attendances at accident and emergency departments at each of the hospital trusts in the Eastern board area in 1994–95 were as follows:

  743

  Number

  Belfast City Hospital HSS trust

  51,036

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals HSS trust

  80,281

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS trust

  105,462

  Down Lisburn HSS trust

  53,470

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS trust

  42,491

  Births
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many births occurred in each of the last five years in each health and social services board area; and what this was as a percentage of the total population in each area. [22922]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The general register office for Northern Ireland collects information on the population and the number of births occurring in each of the district council areas in Northern Ireland. The figures have been aggregated for each of the four health and social services board areas.

  As the most recent information available is for 1994, the data requested are as follows:

  Live births occurring in each area

  Health and social services board area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Eastern

  10,133

  10,273

  9,888

  9,511

  9,179

  Northern

  6,196

  6,038

  6,052

  5,918

  5,881

  Southern

  5,301

  5,248

  5,007

  4,844

  4,868

  Western

  4,869

  4,706

  4,625

  4,636

  4,361

  Northern Ireland

  26,499

  26,265

  25,572

  24,909

  24,289

  Live births occurring in each area as a percentage of the total population in each area

  Health and Social Services Board Area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Eastern

  1.56

  1.57

  1.5

  1.43

  1.38

  Northern

  1.57

  1.52

  1.5

  1.46

  1.44

  Southern

  1.86

  1.82

  1.72

  1.65

  1.64

  Western

  1.87

  1.79

  1.74

  1.73

  1.62

  Northern Ireland

  1.67

  1.64

  1.58

  1.53

  1.48

  Family Planning
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the spending on the provision of family planning services in each health and social services area in the last year for which figures are available. [22923]

  Mr. Moss
  Health and personal social services providers spent £1,537,770 on the provision of family planning services in the 1994–95 financial year.

  The breakdown over health and social services areas is given in the table.

  Family planning services expenditure 1994–95

  Area

  Expenditure £

  Northern board

  189,759

  Southern board

  249,447

  744

  Family planning services expenditure 1994–95

  Area

  Expenditure£

  Eastern board

  891,667

  Western board

  206,897

  Total

  1,537,770

  EC (Civil Service Employment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the implications of the European Communities (Employment in Civil Service) Order 1991 for a person born and resident in Northern Ireland but holding a passport issued by the Republic of Ireland in respect of employment in the Northern Ireland civil service; and if he will list all the posts and departmental agencies to which the order applies. [22925]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Persons born and resident in Northern Ireland, but holding a passport issued by the Republic of Ireland, provided they still hold British nationality, are eligible for employment in any post in the Northern Ireland civil service in the same way as any other British national. Those who surrender British nationality in favour of Irish citizenship come within the ambit of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 and are eligible, with nationals of other EC-now EEA since the European Economic Area Act 1993-member states and certain members of their families, for appointment to approximately 24,500 posts in the Northern Ireland civil service, or 75 per cent. which do not constitute "employment in the public service" in EC treaty terms. The posts in question are spread across all Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office and their agencies and could be listed only at disproportionate cost.

  A8
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland roads service plans for upgrading the A8 from Gingles corner, Larne, to Corrs corner. [21025]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: Proposals for the upgrading of the A8 Larne to Belfast road are included in the Department's six to 15-year major road works programme where their priority will be determined as part of a detailed review to be completed later this year.

HEALTH

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's calculations of the working capital requirements for pharmacists; and what have been the changes to the calculated requirements since 1989. [19209]

  Mr. Malone
  Updating the results of the previous cost enquiries gives a working capital for the median pharmacy of £22,533 in 1989–90 and £35,741 in 1994–95. The cost of servicing working capital is dependent on variations in interest rates.

  NHS Managers and Clinicians
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority the numbers and amounts of irregular special payments made to NHS managers and clinicians in each of the last three years. [19663]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports on the NHS summarised accounts for England for 1994–95, 1993–94 and 1992–93, his report on the inquiry commissioned by the NHS chief executive into matters concerning the former Yorkshire regional health authority and the Department of Health appropriation accounts for 1994–95, 1993–94 and 1992–93, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the directive on adoption issued by his Department to directors of social services on 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [22236]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has received three letters, two of which were from voluntary adoption agencies, following the issue of the guidance on adoption matters on 1 February. A response to these will be sent shortly.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what remedies are available to(a) himself, (b) the NHS chief executive and (c) chief officers of local health service bodies, to recover money wrongly paid to NHS employees when they (i) change employer within the NHS or (ii) leave the employ of the NHS. [22738]

  Mr. Malone
  Each national health service trust or health authority is an independent statutory body for the purposes of employment law. Chief officers of health service bodies have the normal remedies in law available to them to recover moneys wrongly paid to their employees, whether they are now employed by another NHS body or have left the employ of the NHS. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health nor the chief executive employ NHS staff.

  Estates Officers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS estates officers have been made redundant in the last five years; and what has been the cost of the redundancy packages involved for these officers; [22887]

  (2) how many estates officers are currently employed in the NHS; and what was the equivalent figure five years ago. [22886]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the numbers of estates officers made redundant and the costs involved is not available centrally. The Department of Health's annual hospital and community health services non-medical work force census collects information on the number of estates officers—known in the census as works staff—employed by the HCHS. Census results for September 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, and earlier 746
  years are published in the Department of Health's NHS HCHS non—medical work force census statistical bulletin 1984–1994, which is available in the Library.

  NHS Maintenance
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the backlog of maintenance work in the NHS. [22888]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest figures collected relating to backlog maintenance are for the year ending 31 March 1995. These total £2.32 billion for all buildings in the national health service estate.

  Information
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if patient consent is required before identifiable health information held by his Department is shared with other Government Departments. [22911]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health does not routinely hold information about individual patients. The sharing of any such information is covered by the Department's guidance, "The Protection and Use of Patient Information", published on 7 March, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new cases of tuberculosis were identified in each of the last three years; what steps his Department is taking to reduce the incidence; and what evidence his Department has evaluated in respect of the emergence of drug-resistant forms. [22893]

  Mr. Horam
  The numbers of notifications of cases of tuberculosis—excluding chemoprophylaxis—in England in each of the last three years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of notifications

  1993

  5,721

  1994

  5,409

  1995 (provisional)

  5,426

  Source:

  OPCS.

  The table lists notifications made during a single year, it does not show when infection occurred.

  The United Kingdom has an excellent record of tuberculosis control. This has been achieved and maintained through treatment of identified cases and screening of their close contacts, screening and treatment for immigrants, the BCG immunisation programme and active surveillance of TB.

  In response to the small rise in tuberculosis notifications in the early 1990s, the United Kingdom health departments set up an interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis with a remit to consider policies for TB control in the UK and to recommend best practice. The first reports from the working group, which are entitled "Recommendations for the Prevention and Control of Tuberculosis in Districts" and "Tuberculosis and Homeless People", will be published shortly and copies will be placed in the Library.
  747
  The public health laboratory service has heightened surveillance of drug-resistant tuberculosis which remains at low levels in the UK. An expert working group has been set up under the interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis to make specific recommendations for the prevention and control of drug-resistant tuberculosis based on all the available evidence.

  Asthma
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make asthma a notifiable disease. [22953]

  Mr. Horam
  No. Asthma is not infectious or otherwise communicable. It would not be appropriate to make it a notifiable disease.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has to reflect more fully the costs of(a) homelessness and (b) working with patients with a poor knowledge of English in the funding of NHS trusts; [23344]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce needs weighting to the community element of the NHS weighted capitations formula. [23381]

  Mr. Horam
  The formula takes account of the officially homeless in temporary accommodation and from 1996–97, health authority allocations reflect a new adjustment to take account of homeless "rough sleepers."

  A study is being undertaken to look at unavoidable variations in provider costs, including those associated with treating patients from ethnic minorities, with the intention of reflecting such variations in health authority allocations. Work is also in hand to develop a needs weighting for community health services and it may be possible to have an interim needs weighting available to inform 1997–98 allocations.

  North Tees General Hospital
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for(a) nurses, (b) junior doctors, (c) middle-range doctors and (d) consultants at North Tees general hospital, Stockton on Tees; if his Department is meeting patient charter requirements for waiting times in accident and emergency; and if he will make a statement about the future of accident and emergency services at the hospital. [23303]

  Mr. Horam
  Vacancies for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants at North Tees general hospital are a matter for North Tees Health national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Judyth Graham-Bowman, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Details of the proportion of patients assessed within five minutes of arrival in accident and emergency departments are contained in the NHS performance guide 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Accident and emergency services on Teeside are a matter for Tees health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mr. Tom O'Connor, for details.

  Adoption Bill
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has to publish the Adoption Bill for England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [24067]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am pleased to announce that the Adoption Bill has been published today in the form of a consultation document and is being distributed widely. Copies will be placed in the Library. Comments on the content of the Bill will be welcome and three months will be allowed for this.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 522, if Dr. Janet Derbyshire, Professor Michael Rawlins or Professor Michael Langman were present at the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines held on 13 October 1995. [22525]

  Mr. Malone
  Proceedings of the committee are confidential.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 811, how many orders under schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968 have been made with respect to sub-committees of advisory committees set up under the terms of section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968; and if ministerial approval has been given for the establishment of any sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines as provided for by (a) regulation 6 of the Medicines Commission and Committee Regulations 1970 and (b) paragraph 1(c) of schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968. [22526]

  Mr. Malone
  Schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968 does not contain any power to make orders but I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 14 December 1995 at column 811, which stated that one set of regulations has been made under that schedule.

  Ministers have approved the establishment of each of the three sub-committees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines as required by regulation 6(1) of those regulations.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the levels of expenditure in 1996 prices of Government-sponsored medical research into the incidence of(a) scrapie in sheep, (b) BSE in cattle and (c) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans for each five-yearly period since 1970; and if he will provide a breakdown of that research with regard to (i) epidemiological and (ii) neuro-pathological studies. [23369]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government have carried out extensive veterinary and basis biological research on the epidemiology of scrapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Much of this work has been done at the Central Veterinary Laboratory and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's—formerly the Agricultural Food Research Council's—Institute of Animal Health. Details of the funding of this work broken down in the way requested for the years specified would
  749
  be available only at disproportionate cost. However, from 1991 to the present, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has spent about £20 million on research in these areas.

  The Department of Health had provided £809,0001 for epidemiological studies and £658,0001 for neuropathological studies in relation to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—CJD—in the period covering the financial years 1990–91 to 1995–96. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 20 March, the Department is making an additional £4.5 million available for further research.

  The Medical Research Council contributes approximately £600,000 per year to the core costs of the joint Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—BBSRC/MRC—neuropathogenesis unit which carries out research related to the epidemiology and neuropathology of CJD. In addition, the MRC awarded the national CJD unit £229,000 in January 1993 for a two-year study to investigate the prion protein in human spongiform encephalopathies. The MRC also awarded the NPU £274,000 in March 1994 for a three-year study to investigate the strain characterisation of the CJD agent by transmission to mice. The MRC funded a project in the 1980s on the epidemiology of CJD, risk factors and person to person transmission. Further information from the MRC could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1 Expenditure expressed in 1996 prices.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have been detected in each European country in each of the last 10 years; and how many people are estimated to have died in each country in each of the last 10 years as a result of this disease. [23196]

  Mr. Horam
  Since 1993, the European Community has funded a project to co-ordinate the surveillance of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in those European countries with existing or proposed national CJD surveillance programmes, that is, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. This project is co-ordinated by the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. The data collected for 1993 and 1994 were published in the national CJD surveillance unit's fourth annual report in August 1995, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The incidence of CJD in the UK is similar to that in the other European countries taking part in the project. The figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his oral statement of 20 March,Official Report, column 378, that the facts upon which the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee based its deliberations would be made public, if he will set out which journals and on what dates each paper will be published. [23206]

  Mr. Horam
  Arrangements are in hand to publish the evidence about a previously unrecognised form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in a scientific journal as soon as is practicable.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the
  750
  Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [218581

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The Government are required to:

  Consult the following advisory non-departmental public bodies prior to legislative proposals:

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines;

  Medicines Commission;

  Publish its response to advice supplied by advisory non-departmental public bodies:

  none.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the external factors which will require common agricultural policy reform. [21614]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current general agreement on tariffs and trade constraints, particularly on subsidised exports, will require reform of CAP regimes in due course to prevent re-emergence of unsaleable food surpluses. World Trade Organisation negotiations designed to take forward the process of reducing subsidies and protection, due to start in 1999, and enlargement of the EU will intensify the pressures for reform.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that common agricultural policy reform is addressed by the Commission. [216161

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those elements of the common agricultural policy which he has assessed as requiring to be reformed. [21622]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that my right hon. and learned Friend gave today to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe).

  Sea Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to preserve the breeding stocks of sea bass. [21615]

  Mr. Baldry
  Recent estimates indicate a substantial increase in the size of the bass stock since conservation measures were introduced in 1990, with possibly as much as a doubling of the resource in the eastern English channel, which includes the waters around the Isle of Wight.

  Welsh Lamb
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations were made to the European Commission by his Department to have Welsh lamb designated as a regional product. [216181

  Mrs. Browning
  None, but we have received a couple of applications in the last few weeks for Welsh meat and my officials are actively discussing these with the applicants.

  I should add that when I visit food fairs and exhibitions abroad, I lose no opportunity to promote and point out the unique qualities of Welsh lamb, which I do to a receptive audience.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance. [21619]

  Mr. Boswell
  I receive many representations concerning the levels of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Battery Cage Systems
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to instigate a review of the welfare of chickens in battery cage systems within the Council of Ministers. [21621]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have pressed the European Commission to update the scientific assessment prepared in 1992 and to bring forward proposals to the Council. The Commission has responded by setting the Scientific Veterinary Committee to work.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on fisheries policy. [21623]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's policy is to promote more efficient and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources to benefit both the UK industry and the marine environment.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to expand the countryside stewardship scheme. [21624]

  Mr. Boswell
  When the scheme transfers to the Ministry on 1 April, it will be considerably expanded to become the main incentive scheme for the wider countryside outside environmentally sensitive areas. We have substantially increased funding for the scheme, enabling new agreements costing £5 million annually to be approved in each of the next two financial years. We will expand the existing priority landscapes and features to cover all old meadows and pastures on neutral and acid soils in England, stone walls and banks throughout England, and arable field margins. We consulted widely on our detailed proposals by issuing a consultation paper on 8 December.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to add a protocol on animal welfare to the treaty of Rome; and what has been the response of animal welfare groups in the United Kingdom. [21625]

  Mrs. Browning
  The White Paper "A Partnership of Nations" published on 12 March confirmed our intention to propose that a protocol be added to the treaty of Rome placing an obligation on the Council of Ministers to give full regard to considerations of animal welfare in the exercise of its powers on agriculture, transport, research and the single market.

  Southall Horse Market
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the current tethering, watering, feeding and demonstration arrangements at the Southall horse market; and if he will make a statement. [21626]

  Mrs. Browning
  Ministry officials regularly visit the market to assess compliance with the Welfare of Horses at Markets (and Other Places of Sale) Order 1990. No problems were reported on the most recent visit to the market.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, when he last met representatives of the fishing industry, they discussed matters relating to the common fisheries policy and fish stock conservation; and if he will make a statement. [21627]

  Mr. Baldry
  I last met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 14 March. We discussed a range of matters relating to the common fisheries policy and fish stock conservation.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact on the agriculture industry of pay settlements agreed by the agricultural wages board; and if he will make a statement. [21628]

  Mr. Boswell
  Following each pay settlement, the Ministry makes an assessment of the overall cost to the agricultural industry. We also commission more detailed, and external, studies from time to time. The most recent study was carried out by the London school of economics in 1993. This considered the overall impact of minimum wages on employment in the agricultural industry, as part of our wider review of the operation of the agricultural wages board. A copy of this study was placed in the Library of the House in July 1994.

  Horticulture Industry
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has conducted into the impact of enlargement of the European Union on the British horticulture industry. [21629]
  753
  Mr. Boswell
  The enlargement of the European Union will present challenges and opportunities to the British horticulture industry. Its impact will, as for other sectors, depend on a number of factors including economic developments in the industry, the policies pursued both here and in the prospective new member states in the pre-accession period and the arrangements for horticultural products agreed during the enlargement negotiations. The European Council in Madrid has requested the Commission further to evaluate the effects of enlargement on Community agricultural policies and these reports will be reviewed at its next meetings.

  Live Animal Transport
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he plans to take to improve the welfare of farm animals during transportation. [21630]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are currently engaged, in consultation with all organisations with an interest, in developing our plans for implementing the improved welfare requirements laid down by EU directive 95/29 on the protection of animals during transport.

  Hedgerows and Headlands
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to farmers regarding the preservation of hedgerows and headlands. [21620]

  Mr. Boswell
  The preservation of hedges and headlands is given priority under relevant agri-environment schemes and during free on-farm conservation visits.

  Food Processing
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the food processing sector in(a) the Untied Kingdom and (b) other EU member states. [21605]

  Mrs. Browning
  The food and drink manufacturing industry contributes nearly 3 per cent. to gross domestic product. The value added by the industry—at about £14 billion—is the second largest among EU member states.

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [21951]

  Mr. Boswell
  There have been no such establishments privatised during the period in question. As regards on-going reviews, I refer the hon. Member to the timetable of prior options reviews outlined by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his reply on 26 January,Official Report, columns 421–23. Each review will address the relationship of establishments to others working in similar or related fields and consider, among other things, the potential for privatisation or rationalisation.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Abattoir Workers)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards have been introduced to protect abattoir workers from the risk of infection by the BSE virus; when these safeguards were introduced; and how they are monitored and enforced. [21661]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Guidance for abattoir workers recommending the precautions to be taken to avoid the remote risk of transmission of BSE from bovine carcases was first issued in March 1990. The guidance was prepared by the Health and Safety Executive in co-operation and with the endorsement of the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and was published by the British Meat Manufacturing Association.

  No cases of occupational transmission to humans have been identified. However, following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to the House on 20 March, Official Report, columns 375–86, the HSE has asked the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens to review the guidance which has been issued to all occupational groups, including abattoir workers.

  Inspection of abattoirs with regard to all aspects of human health and safety is the responsibility of HSE inspectors. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and regulations made under it apply.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Hormone-implanted Meat
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they continue to support banning the importation of meat from countries which allow the implantation of hormones and what action they propose if such a ban is found to be in breach of the rules of the World Trade Organisation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the import from third countries of meat and meat products derived from animals treated with hormonal growth promoters has been banned since 1988, as has the use of these substances within the European Community. The UK has consistently opposed these bans on the grounds that there was no scientific evidence to justify their imposition. It would not be appropriate to anticipate the outcome of the World Trade Organisation dispute proceedings notified by the US authorities. Consultations started in Geneva yesterday and I hope they will lead to an acceptable negotiated settlement.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If athletes are banned from using growth promoters, why are the Government prepared to accept them for the rest of the population?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is quite clear, based on extensive scientific testing, and is agreed by all European countries that the growth hormones we propose should be allowed have no effect whatsoever on humans eating the resulting meat products.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is a most interesting Question, coming at this particular time? Will he tell the House under what treaty provisions the hormones are banned? At the same time will he say under what treaty provision the European Commission yesterday banned the export of all beef products to the whole world? What other products and goods may be involved? What do the Government intend to do to regain the sovereignty of this country in respect of trade overseas, and indeed our home trade?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I probably have the information, but I cannot find the exact number of the EC regulation that bans the use of hormones. I assure the noble Lord that it is a widely used and perfectly accepted one. Nor can I answer the noble Lord on the second point that he raised about the authority for the European worldwide ban on British beef exports. It is a little wide of this Question. However, I invite him to consider the transfer of sovereignty from the European
1828
Commission to the World Trade Organisation which is implicit in its possible victory in the dispute on hormones. I wonder whether the noble Lord finds that a good thing, and if it is not rather inconsistent.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if the European Union ban is lifted, will there be a system of labelling to reassure people that these hormones are in fact harmless, as I believe them to be? If the ban is not lifted, can the noble Lord give some idea of the penalties that are likely to be imposed by the United States in tariffs against European goods?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think we are all in favour of labelling. It is certainly one possible outcome of the discussions between the European Community and the World Trade Organisation. So far as penalties are concerned, I am sure my noble friend is aware that there is already some element of revenge being taken by the United States which is, thankfully, not having a great effect on the British producers of any particular product. If the European Union continued with a ban which had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organisation we should expect that to have trade consequences.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I declare an interest. In the past, when it was legal, I have used hexoestrol on my bullocks. Does my noble friend agree that if we, as farmers, have to rely all the time on media hype to decide what we should or should not feed our cattle, at the end of the day we shall find that we use no drugs at all, including antibiotics, and this country will surely revert to the state of health that we had, say, in the 1920s and 1930s? Is that what the Opposition wish?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure we are right in insisting that we take a great deal of care in getting the science right, taking the best possible advice and spending everything that is required to understand and prove that a particular substance is harmless to human health. I am sure that we are right then to insist, so far as we possibly can, that we abide by that scientific advice and do not allow ourselves to be swayed by pressure groups or scare stories.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it might be as wise a precaution to ban meat with implanted hormones as it is to ban feed that contains animal remains?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not see the connection at all.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand that these growth hormones are based on steroids. Will the Minister explain why vets have not been allowed to use therapeutic doses of steroids on animals that have lost their appetites, when in the past they have proved extremely beneficial to the health of the animals? Why have the Government accepted that stricture when they are so against the implantation of hormones?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are all in favour of the therapeutic use of hormones where these have no harmful effect on humans as a result of their use and

1829
where they have a beneficial effect on the animal. We are at present somewhat hobbled by the European Union taking a different view, not based on science but based purely on decisions it believes it should take on behalf of consumers, rather than allowing consumers to take their own decisions.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the Government decide on a cattle slaughter policy as a result of the BSE crisis, it will be against the advice of their scientific advisers, who have not recommended a slaughter policy. If the Government are prepared to override scientific advice where BSE is concerned, why can they not do the same for hormone-implanted beef to ensure consumer confidence?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I fail to see the connection at all between something that is admittedly of possible potential danger to human beings and something that is provably of no potential danger to human beings.

Smoking and Health
3.8 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the 121st birthday of Mme. Jeanne Calment last month, they will modify the health warnings on cigarette packets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords. While I applaud Mme. Calment's achievement in becoming the world's oldest person, I do not accept that her longevity is in any way attributable to her liking for an occasional cigarette.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that ingenious reply. Is she aware that Mme. Calment was advised at the age of 117 to give up smoking on the grounds that it was bad for her health? She was so miserable that after a year she started again, in moderation, on her 118th birthday and has not looked back since. She is now the oldest person in the world. Does the Minister agree that it seems to prove that a little of what you fancy does you good? To show that this is not a one-off, does she further agree that the Greeks are the heaviest smokers in the world yet they have the longest life expectancy in Europe?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that a number of studies have been carried out on the Greek diet and that that also has an effect. I also understand that Mme. Calment drinks wine, eats chocolate cake, and is not unlike my noble friend Lady Trumpington whom we know to be indestructible.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the Exchequer were to lose the duty on tobacco and cigarettes it would mean the standard rate of income tax having to be increased by 4p in the pound to make up the deficit?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is the Government's policy to increase the duty on cigarettes.
1830
It has a direct correlation to the numbers of people who give up smoking. The higher the price, the less people are likely to smoke.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on my pipe-smoking package it says, "Smoking causes cancer"? That is in accordance with the cancer directive 92/41. But that is not necessarily so. Is the Minister aware also that Lord Shinwell puffed a pipe every day until he was 100 years of age; Lord Brockway puffed a pipe every day until he was 99; and the average age of the Peers in this House who belong to the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers Club is over 70? Does not the Minister agree therefore that we should remove the slogan on cigarette packets and replace it with one that says, "Smoke a pipe and live longer"?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I had a distinguished father-in-law who used to say, "Moderation in all things, and not too much of that." I suspect that that is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mason. However, perhaps I should be serious and remind your Lordships that 110,000 people in this country die prematurely every year as a result of smoking-related diseases. It is a real danger, and it is right that we should warn people on posters and on cigarette packets.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that just because one person has been lucky enough to play Russian roulette and get away with it, others should not be encouraged to take equivalent risks? As the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Mason, do not appear to understand the statistics in relation to the risk, is there not a case for expanding the warning on cigarette packets to give details of the morbidity and mortality arising from cigarette smoking so that people can make comparisons with the healthy existence of non-smokers?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in what he says in the first part of his question. We have looked at the size of warnings on cigarette packets. At the moment the European directive specifies that the warning should cover at least 4 per cent. of each large surface of the packet; in fact, in the UK we demand 6 per cent.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, as cigarettes kill around 100,000 people compared with BSE which has killed only 10 and all the cattle have had to be slaughtered, does not a ban on all smoking become even more necessary?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to BSE, it has been proven through science that the risks of eating beef are infinitesimal. We should not perhaps enter upon that subject; a debate is tabled for quite soon.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the figures she gives are wholly bogus? They are not based on scientific fact. Will she also allow the Department of Health to state the truth? Active smokers actually live longer without senile

1831
dementia and Alzheimer's Disease than people who do not smoke. In fact they live around five years longer and do not occupy hospital beds as a result.
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, will the Minister point out to her noble friends who do not like scientific evidence or large numbers and seem to prefer to deal with case histories that they should take the opportunity to do a ward round with any chest physician in any district general hospital? They will meet some of the real people who have suffered the terrible effects in health terms of smoking. Will she also point out that although there may be tax revenue advantages from people smoking, there is huge expenditure in the National Health Service in dealing with the effects of smoking-related diseases?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. It is not only chest diseases. One only needs to visit people who have had limbs amputated through the effects of smoking to see how distressing the situation can be. Of course, the cost to the NHS is enormous.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there may be hundreds of cases where people have smoked all their lives and nothing much seems to have happened to them? However, the British Medical Association says that there is no doubt whatever that a serious link exists between lung cancer and people who inhale tobacco.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the British Medical Association has fought this case long and hard. There is no doubt whatever that smoking does damage one's health. Studies have been carried out with regard to Alzheimer's Disease which show that there may be marginal benefits. However, those are far outweighed by the risks to general health.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that for many years the Department of Health claimed that 50,000 people a year died through the effects of smoking tobacco? Overnight that was doubled to 100,000 and then, realising that that was a suspiciously round figure, it was pushed up to 110,000. In the light of those widely varying statistics, is the Minister surprised at the suspicion of my noble friend Lord Wyatt of Weeford when he hears those figures?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have no reason whatever to question the scientific evidence for the figures.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, rather than concentrating on the good luck of one old lady, would it not be more helpful to think about the numbers of 15 year-old girls who unfortunately are taking up smoking? Do the Government have any proposals to try to reduce the numbers of girls aged 15 who smoke? The figure has gone up by 10 per cent. since 1988 when the new health promotion activities began.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have been encouraged by the reduction in the numbers of people
1832
who smoke except for young girls. We are about to launch a £3 million campaign targeted particularly at young girls. We know that a number of factors are involved such as weight, how they look, confidence and so forth. We will be working with youth culture in order to try to combat smoking.

NHS Patients: Private Sector Treatment
3.17 p.m.
Lord Winston Lord Winston asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many of London's health authorities or hospital trusts have this year agreed contracts with private hospitals to treat patients on waiting lists because of bed shortages in the NHS; and how many patients are involved.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Department of Health does not routinely collect that information.
Lord Winston: My Lords, it is a fact that a number of NHS patients are being treated in the private sector by NHS staff. Is the noble Baroness aware that, while the Government continue to deny that bed and nursing shortages lead to that situation, it must be cheaper, more efficient and a better use of resources to treat NHS patients on waiting lists in the NHS hospital where they were assessed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the NHS has always used the private sector. We only have to look at the purchase of drugs that come through commercial firms, the use of builders and contractors—and in the 1980s the health authority that I used to chair used a private laundry to very good effect—to realise that there has always been a mixed economy in the NHS. It seems right that if we are to reduce the waiting times, as we have so successfully done, when it comes to the peaks it is clearly appropriate that the NHS should use all the facilities in this country and treat people, if that is what they want, in private hospitals.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend able to confirm the statement made to us this morning at a meeting of the North Thames health authority that there has been a dramatic and remarkably good improvement in the waiting list times? Does that apply in the same way in other parts of the country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. Last year in the London regions we saw a reduction of 16,000 patients waiting over one year for treatment and, for the first time ever, nobody waited 18 months. Nationally, half of all admissions are emergencies; of the remaining 50 per cent., half are admitted within six weeks and nearly three-quarters within three months. We have seen the waiting time fall from an average of nine to four months.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, given the Government's introduction of an internal market within the National Health Service—presumably to identify the costs of treatment and to promote treatment at the lowest

1833
cost—is it not curious that the Government do not possess figures on the use of private medical facilities compared with those of the National Health Service? Are they taking any steps to obtain that information?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a matter for individual health authorities and trusts to decide the best way of meeting the needs of patients within their area or patients who are waiting to go to their hospitals for treatment. On occasions, this may mean that services are purchased through private hospitals. We see nothing wrong in that.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, are the people on the waiting list those who have seen a specialist and are now waiting for treatment, or does the waiting list include those waiting to see a specialist? Is that information collated separately?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, these are people who are waiting for their operation having seen a specialist; but we recognise the point the noble Baroness makes concerning the waiting time between when the GP sees the patient and referral. That will be included in future.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Fitzhugh Directory of NHS Trusts, which, perhaps unlike the Department of Health, is trying to gauge the national position and is a reputable organisation, this week published figures showing that the vast majority of trust hospitals in the country are making a profit from their use of private patients within hospitals? Surely it would be better, if there is capacity to treat private patients within NHS hospitals, that the hospitals should first of all clear their waiting lists of health service patients rather than using their facilities for private patients.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if an NHS hospital has a private wing, it is treated totally differently. We ensure that waiting lists are strictly controlled and that no NHS patient is disadvantaged because there is a private wing. I would add that the income to the NHS from providing private services is enormous and that helps NHS patients.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very sorry to come back to the Minister, but if the department does not know the position regarding the distribution of waiting lists and beds, as the Minister suggested in her reply to my noble friend Lord Winston, it is difficult to understand how there can be a nationally rational plan for distributing resources in the way she now suggests. Surely one of the problems is that individual trusts wish to make a profit from private patients on their premises and do not clear the waiting lists by using those beds. That is happening particularly in London.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if they do so they are contravening the guidance. I would want to know individual cases if the noble Baroness feels that is happening.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the Royal Free, of which I
1834
am chairman, we have a private floor which contributes enormously in income to the National Health Service, but if we need beds for National Health Service patients, they are given those private beds?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that detailed advice.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I should like to come back to my original Question. In the case of one trust I know NHS patients are being treated for orthopaedic and plastic surgery. The private hospital has to pay extra for the anaesthetist who anaesthetises those patients. The problem is that one cannot have an anaesthetist being on call in an NHS hospital and at the same time operating in a private hospital. Consequently, there is some extra cost to the NHS. Is the Minister aware of that problem?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have been determined to reduce the waiting times for patients. I suspect that the noble Lord is referring to the Hammersmith, in which he works. There are 53 patients now being treated at the Royal Masonic Hospital who were on the waiting list at the Hammersmith. I am sure that if he spoke to those patients, they would be extremely grateful to know that they are getting immediate treatment in very good surroundings.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that private hospitals still provide a very small percentage of healthcare treatment in this country? To my memory it is about 10 per cent. of healthcare. Does she further agree that this treatment provides an important competitive edge for the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. This subject comes back to the philosophical point: what is the National Health Service? The National Health Service is one free at the point of delivery to those in clinical need regardless of their means to pay. We totally adhere to that principle. Whether people are treated in a National Health Service Hospital or a private hospital, as long as they get the treatment quickly, the quality is high and the service is efficient, they are very grateful, in my experience, to be treated.

Westminster City Council: Barratt Review
3.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and if so what, sanctions are available against those members of Westminster City Council who decided that homeless families should be accommodated in dangerous premises.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, in cases of maladministration, impropriety or illegality on the part of local authority members, the action taken can cover

1835
investigations by the local government ombudsman, action by the independent external auditor, which could include sanctions of surcharging and disqualification from council membership, and a full range of penalties where criminal acts have been proved in the courts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that response, as far as it goes. I am not sure that the Government have yet been seized of the seriousness of the scandal that is reported in the Barratt Review of Westminster City Council's activities. Is the noble Earl aware that on page 37 of his report Mr. Barratt says:
"This review will make very disturbing reading for anyone concerned about the observance of proper standards in the provision of public services"?
If the Government are as concerned as we are about the observance of proper standards, will they now institute a more detailed inquiry as recommended by Mr. Barratt to establish individual responsibilities in this matter, particularly in the light of the comment that the councillors' decisions were influenced by considerations of party advantage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Mr. Barratt, a former chief executive of Cambridgeshire County Council, was appointed by Westminster City Council to look into the matter. He concluded that the council had failed to exercise proper standards of management of the asbestos but found no evidence of any intent by any person deliberately to endanger the health of tenants. I understand that both political parties on the council were completely unaware that the procedures to deal with asbestos were not properly enacted. Expert medical opinion commissioned by the council said:
"Asbestos is unlikely to have been present in sufficient quantities to have been a significant health risk".
Westminster City Council has passed the report to the district auditor and it is up to him to decide whether to take action.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl give the House a formal undertaking on behalf of the Government that in the event of legal proceedings or tribunal proceedings being instituted in this matter following the reports of the District Auditor and Mr. Barratt Her Majesty's Government will not seek to protect the evidence that may be required from government departments and Ministers who may be involved by the issue of public interest immunity certificates?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a remarkable question. This is a sensitive area. It is not for the Government to intervene. It is for the auditor to take such action as he wishes to take as he thinks is appropriate. If it ever were to come—and I doubt whether it would—to a court case, the Government would act with strict propriety, as I expect would any other participant so involved.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before the reorganisation of local government in 1974 under Mr. Heath certain council officers had
1836
statutory duties that transcended their responsibilities to elected members? I am referring to the former medical officers of health and the then chief public health inspectors who are now known as chief environmental officers. If they were deemed to be acting for the health of the community they could make their own decisions irrespective of the council. Can the Minister say whether those statutory duties have been removed from the successors of those officers following local government reorganisation? If they have not been removed, and these officers carried out their functions, this kind of activity could not have happened. If they have been removed, would it not be a good idea to give back the authority to those officers so that they can deal with councillors who are prepared to behave in this manner?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I reject the noble Lord's question, particularly the last part of it. He has assumed that councillors have acted in a way that they should not have done. A lot of things happened 20 years ago, and they may be different now. But the fact is that the relevant people, such as the executives of the council, have responsibilities. Ultimately, it is for the local councillors to accept responsibility for the actions of their council. As I understand it, the noble Lord is suggesting, and I reject, that local councillors prevented the executives from carrying out the work that they should have rightly carried out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that Mr. Barratt reports at page 5 of the document,
"My unsuccessful attempts to obtain help from some of those who were senior officers involved in the affairs under review give me no confidence that this could be achieved without compulsion of witnesses"?
Information was suppressed. Will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that senior officers involved in this business will be allowed to give proper evidence?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, because it is not the responsibility of government. The noble Lord need not shake his head in despair. He asked me whether the Government will do something and I say that they will not because it is not our responsibility. We do not have the power. There are independent powers to do what is necessary. The auditor has independent powers and he has the information. He has the report and if he considers it appropriate to take action, he will do so.

Police Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

1837
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 101 [Construction contracts]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 58, line 8, at end insert ("and such operations shall be specified in the agreement").
The noble Lord said: At this point we enter a new phase in the Bill which deals with the construction industry and the results of the report. Sir Michael Latham chaired the proceedings with distinction. Construction operations, which will be a matter of some contention as we move through these clauses, should be specified in any contract which is concluded under the specifications of Clause 101, which is an introductory clause. I introduce this amendment to show that there is a great deal of confusion about what a construction operation really is. I do not believe that the industry can properly function unless that confusion is cleared up.
One of the ways in which that can be done is by ensuring that each contract should specify which particular parts of it are covered by the Bill which is before the Committee. That may be a useful addition, and I put the amendment forward without prejudice to discussions which will take place at a later stage in Committee about the nature of such operations. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: I support my noble friend in this amendment for this simple reason. Clause 101 refers to a construction contract and this part of the Bill deals with such matters. Contracts relate to construction operations which are then defined in Clause 102. Those Members of the Committee who remember the Second Reading will recall that many of us felt that the definition of construction operations in Clause 102 was defective and confusing in the sense that operations which many of us thought, with our long experience in construction, were construction operations were in fact excluded from the part of the Bill included in Clause 102. I wonder whether it might be helpful, as my noble friend has suggested, for the contracts themselves to define those construction operations to which they are intended to refer, rather than for us to fall into the confusion which is apparent in Clause 102. I support my noble friend in this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we are moving into a different area of the Bill. I say at the outset that it is quite a complicated area. I quite see why the noble Lord wishes to make the position as clear as possible. We shall always consider his suggestions carefully.
As I see it, the amendment is designed to assist where a contract covers both construction and non-construction operations. It would require all the elements of work which fall within the construction definition to be
1838
specified in the contract agreement. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, would like to see. He would like to see everything written down. The trouble is that when everything is written down, anything that is not written down is considered to be outside the provisions which are written down. So one has to be careful.
I believe that this amendment will be a cause for confusion for this reason. As the Bill is currently drafted, if, for example, a bricklayer was building a wall, he would know that he was entitled to the fair treatment which the Bill provides. But with the noble Lord's amendment in place, if his wall-building was not specifically mentioned as a construction activity under the contract, he would wonder where he stood. Would he still be entitled to these fair contract provisions or would he face a legal battle to establish that his work should have been specified from the outset? I believe that lawyers would have a field day over this. At worst, he could be persecuted, but incorrectly, that the contract document effectively ruled his work outside the Bill. That is something which I do not believe noble Lords would wish to do or we would wish to see happen. Small firms, the self-employed and everyone else engaged in construction work should have clear rights to the measures on adjudication and payment which we are trying to provide here.
At the moment, the activities either fall within the definition of construction operations as specified in Clause 102 or they do not. Although we have tried to draft the Bill so that there are as few grey areas as possible, one is bound to accept that some will remain. That is inevitable and in some ways it is not a bad thing. It would certainly be good practice for contractual parties to get together to make sure that they know which parts of the contract are construction operations in terms of the Act. Of course, they would be quite within their rights to apply the same sort of terms, by agreement, to any work that fell outside the definition. But I do not believe that we can require parties to specify construction activities in their contracts. I understand the reason why the noble Lord has tabled this amendment, but I believe that the context would be best without it because it allows for less doubt and would give fewer problems later on.
Lord Howie of Troon: The Minister's interesting reply does not wholly convince me. I know that the Bill is complicated and detailed but I had not thought that it went into such detail as a single brick and a single bricklayer. In my noble friend's amendment the definition of construction operations is not concerned with a wall but a building, or something of that nature, of which a brick is part. The activities of the bricklayer will be defined in the specification which will be part of the contract as a whole. I do not believe that the Minister has grasped the point.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister referred to bricklaying. There are situations in which bricklaying can be carried on and is effectively excluded from a construction contract under Clause 102. I call in aid the Ideal Home Exhibition, which I believe opened recently.

1839
I understand that within that exhibition a number of houses have been constructed. When one looks at Clause 102(2)(f) one sees that what is excluded is,
"the making, installation and repair of artistic works, being sculptures, murals and other works which are wholly artistic in nature".
The construction of a whole house in the Ideal Home Exhibition, which can be defined as a temporary structure of an artistic nature, may not be considered to be "construction". This highlights the difficulty we face. I ask the Minister to comment.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may encourage my noble friend to treat the regulation of the exhibition industry as a wholly distinct issue from the regulation of the construction industry.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Howie, says he is not convinced by what I said. I always regard it as a matter of regret if I cannot persuade him that what I have said is right. Either one lists everything or one leaves a certain amount to reasonable common sense. The Bill provides in Clause 101(2):
"Where an agreement relates to construction operations and other matters, this Part applies to it only so far as it relates to construction operations".
That can include a whole lot of matters. If one puts in the words suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, one has to specify what those construction operations are. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, would not wish to exclude the bricklayer. My fear is that if those words were put in the bricklayer would be excluded. One would have to specify what construction operations were covered.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, had had a rush of blood to the head when he said that the Ideal Home Exhibition and the houses built therein could be described as,
"the making, installation and repair of artistic works, being sculptures, murals and other works which are wholly artistic in nature".
Whenever I visit the Ideal Home Exhibition my experience is that wonderful houses are put up. One says that they are exactly what one wants because they are so convenient, cheap, and so on. One does not consider them beautiful objects to be looked at in an artistic manner. I do not believe that the Ideal Home Exhibition comes into it. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, on that point.
I return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I believe that we must keep the Bill as simple as we can. My fear is that the proposed words would make it more complicated in the result, not the intention.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe that in reply to my noble friend Lord Howie, the noble Earl said that in such a contract it would be normal to specify various procedures and operations carried out under the contract. Normally, any good lawyer negotiating such a contract would wish to say what was and what was not covered by the Bill. The specification for an operation of any kind is a complicated business. I agree that we should keep it as simple as possible. Nevertheless, these are complicated matters. I do not believe that it would be
1840
difficult for a contract to specify, say, in an appendix, that A was covered by the Bill, B was not covered, and so on. That would be agreed between the parties and lawyers concerned. It would make the position absolutely clear. We do not want to write matters into the Bill which make it more complicated. I would have thought that my amendment makes the whole position much clearer for those people engaged in construction activity within or outwith the Act, as it will be.
Earl Ferrers: We are talking about the kinds of matters that may be in construction contracts. Clause 101 says:
"(1) In this Part a 'construction contract' means an agreement for the carrying out of construction operations.
"(2) Where an agreement relates to construction operations and other matters, this Part applies to it only so far as it relates to construction operations".
It is for any two contracting parties to draw up such contracts as they wish. Our concern is to ensure that the minimum is dealt with and that these matters come into use when there is a dispute and the parties concerned have not put anything into their agreement as to how it should be resolved. Where that arises this part of the Bill will come into operation. The noble Lord says that it tells people what to put into their contracts. It does not. The Bill says that this part will operate only if contracts do not specify the equivalent wording.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not quite understand the last words of the noble Earl. However, I understand that this part applies only to construction contracts which do this, that and thus. What I am trying to establish—I believe that the noble Earl has gone some way towards it—is that in any contract negotiated between two reasonable parties, as a result of the passage of the Bill there will inevitably be a discussion to decide which bits of the contract are included, given that it may contain something called a construction operation under the Act, as it then will be, and which bits are excluded. Any reasonable lawyer will establish that at the outset. All I say is that it is more helpful if it is put on the face of the Bill. However, having heard the explanation of the noble Earl that that is what the Government want to see but do not want it on the face of the Bill, I am happy to leave the matter for further discussion should that be necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 58, line 12, after ("Wales") insert (", Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: As I understand the Bill, it deals with three major and important matters; namely, adjudication, payment and the right of a contractor to cease work in certain appropriate circumstances. I well understand that those are the Bill's main objectives, but I notice that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. I wonder why, because adjudication, payment and the right to stop work in appropriate circumstances in construction contracts must be as important in Northern Ireland as they are elsewhere in the UK. I am asking the

1841
Government to explain why Northern Ireland is excluded, because I notice that there is a reference to Northern Ireland in Clause 110(5).
If that clause applies to Northern Ireland, I cannot help but wonder why the rest of this part does not also apply to Northern Ireland. I am reinforced in that by noticing that there is a further reference to Northern Ireland in Clause 143. If my memory serves me right, that refers to Part III. I wonder why it is that those parts of the Bill which apply to the registration of architects apply to Northern Ireland whereas Part II does not.
I notice something further. The scheme which is referred to in Clause 111, to which no doubt we shall be returning from time to time later in our discussions, leans heavily on the Arbitration Bill which is now before another place. I notice that the Arbitration Bill applies to Northern Ireland. So I wonder how it comes about that arbitration applies to Northern Ireland but adjudication does not. Those are questions to which I merely seek an answer. I am not trying to provoke the Government into doing anything that they do not want to do. I hope that will enable me to understand why they want to do the things that they are trying to do. The two amendments which are associated with Amendment No. 126 are consequential upon it. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My reading of Clause 143 is that by an Order in Council the measures in Part II can be brought in for Northern Ireland. In fact it goes a little further and says that instead of an affirmative resolution, it can be brought in by negative resolution, which I should have thought was probably a good thing in this case.
Earl Ferrers: I may be able to make the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, happy, anyhow on this occasion, by telling him that it is our intention that the benefits of this legislation should apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. That means of course Northern Ireland as well. The inclusion of Northern Ireland will be achieved by means of an Order in Council. That is how these arrangements for Northern Ireland are commonly made.
With reference to the amendment to give a scheme-making power to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that is something which would be contained in the Order in Council. The scheme for Northern Ireland is likely to be substantially the same as that for England and Wales, taking into account the normal adjustments that one makes for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord referred to arbitration. The Arbitration Bill is largely a Consolidation Bill. No work is needed to adapt it locally because that has already been done. I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied that Northern Ireland will be covered properly.
Lord Howie of Troon: I was pleased with the earlier part of the Minister's comments which were reassuring. My feeling of reassurance was somewhat modified when he said that the scheme for Northern Ireland would be similar to the proposed scheme for England
1842
and Wales. Since the scheme for England and Wales is terrible, as we shall discuss later on, I do not see why we should inflict it upon the Northern Irish as well.
I have just one slight note of dissent. Although it is a consolidation Bill, if the Arbitration Bill can apply directly to Northern Ireland without regulations, why on earth should not the same procedure be followed in this Bill? The confusion which I have been under, and which the Minister has largely dispelled, arises from the exclusion of Northern Ireland from the first clause. That confusion would be dispelled completely if my amendment were accepted. I hope that the Minister will think again and accept it. I know that he is that kind of man.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is asking me to accept. First, he puts down an amendment to say that Northern Ireland should be included, and then he says that he was greatly reassured by what I said but that he could not understand why on earth we should want to impose such a rotten Bill on Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Scheme.
Earl Ferrers: All right, scheme. I shall modify that. This, I believe refers mostly to the scheme. The problems about which the noble Lord is concerned are covered, will be covered and will apply to Northern Ireland. As I explained to him, the arbitration matter has already been taken account of and it is not necessary therefore to alter it to apply.
Lord Howie of Troon: As the Minister, with his long experience, knows, I try to agree with what he says whenever possible. In the face of his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 58, line 15, after ("to") insert ("private sector construction contracts, and").
The noble Lord said: Clause 101(1) refers to:
"the carrying out of construction operations".
That might be construed as meaning all construction operations except where those are excluded under Clause 101. That is a sensible way to construe the Bill. However, Clause 101(5) refers to certain operations under the Crown but not all of them. In parenthesis, I ask why not all of them, although I do not want to press that point.
What is more important is to ask why it is necessary to distinguish between the apparent general terms of subsection (1) and the particular terms of subsection (5). That is why I ask to include the words in Amendment No. 127—to show that this part refers to private construction projects as well as the projects under the Crown. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support my noble friend in this amendment. It has been represented to me that there is some confusion in Clause 101, and that the amendment proposed by my noble friend will remove that confusion altogether. I imagine that the Government

1843
mean Clause 101 to apply to private sector contracts as well as to those which are mentioned under subsection (5). Nevertheless, as I say, a number of representative bodies which are concerned in this industry have made approaches to me to say that they are not entirely happy about the wording and that my noble friend's amendment would clarify the matter beyond any shadow of doubt. If the Minister can clarify it beyond any shadow of doubt, then I am sure that my noble friend will be happy.
Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment, but I have one or two questions about it. It is my understanding that this whole part of the Bill is being put forward in response to pressure from the construction industry as a whole. This is the introductory clause, and we have suddenly gone to the particular. There are public sector contracts, private sector contracts, Crown contracts and probably many other types of contract. I wonder whether, in addition to supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, we should ask the Minister to think again about making it even wider, starting off with all contracts and leaving the exclusions to come under Section 102(2) when we come to it.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall try, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wishes, to clarify the matter beyond any measure of doubt. The best way for me to do that is to follow the notes that are meant to assist me in trying to explain the Government's position on this rather complicated Bill.
According to my note, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is simply not required. I should not have put that in quite such a rough way. I would say that I expect the noble Lord, after he has heard the considerations put forward and taken account of them, will say that on the whole he agrees with the Government and that his amendment would not be an improvement to the Bill.
The Bill of course applies to private sector contracts. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. The drafting of Clause 101(5) simply reflects the fact that, without a specific inclusion, legislation does not normally bind the Crown. We want to see the Crown so bound. Therefore we have to make sure that it is not excluded but that the Crown is included. That inclusion does not exclude any private sector contracts. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that all these provisions are to cover all contracts.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Like him, I am all in favour of binding the Crown wherever possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Meaning of "construction operations"]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 58, line 47, at beginning insert ("off-shore").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135. We now embark on this rather difficult clause, which is an attempt to define the meaning of "construction operations"—what are and what are not construction operations.
As I said at Second Reading, we have a number of doubts about the definition. We do not believe that the Bill as drafted covers more than about 50 per cent. of what could properly be called the construction industry. Our figure is based on the Department of the Environment's research.
Amendment No. 128 deals with off-shore drilling for, or extraction of, oil or natural gas. I am advised that on-shore drilling should not be excluded from the ambit of the Bill but off-shore drilling should be excluded. Off-shore drilling is a very specialised business. Construction companies undertake certain activities with the construction of platforms or drilling rigs, but, I believe, not nearly so much as in on-shore drilling. There is also a certain amount in off-shore drilling. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howie will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me, that as a minimal inclusion in the Bill, off-shore drilling should be considered as a construction operation.
Amendment No. 130 deals with subsection (2)(c), which starts with the word "construction". I find it very odd that the word "construction" should be put into a subsection which defines something which is not construction. I should have thought that for clarity—indeed, possibly also for substantive purposes—the word "construction" in that line should be removed.
I move on to Amendment No. 131. I am advised that it is extremely difficult to define the meaning of "primary" activity. I simply offer the alternative "sole" activity in this probing amendment. I am trying to find out from the Minister what exactly "primary activity" is intended to mean in the Bill.
With Amendment No. 132 it is quite clear that water and effluent treatment are major activities of the construction industry. The view has been expressed to me that there is no reason whatever why water or effluent treatment should be excluded from the ambit of the Bill. After all, those are activities in which construction companies, in the ordinary meaning of the word, engage on a daily basis. It seems to me and my advisers that it would be proper for water and effluent treatment to come within the ambit of the Bill.
Amendment No. 133 is related to Amendment No. 134 which no doubt will be spoken to by the noble Earl when he comes to reply. As I said at Second Reading, I have great difficulty understanding why construction activities in warehousing—construction activities in the storage particularly of food and drink—should not be included within the ambit of the Bill. That is a matter that I raised at Second Reading and I do not wish to go through the arguments again. I am sure that the Committee understands my arguments.
With regard to Amendment No. 135, I simply cannot understand why construction activity inside a warehouse of food and drink should not be treated as a construction activity for the purposes of this Bill.
No doubt the noble Earl will wish to speak to his Amendment No. 134. I reserve my comments on that. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I support my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 134, in this group. I believe that it helps to clarify the position of Clause 102(2)(c). So far as I can see, in that subsection the important words are "on a site"—this argument will assist the noble Lord, Lord Williams—which identify a process engineering site as opposed to a building site or civil engineering site.
The definition of "construction operations" which appears in the Bill is drawn from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The Latham Review Working Group 10 produced a very different draft definition of "construction operations". When that was presented to the Construction Industry Board it was accepted without comment. Amendment No. 139, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is much closer to that definition.
However, I believe that the definition in this Bill recognises the divergent views of the process industry and the building and civil engineering industries and their history as regards dispute resolutions. I was impressed by the case put to me by the Process Industry Latham Group. Its industries do not suffer from the litigations and claims-oriented attitude which beset the building and civil engineering industries. It claims that the difference occurs for two good reasons. First, that the process plants are not speculative developments but facilities where products are made. Secondly, the number of clients and contractors are small and it is therefore important that good relations should continue for future business success.
In supporting that evidence, PILG—I notice the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, grimacing at my use of "PILG" and I understand that—can point to the number of arbitrators, for instance, between 200 and 300 appointed by the RIBA, RICS and the ICE per annum compared with two to three per annum appointed by the Institution of Chemical Engineers.
I would go along with some of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in particular Nos. 128 and 130 because I believe that they add to the clarity of the exclusions. However, as I have indicated, I cannot go along with some of his other amendments, in particular to Clause 102(2)(c), because I believe that the whole point of "on a site" identifies a process engineering site as opposed to a building or civil engineering site. Those are the key words that I put forward for my noble friend's consideration.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Viscount has been kind enough to go along with some of my
1846
amendments. Does he go along with my arguments about water or effluent treatment? It is an important matter.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not feel so strongly about those matters. Perhaps I may refer to the Government's amendment to the latter part of the subsection. We are talking about the bulk storage of food, probably in steel vats, in the process industry and for that reason I would allow that subsection to remain. I feel less strongly about whether water or effluent treatment is something to do with the process industry. I suspect that it is, however, and therefore I would see the provision left in as part of "on a site".
4.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am reassured by Amendment No. 134 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It shows that the Government have accepted the fact that the definition of "construction operations" in the Bill is defective. It is much more defective than is admitted in Amendment No. 134 but I do not wish to go into that at the moment. I shall deal with it in my Amendment No. 139.
I intervene as a result of a remark made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, relating to the process engineering industry. There was much good sense in what he said. I too have had the benefit of meeting members of the Institution of Chemical Engineers to discuss their attitude towards the Bill. My amendment does not exclude the process engineering industry because I want the Minister to explain on the record why it should be excluded.
I can readily understand that certain elements of process engineering are different from the ordinary construction industry. Let us consider, for example, an oil refinery which has a catalytic cracker or something of that nature. The plant itself will be powerfully integrated into the structure and they could be considered as one item. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not, but I see my noble friend Lord Berkeley shaking his head from side to side in a way which indicates a certain amount of disapproval. I am being as open-minded on the subject as possible.
I can understand that there would be some argument in that respect but perhaps we might consider the following. I have in mind Grangemouth oil refinery, which was specifically mentioned to me by the members of the Institution of Chemical Engineers when I met them recently. It is founded on a large cellular concrete foundation which is wholly and entirely a piece of civil engineering construction. It has nothing whatever to do with process engineering, or processes of any kind. It has a straightforward, ordinary foundation but it is a big piece of civil engineering work. I cannot see how it should be dealt with in a way different from any other civil engineering construction. So long as the foundation is in the right place and the holding-down bolts are in the right place so that the process engineers can put their plant in the right place all will be well. There is no reason at all why the foundation as a contract—it might well be a separate contract and would certainly be a sub-contract—should not be included under construction operations.

1847
Furthermore, I remember that 30 years ago or more I was involved with civil engineering colleagues in designing the Llandarcy gas works. It was an excellent work and won an RIBA gold medal for its architect, Alex Gordon—the prize went to the architect, not to the engineer. Obviously, that gas works was a piece of process but the building which we built was a shed. It was a lovely, prize-winning shed but it was a shed nevertheless. As a shed it was the same in the construction context as any other kind of shed. The fact that it had a gas works inside made it no different; there might have been something else inside. The fact that it has since been demolished may remove many of my arguments, but the point I am making is that the structure was a civil engineering structure and should therefore be included as a construction operation under the terms of the Bill. I can see no reason why it should be excluded as part of a process plant.
Lord Berkeley: I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, perhaps I may say that I too have worked on process plants as a civil engineer. I see little difference between putting in foundations using holding-down bolts—the noble Lord's may have been wrong and mine may have been right—or putting bridge beams or a cracker on the top or a lot of pipework.
To a large extent, the process people with their separate types of contract have got that side of it pretty well sewn up. But we should think of the civil engineers and the building people and their sub-contractors and suppliers. They need just as much protection when they are working under or around the process plant as when they are working around any other type of building or plant.
I shall speak further to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I believe that it is important to widen the scope as much as we can in order to protect—because that is why we are here—the "small" people such as the sub-contractors and specialist suppliers in the civil engineering and building industry.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for saying that he is reassured by Amendment No. 134. I am glad about that and perhaps I may return to it later. This part of Clause 102 covers a very complex subject. Some of the discussion that has taken place outside this Chamber may have resulted from a misunderstanding. I should like to clarify what we are trying to do. However, I accept that the drafting needs some fine-tuning and I tabled Amendment No. 134, which reassured the noble Lord, Lord Howie.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater is right to say that process engineering is totally different from construction. Process engineering is industrial work involving certain types of chemical, physical or biological processes. Examples include refining oil, generating electricity, and making chocolate. This clearly involves a great deal of heavy plant and machinery, with complicated steelwork to hold it all in place. It is only the construction of such plant,
1848
machinery and steelwork which the Bill excludes. The construction of buildings on the same site would be covered by the Bill.
We are excluding process plant from the legislation because it does not suffer on anything like the same scale from the problems which Sir Michael Latham identified in building and civil engineering. In the process engineering sector, clients, contractors and suppliers have proved themselves capable of finding voluntary solutions to their difficulties. The Process Industry Latham Group has warmly welcomed the intention of this part of Clause 102 and is satisfied that we have covered all the industries where process plant should be excluded from the Bill.
There is little doubt, however, that water and effluent treatment, much food and drink production, and the on-shore extraction of oil and gas are part of a well-understood process engineering sector. I re-emphasise that the exemption here would apply only to work on plant, machinery or steelwork, and not to site work or building. So much of the construction sector's interest in process engineering would be covered by the new provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why on-shore drilling and off-shore drilling should be different. They are both engineering operations and not construction operations. We must remember that the whole purpose of the Bill is to deal with the construction industry. Therefore, I do not see that there is any difference between the operations, whether they are on-shore or off-shore, if they are engineering operations. If neither is a construction operation, it is right that both should be excluded.
The noble Lord then referred to Clause 102(2)(c) which includes the word "construction". He wishes to exclude the word "primary". The following operations are not construction operations within the meaning of the Bill:
"construction, installation or demolition of plant, machinery or steelwork on a site where the primary activity is nuclear processing, power generation, or water or effluent treatment",
Therefore, we return to the point that those engineering industries have shown themselves quite capable of resolving their problems. The difficulty arises within what one might call loosely the building industry. In that industry, there is a long chain of different organisations. One starts with the person who is the main contractor and the work is then passed down the chain. The chaps at the end may get left out as, indeed, may some of those in the middle. But we are trying to direct our attention to that situation. Large civil engineering projects do not have that problem which is why we have decided to exclude them.
Amendment No. 134 is designed to include in the Bill warehousing and supermarkets but not bulk storage such as oil tanks which are part of an oil refinery. Our previous clause would have excluded buildings used for storage such as food and drink warehouses. Therefore, we have tried to recognise the difficulties which may occur.
Amendment No. 134 would restrict the exemption relating to storage sites so that any bulk storage is exempted. By that I mean things which are not held in

1849
separate packages or bottles such as may be found in supermarkets. That will bring warehousing fully within the scope of the provisions of the Bill and will go some way towards satisfying the intention behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or at least I hope that that will be so.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to return briefly to the question of process engineering. The Minister will be aware that quite frequently, where an oil refinery is alongside the coast, the tankers come along to a jetty made of tiling and with a structural steel superstructure. On top of the jetty there is equipment that transfers the oil from the tanker into pipes and hence into the nearby refinery.
Process engineers would regard the refinery and the pipes and machinery as their business. But, from my conversations with the Institution of Chemical Engineers, I find that chemical engineers would regard the jetty itself as a part of civil engineering construction; and so it is. I designed several in the old days and as far as I know they are still standing.
The jetty which supports the plant is exactly analogous with the oil refinery foundations I mentioned earlier. If the process engineers are perfectly happy—and they tell me they are—to exclude the civil engineering component of the jetty, I cannot see why they demur when it comes to consideration of the civil engineering element in the foundation.
Earl Ferrers: I am on dodgy ground—I use common parlance—in dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who has constructed jetties. I am delighted to hear that they still exist. He has a natural understanding of the matter. As I understand the position, if the construction was taking place off-shore, that is part of a civil engineering process and would not be covered by the Bill. Of course, the construction of the jetty would be covered because I think I am right in saying that that is regarded as a construction. But, in this case, the jetty has been built and therefore you are referring to the pipework which is supported by the jetty.
I shall take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said and consider it in full. Obviously, he has a great deal of knowledge. We do not wish to impose a lot of regulation on a part of the industry which has shown over time that it can manage its affairs quite well. We wish to contain the regulation to one part of the building industry. There will inevitably be overlaps but we must try to make sure that as far as possible the overlaps are kept to a minimum. I shall certainly consider the points which the noble Lord raised.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: I thank the Minister for agreeing to look again at these matters. Following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I believe that it may be convenient for us to consider Amendment No. 131. Steelwork can cover a multitude of sins. A jetty may be made of steel or concrete; it could have pipes on it which are also made of steel; the cables which go down to the jetty may also be made of steel;
1850
and there may be steel fenders. Moreover, it may or may not be in the sea. Supermarkets are quite often built with steelwork. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could look again at the definition without, as he said, going into too much detail.
Earl Ferrers: I shall be happy to look again at the matter. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be under a slight misapprehension. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the clause refers to anything which deals with,
"nuclear processing [or] power generation".
That is where the steelwork comes in—only when referring to nuclear processing, power generation,
"or water or effluent treatment".
Of course it comes in elsewhere; for example, in building. Where it does so, it will be covered by the Bill. But where it is involved in nuclear power stations it is excluded.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister puts his finger on the nub of the problem. He says that the exclusion refers to the nuclear processing or the power generation, which I believe we would accept. The difficulty is that the wording of the Bill refers to a site where such activity is taking place. It does not refer to the nuclear generation or the power generation; it talks about a site where such work goes on. Therefore, the wording of the Bill actually widens the sphere of exclusion rather than narrowing it.
By the use of those words, the Minister has highlighted a difficulty which presents itself to us. I accept that the noble Earl recognises the strength of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Perhaps the odd remarks that I have just made will help to clarify and highlight the difficulties with which we are faced.
Viscount Ullswater: I have a point to make before my noble friend the Minister replies. I am led to believe by the conversations I have had with the Institution of Chemical Engineers that the word "steelwork" can indeed involve the bulk storage of food and drink in the food processing industry. Therefore, it is not just the steelwork which might be the frame of a building; indeed, it is actually steelwork which is used within the manufacture of those bulk vessels. We should also understand that that can be construed in the word "steelwork".
Lord Monkswell: I believe that we are entering into a most important area. We can think in terms of steelwork forming the frame of a building and that providing a support structure for the process plant within it, or one can think in terms of the steelwork which does not form the frame of a building but which is part of the process plant itself. The difficulty is where to draw the line. It is not clear from the way that the Bill is currently worded where the line that I suspect the Government and the rest of us would agree on should be drawn.
Earl Ferrers: I have tried to make it as clear as I can. If I may say so, I believe that we are talking about two totally different concepts. The noble Lord,

1851
Lord Monkswell, referred to construction, and so on, in paragraph (c) and the installation, demolition and steelwork on a nuclear site. That is excluded. A nuclear site, and whatever goes on there, is excluded from the legislation because it is a specialised area and those concerned have not found trouble in that respect.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is frowning. However, I am trying to say that much of the process engineering activity like building reservoirs and large nuclear stations, and so on, is not supposed to be covered by the Bill. It has operated perfectly well and the participants in that industry do not want this to operate. However, the participants in the construction industry do want it because they do not get paid properly.
Therefore, with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and his nuclear site, as I said, that is excluded. As regards my noble friend Lord Ullswater and his vats, they are excluded by virtue of the amendment that I am now proposing to the Committee. It would exclude from the provisions of the Bill large warehouses for vats and so on—for example, vats of, say, olive oil, if one can have such things. However, it would not exclude Sainsbury's and Tesco which have what one might describe as warehouses containing bottles of olive oil. It is the large warehouses which will be excluded but the supermarkets, inasmuch as they may be considered to be warehouses, would not be excluded.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to press the Minister, but I believe it would be useful to try to clarify the matter. The noble Earl referred to a nuclear site and said that there were no problems. The industry was quite happy with the way things operate. However, when the Minister refers to a "nuclear site", I wonder whether he means the nuclear vessels and the process pipework that goes into such a site. Alternatively, is he including the whole site which may include the perimeter wall or fence or the gatehouse at the entrance to the site which are obviously just normal construction activities, if I may put it that way? Where is the border line? That is the difficulty.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that I now understand the noble Lord's concern rather more than I did before. I should like to consider the points that he made and write to him. My understanding is that if you are demolishing a whole nuclear site, the whole lot would be excluded and that if you are building a whole new nuclear site, including a gate and a manager's house, then that would also be excluded. However, if you had a site that was already constructed and you wanted to give the manager a jazzed up house and you built it on that site, I believe that the building would be included within the Bill. I believe that we have taken the matter as far as we can at present. I shall certainly consider the points that have been raised and, indeed, will write to the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Howie, specifically.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have no wish to persecute the Minister or, indeed, to prolong the debate much further. However, I am intrigued by the references to nuclear power stations. I fear that I must again draw
1852
on my own personal experience. I was one of the designers of the pre-stressed concrete pressure vessel for Wylfa nuclear power station which was constructed by Taylor Woodrow, a very well-known civil engineering company, not a process engineering company or anything of that sort. The pressure vessel was constructed by civil engineers, not by process engineers. It was designed by them and built under the standard conditions of contract of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I forget which edition it was; it was probably the second or the third. It was quite a while ago. The exclusion of nuclear activities from construction seems to me odd at best, possibly even perverse.
Earl Ferrers: One of the advantages of such a Committee stage is that it draws out of noble Lords the most astonishing abilities. I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, had ever been able to design a pre-stressed concrete pressure vessel. If my mind wafted away while the noble Lord was speaking, it was because I tried to get that linguistic knot right; namely, that it was a pre-stressed concrete pressure vessel.
Lord Howie of Troon: I did not do it all!
Earl Ferrers: Now the noble Lord spoils it. I thought that he had done it all on his own. In any event, he is a very clever fellow to have done even a little of it, even if he just put the lid on.
I have no doubt that that work was carried out successfully, with no trouble and no hassle, as they say. I do not think the noble Lord would have liked all the fandango in this Bill to have applied to that pressure vessel which he was trying to construct. We are not trying to aim the Bill at things like that; we are trying to aim it at the construction industry, where they have had the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, did not have in the case to which he referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This has been a long debate and no doubt there will be other long debates on this matter. As the Minister now appreciates, the drafting of Clause 102, and in particular of subsection (2), gives rise to all sorts of complexities. In particular, I am not entirely happy with the Minister's response with regard to my point about "off-shore" versus "on-shore" but we will certainly consider it.
My noble friend Lord Monkswell drew out the point about "primary activity" versus "sole activity". Indeed, that is the point that was at issue when we were discussing whether something was properly described as a nuclear power station or as what the Minister referred to as a jazzed-up house for a manager. I am advised that the word "primary" in Clause 102(2)(c) will give rise to great dispute and earn a lot of fees for lawyers.
With regard to warehousing, I am happy to accept the noble Earl's amendment, which goes a long way towards satisfying what we were aiming at and would deal with Amendment No. 135 as well.
I have no doubt that when we deal with Amendment No. 139 to be moved by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon there will be further discussions on this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

1853
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 59, line 2, leave out ("or construction of underground works").
The noble Lord said: This amendment covers a slightly different point but is also concerned with exclusions under subsection (2) of Clause 102. We have taken advice on this and it seems to us that construction of underground works is properly a matter for the construction industry and is performed by what would normally be called construction companies even though the works may be underground. For that reason, I would have thought that construction of underground works should be within the ambit of the Bill. I need say no more at this stage because I am sure the Minister understands what I am getting at, but I should be grateful for this amendment to be given proper consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps I could intervene on this point, having had quite a lot of experience of underground works in my time. Something which slightly worried me when we were dealing with the previous block of amendments was that contracts let by the National Coal Board for major projects were clearly divided between civil work, electrical work, mechanical work and mining work, and it is difficult therefore to accept the concept that some of these major projects should exclude one or other of these activities. With regard to the specific amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has moved, it is clearly in my recollection that this type of work was carried out by civil engineering contractors.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was in charge of the National Coal Board, the board decided to build six coal-mines in Britain in the 1950s. It turned out that there was no one in Britain who had ever designed or constructed a coal-mine at that time. The board therefore appointed six civil consulting engineers to design and construct certain parts of these coal-mines. There were obviously surface works, railways works and road works. In addition, the consulting civil engineers designed the mine shafts. Mining engineers designed the horizontal works—roads and so on—which were the mine proper, but the vertical shafts, which were very deep—2,300 feet in one case, I remember—were construction works and were bored, dug, excavated and lined by civil engineering contractors. Therefore there was a strong element of underground work connected with the coal industry—in the days when we had one—which was construction work and which should be included in this Bill rather than excluded. I support this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I share a common approach to these matters. This part of the Bill and his amendment seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable and I asked similar questions to those which the noble Lord has asked me. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, told us of his extensive experience at the National Coal Board and what happened there. I was
1854
surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, knew about coal-mining. I expect he will tell us before long that he designed and constructed a coal-mine, too!
Lord Howie of Troon: I was too modest to make that claim.
Earl Ferrers: Modesty has always been one of the features of the noble Lord. Clause 102(2)(b) excludes the extraction of minerals, tunnelling or boring, or construction of underground works for that purpose. That excludes from the provisions of the Bill coal-mining operations and so forth. "Underground works" would not apply to projects similar to the Jubilee Line extension, because that is not excluded, but minerals and coal are excluded.
Lord Howie of Troon: There is no point in the Minister's merely repeating what is said in the Bill. We are trying to persuade him, as elegantly as we can, that the Bill is mistaken on this point. The point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and myself is that a coal-mine is undoubtedly for the extraction of minerals but, in order to construct a coal-mine, certain operations are required which are undoubtedly construction operations because they are carried out by civil consulting engineers and civil contracting companies. Therefore, to exclude them, whatever is said in the Bill, is merely mistaken.
Lord Berkeley: I am not sure that the fact that the works are undertaken by consulting engineers or anybody else is particularly important to the argument, but I certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has said. I should like to refer to something I mentioned in the Second Reading debate on this Bill. In the construction of a motorway, if an area of gravel has to be removed before an embankment is put on top, because that gravel is used for a purpose such as mixing concrete, it is technically classed as a mineral. If this exclusion stands, I assume this particular operation would 'be excluded from the Bill, which seems rather odd.
I also believe—although I stand to be corrected—that much of the excavation from the Channel Tunnel was mineral by definition because it was deposited in the sea and Eurotunnel had to get a licence from the Crown Estates to deposit it. I believe it had to pay something like £1 per cubic metre for the pleasure of leaving it where it should be—in the sea. I am not suggesting that the Channel Tunnel should have been excluded from this measure but, as regards minerals and motorways, this question will arise again and again. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to look at this again.
Earl Ferrers: As I said when we first started to discuss this clause, it is complicated and there are bound to be cases that we need to consider. I am happy to consider this. What I had not realised was that both the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Ezra, were—according to the noble Lord, Lord Howie—wanting to impose upon the mining industry the provisions in this Bill which relate to the building industry. I was surprised when the noble Lord said that because I thought that they did not want that. Indeed, those involved in the majority of these large engineering processes do not want this part of the Bill

1855
applied to them. I shall give way to the noble Lord in half a minute. If the noble Lord thinks that they do want this measure, I shall certainly consider the matter. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, if one is dealing with mineral extraction, that is excluded from the Bill. If one is using the products of extraction, that is not excluded from the Bill if they are used for the purposes which the Bill seeks to cover.
Lord Berkeley: Without wishing to detain the Committee too long, would that mean that if the gravel extracted from under a motorway was sold to someone else it would be excluded from the provision but if it was used for the contract itself it would be included? That is another question.
Earl Ferrers: This is a fascinating series of questions. If I may, I shall take advice on that matter because we are getting into detail here. I would say, without giving any guarantee that I am right, that I should not have thought that if one is removing a piece of gravel from a roadway, that is regarded as mineral extraction. I should have thought it was a normal building process of removing that which was there. That is rather different to digging into a gravel pit. However, I shall consider this matter.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not wish to impose anything of any sort on the Coal Board, or on almost anyone else come to that. I would merely remind the Minister that when the six coal-mines were constructed—I do not think one builds them; they are constructed in some way—the Coal Board was perfectly happy that they should be constructed under the normal conditions of contract which prevail in the construction industry. I am sure that if it was happy then, the Coal Board would still be happy now.
Earl Ferrers: At last the noble Lord and I are at one. He says that the organisation does not want this provision. We do not want this imposed on it, or upon any organisation if it provides its own contracts. In the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and the Coal Board, it made the arrangements and its own contracts and was quite happy. That is fine; that is exactly what we want. We only want this measure to apply in certain parts of the building industry where people have not made such provisions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure that the noble Earl has understood that this is a matter of considerable controversy. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made his contribution, my noble friend Lord Howie has made his contribution and my noble friend Lord Berkeley has made his contribution. The whole question of what is extraction of minerals and what is construction of underground works for that purpose needs to be looked at again. I hope very much that the noble Earl will look at it again. The noble Earl and I agree that we are at the moment probing the meaning of what the Government are putting forward. I believe that the meaning of paragraph (b) is, to put it at its best, far from clear. It seems to me that my amendment is something that
1856
the Government really should take fairly seriously. However, I do not wish to prolong the debate because we shall come to a further debate on this whole question of Clause 102. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 133 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 59, line 8, leave out ("storage") and insert ("bulk storage (other than warehousing)").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with an earlier grouping of amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 59, line 12, at end insert ("unless undertaken by the contractor").
The noble Lord said: I am advised—again I have to rely on advice—that there are many occasions on which the delivery of manufactured building or engineering components is carried out by the contractor. It therefore would seem there is a difficult dividing line between what is manufacture—which clearly is not construction—and what is construction. Again we are in a grey area. As I say, I can only take the advice that I have been given that there are many occasions on which contractors get involved also in the manufacture of small components. This paragraph (d) is unsatisfactory as it stands. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord refers in this amendment to a number of quite difficult matters. I believe that one of them would include the elements of the so-called "supply and fit" contracts and whether they would be incorporated in part of this legislation. We are sympathetic to the position of contractors who supply things and who then fit them. However, there are difficult problems in this area. I am bound to tell the Committee that it has been far from straightforward to produce a definition of the construction industry for the purposes of this Bill because it involves so many facets. Many different operations go to make a finished building and not all can be regarded as construction activities. Some, such as painting or welding, for example, are just as much part of other industries. What we have to try to avoid is drawing in work in areas which have nothing to do with construction.
What we want to do is to exclude manufacturing as such. The person who makes a hopper or a conveyor belt manufacturers those products. He ought not to be included in this Bill. Contracts solely for the sale and supply of goods are already subject to very different contractual arrangements and are covered by well-established legislation. I hope that few would argue that, where 95 per cent. of the value of a contract was in the manufacture and supply of a product, with just 5 per cent. in its instalment, it

1857
would be right to consider this as a construction contract. But the difficulty is where one draws the line. In extending these construction provisions to supply and fit contracts, we would start to cover a great deal of manufacturing activity.
Many specialist contractors are unmoved by such considerations, but there is one point that they might well consider. At the moment they are being paid to supply and fit items such as windows, boilers and air ducts, but what if we changed tack to include manufacturing and supply? If these elements were drawn in by the work of instalment, it seems likely that unscrupulous contractors would try to split them apart. They could buy the product from one firm and then get another to come and fit it. Such avoidance would be easy. I do not believe that that would do much good to anyone.
If a contractor was not using the manufacturer to install a piece of kit on site, with all the obvious advantages which this entails, there would be little incentive for him to look locally for its manufacture. He could fax his specifications abroad and just use the man down the road to fit the final product in place. I believe that that would be a recipe for import penetration.
I would hope that we would be able to use a degree of understanding about this. These matters are inevitably grey areas. We do not want to draw into them unnecessarily those who should not be drawn in.
5 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: We covered some of this issue on the Second Reading debate. I support the amendment. I give the example of a precast concrete beam on a building or a bridge. At present, the manufacturer of that beam is included in the provisions of the Bill if it is manufactured on the site and excluded if it is manufactured off the site. It is more efficient on most occasions to make these components off the site. The contractor may well choose to do it himself; he may well choose to buy it in. To some extent even Amendment No. 136 does not quite cover this point.
Perhaps I may put forward another idea: to exclude from the terms of the Bill the manufacturer of equipment which is not specific to the contract under discussion. If it is specific to the contract, I believe that it should be included.
Lord Howie of Troon: Perhaps I may help the Minister. These are complicated matters. We seek to clarify them for the noble Earl in the hope that the Bill will eventually be understood by the remainder of us. We are not doing too well so far.
Perhaps I may refer to the Waterloo International terminal—Waterloo Railway Station, as I prefer to call it; it is not too far away. Let us for a moment call it a piece of architecture and get away from construction, and so on. The train shed is steel, made in a factory somewhere, brought on to the site and assembled. The architect was Nicholas Grimshaw and the engineer was Tony Hunt. That component seems to be excluded from the Bill. However, the undercroft to that station—it is
1858
very large—is mainly massed concrete designed by Alexander Gibb. I cannot remember the contractor although he is important. That part of the railway station would be included in the Bill.
On the other hand, certain elements in the undercroft are precast concrete pieces. My noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned earlier that those would be manufactured somewhere and brought on to the site. We have a needless complication. We have reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete—elements which are brought on to the site and excluded from the Bill. We have structural steel elements, and glass, which are brought on to the site and excluded from the Bill. But a large part of that structure is included in the Bill.
I know that the Minister will reply that the client can come to any contractual arrangements that he likes. That is quite correct. But this series of exclusions complicates matters quite needlessly. It would be much more sensible if the station, or any similar construction, were to be regarded purely as a piece of architecture, and dealt with in one contractual package.
This would greatly simplify the worries that I see the Minister has. His brow has been furrowed for two hours now; and I dare say that it will be furrowed further. However, I hope that he agrees with the amendment that we put forward as mildly and patiently as we cans.
Lord Berkeley: As regards Waterloo Station, on page 59 of the Bill line 21 excludes security systems. Those are a massive part of Waterloo Station. I believe that security systems and the like are one of the biggest causes of delay in construction. I am worried to see such things excluded from such a contract.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry if I gave the appearance to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that my brow was furrowed. Whenever he speaks the furrows go. It is a moment of charm and happiness when I hear the noble Lord speak. He is now a great authority on Waterloo Station. Perhaps we shall find that he designed the hinges for the front door.
We seek to achieve a simple aim: to make sure that the payments of the construction industry are correctly applied. That is what the Bill is about. We then discuss these vast, grandiose schemes such as mining, nuclear constructions, Waterloo, and so forth, and those muddy what we seek to do in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that if you build a concrete component on the site you are covered by the Bill; and if you build it off the site, you are not covered. He is quite right. There is good reason for that. One does not want to cover people who manufacture things—air ducts, ventilators, or, for instance, bricks or concrete boxes. Those are brought on to the site. We want to cover only those who would deal on the site.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that the steel work, glass and concrete lumps (if lumps were brought on) in Waterloo Station were constructed elsewhere and would not be covered by the Bill. That is perfectly true, because they were constructed perhaps 100 miles away. What matters is what occurs on the site.

1859
I shall look at the points made by the noble Lords. This is not a simple area. I have never conceded that it is. But we have to be careful that we do not spread the Bill far too wide. We must allow those people who manufacture to do so in the way that they can. When the item comes on to the site, if the manufacturer's job is to fix a thing down, that should be part of the manufacturing, and does not come into the construction part. It is merely the fitting in of a part manufactured elsewhere.
I doubt whether I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I sometimes do not find him too easy to persuade when he has an idea. But I shall consider what he said to see if we can go further.
Lord Swinfen: Can my noble friend tell me whether it makes a difference if the component is manufactured by the contractor or by someone else? A reinforced concrete beam could be manufactured either on site by the contractor or in the contractor's own workshops several miles away and brought to the site. The manufacturer and contractor at that point are the same person. That may not be so as regards other components.
Earl Ferrers: I think that I am right to say—I shall need to consider it—that where a piece of material is manufactured by someone else and brought into the site, that is not covered by the Bill. But I would think that the situation where a person who is a party to the contract manufactures his own component and brings it on to the site was covered. However, that is a point of complexity. I should like to take advice on it before I give a totally reassuring reply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With great respect to the noble Earl, I do not think that that situation is covered in the Bill as drafted. It would be covered by the amendment that I propose. If the noble Earl accepts the amendment that I propose, or some equivalent wording, I am happy to rely on the Minister to produce appropriate wording. If what the noble Earl has just announced is his intention, I hope that he will accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: When one is presented with a curious position at a moment's notice, as it were, it is not always easy to give the right answer. I should like to consider the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, would consider it if he were in my position. If I give a wrong answer, he jumps down my throat. If I say that I wish to give a right answer he jumps down my throat for saying that too. I shall consider the matter and give a correct answer if I have given an incorrect answer. I hope that I have not done so, but I may have done.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure the Committee will be very interested in the correct answer when it finally comes out. I am convinced that if the noble Earl accepted the arguments, which he seemed to be accepting, towards the end of the remarks of his noble friend Lord Swinfen and of my noble friends Lord Howie and Lord Berkeley, my amendment would stand as it is.
1860
Nevertheless, the noble Earl will no doubt give me and the Committee the correct answer in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 59, leave out lines 18 to 22.
The noble Lord said: A few moments ago my noble friend Lord Berkeley raised the question of the installation of security systems, including burglar alarms. I raise the question of,
"signwriting and erecting, installing and repairing signboards and advertisements…the installation of seating, blinds and shutters…the installation of security systems, including burglar alarms, closed circuit television and public address systems",
all of which seem to us to be construction activities carried out by construction companies. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government have excluded these activities by means of paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) in the Bill. I am advised by people who know much better than I do that all are activities which should be within the ambit of the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I am attracted to the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Until I have heard what my noble friend might have to say to convince me, I cannot see that these particular operations should be excluded from "construction operations". I tried to make clear in my previous remarks the difference in respect of, as it were, the process industry in the building and civil engineering industries, which is respected in the Bill; and Clause 102(2) attempts to achieve that balance. We have had long discussions as to whether it succeeds. I am not persuaded at present that the exclusions in paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) have any connection at all to the sort of balance to which I referred.
I mentioned the definition of the Bill given by the Latham Review Working Group 10. These forms of operations fall within the definition of construction operations under that definition. I know that we are not importing that definition, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will seek to persuade the Committee that that is what we should be doing. Having said that the working group accepts these items as being part of construction operations, I hope that my noble friend will at least consider this amendment. I believe it to be quite proper.
Earl Ferrers: As I have explained on more than one occasion, this has not been an easy Bill to draft. This particular clause has not been easy, because it would either include too many people or exclude those who should be included. We have put this Bill forward as our considered thoughts as to the way ahead. Being a good, listening, caring Government, we listened to what people said to us before the Bill took shape and to what has been said during its passage. I have already proposed Amendment No. 134, which the Committee was good enough to accept, to make sure that work on warehousing is fully covered. It may well be that some of the exclusions that were appropriate when we originally drew up the list might not he appropriate when it comes to dealing with contractual relationships.

1861
I am still far from convinced that the work of signwriters and signboard specialists should be included in these provisions. But as to the installation of seating, blinds and shutters, and also of security systems, sufficient doubts have been raised. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, laughed when I said that we were a listening, caring Government. The noble Lord made a speech, I listened to it and I am prepared to consider it. I will consider these matters: they are important, and we are not convinced that we have got them right. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I will certainly see that they are considered, I hope before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl, who has now changed from being King Lear to being a listening, caring government Minister. We are very grateful for that. I very much hope that he will listen not only to my arguments but to those of his noble friend Lord Ullswater. Coming, as they do, from his own Benches, they may be equally persuasive as the arguments coming from this Dispatch Box. They make sense.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord should not try to drive the screw in too far. Of course I listened to my noble friend with deep interest.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall drive in any screw or knife that I have as far as I wish. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 59, line 34, at end insert—
("() Any order made under subsection (4) is subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment responds to a concern expressed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House. The committee called attention to the Secretary of State's powers to amend the primary legislation under Clause 102 simply by negative procedure.
It is our belief, a belief reinforced by discussions we have had, that because these definitions lead us into all sorts of grey areas, if the Government (any government) wish to change the definitions and exclusions in Clause 102 it should be for them to come forward and make a case before both Houses of Parliament. It is not enough simply to have a negative resolution amending primary legislation in an important matter such as this.
The Committee will he aware of the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I do not wish to elaborate on that. It will be aware of the large print in that report drawing attention to this point. I believe that the committee is right, and that the amendment I have tabled would satisfy those concerns. I hope it satisfies the Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: We must make sure that contract legislation can move in step with the way industry goes. It has to take account of new developments.
1862
Most of the changes that we are likely to make will be very small and detailed. However, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The modification of primary legislation is something that we should take very seriously indeed. The noble Lord made a good case for suggesting that this provision should be subject to affirmative resolution. I am not sure that his wording is quite right. However, if he will withdraw his amendment at this stage, I will see that an appropriate amendment is brought forward at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 139:
Leave out Clause 102 and insert the following new Clause—
MEANING OF "CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS"
(".—(1) For this Part "construction operations" means, subject to subsection (2), operations of any of the following descriptions—

(a) construction, conversion, alterations, repair, extension, fitting out, maintenance, restoration, demolition or dismantling of buildings or structures or works above or below ground, including certain off-shore installations (whether permanent or not);

(b) preparation for intended buildings or structures, including but not limited to site clearance, earth moving, exploration, investigation and excavation, tunnelling and boring, erection of scaffolding, site restoration, dredging, landscaping provisions of roadways and other access works, and laying or installing the foundations of buildings, structures or other works, including the provision of temporary services;

(c) construction, alteration, conversion, extension, demolition or dismantling of any works forming, or to form, part of the land, including walls, roadworks, power lines, telecommunications operations, aircraft runways, docks and harbours, bridges, tunnels, railways, inland waterways, pipelines, drains and reservoirs, water mains, wells, sewers, process plant, industrial plant and installations for the purpose of land drainage, flood control, coastal protection and defence and including light houses, whether on-shore or off-shore;

(d) installation, conversion, alteration, repair, extension, restoration, demolition, dismantling or maintenance in or on any building or structure, or works of systems or components of systems, including but not limited to control systems, heating, lighting, air, hydraulics, drainage, sanitation, water supply and distribution, fire protection and alarms, security systems, intruder alarms, closed circuit television, public address systems, lifts, escalators and elevators;

(e) painting or decorating, repair, redecorating, cleaning and other maintenance or finishing including water proofing or application of internal or external finishes.

(2) The following operations are not construction operations within the meaning of this Part—

(a) off-shore drilling for, or extraction of, oil or natural gas;

(b) extraction (whether by underground or surface working) of minerals except insofar as this is borrow pit working for spoil for construction works;

(c) making and repair of artistic works being sculpture, murals and other works which are wholly artistic in nature.

(3) References in this Part to construction operations shall be taken as including—

(a) the work of individuals participating in the carrying out of such operations, and

1863

(b) the professional work of all consultants in relation to such operations, including but not limited to the management of such operations, and the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, specifications, reports, feasibility studies and surveys.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument add to, amend or repeal any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2) or (3) above, as to the operations and work to be treated as construction operations for the purposes of this Part and any such order shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This very large amendment seeks to leave out Clause 102 and insert a new and better clause.
I have followed the general shape of the clause as drafted in the Bill, but I have changed the contents to some extent, largely by transferring some of the present exclusions in subsection (2) of the existing clause to the inclusions subsection. I did so having taken the advice of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Contractors Liaison Group, the Construction Industry Council, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors—which agreed with me, but had slight, modest reservations—and sundry other bodies that I shall not list.
None of the people to whom I have spoken in the past week or so believe that the clause is satisfactory as it stands. As I said earlier, I have not excluded the process construction engineers; I have an open mind about them and I listened carefully to the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in that regard. I wanted the Minister to put on record his reasons for excluding them and he has done so, so I shall not repeat them now.
As I understand it, from my recollection of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said at Second Reading, Clause 102 is based on a definition in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I looked at the Act and found it to be enormous, but I am glad to say that the clause itself is only small. The Latham Review Working Group 10 also looked at that definition and came up with a definition broadly based on it, but rather more inclusive than the Government's definition. It is interesting that the WG10 definition is much nearer to mine than it is to the Government's—that is because I largely based it on WG10's work with modifications which were brought to me from elsewhere.
There are many projects which involve large numbers of contracts and subcontracts. It is right to legislate for payments, methods of adjudication and so forth. Where there are a large number of contracts and subcontracts it makes sense that they are all based on the same presumptions and general rules. The exclusions therefore should be kept to a minimum. The Committee will see from my amendment that I have reduced them as far as I reasonably could.
I do not intend to go through this large amendment in any detail. However, under paragraph (a) I included offshore installations, which the Government did not include. By that I mean constructions such as lighthouses, breakwaters and the kind of jetties that I mentioned earlier, none of which are mentioned in the Bill and all of which are important.
As the Committee goes through the amendment it will be apparent that I tried to identify as many obvious operations as I could. I know that there is a danger of
1864
including too much and causing lawyers a certain amount of joy. But the Government included a fair number and I have merely added a few more. At this stage I want to make just two points. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will be pleased to note that in subsection (2)(b) I amended the part concerning extraction to say,
"except insofar as this is borrow pit working".
The noble Lord's point is a good one and I am sure that the Government will take it on board.
The last minor point I want to make is this. I notice with a little surprise that the Bill, in subsection (3)(b), speaks of,
"the professional work of—

(i) architects or surveyors, or

(ii) consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape".

That was taken from the income tax Act I mentioned earlier. But, oddly enough, in that Act those groups of professionals are not split into two—there is no reason why they should he because they are all doing construction work. I covered that in a rather different way in subsection (3)(b) of my amendment.
I do not want to take up any more time on this because the major points of the new clause were discussed and debated in the amendments we have been considering for the past hour or so. It is a much simpler matter than the Government seem to think. They could have solved a lot of their problems if they had taken up the sixth edition of the Institution of Civil Engineers' standard conditions of contract or perhaps the new engineering contract on which Sir Michael Latham was quite keen and which he used as a basis.
I hope that the Minister realises that Amendment No. 139 is intended to assist him and to clarify what he must by now see is a clause in his Bill which produced a certain amount of confusion and misunderstanding, not only here, but also outside in the industry. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is a comprehensive definition of construction operations which is much closer to the definition of the Latham Review Working Group 10 definition that I mentioned earlier. I recognise the problem of trying to include some contracts and exclude others from the provisions of the Bill. It is the later provisions of the Bill that are helpful to the industry and, though we are having long discussions about what contractual operations mean, it is the later provisions that are of benefit.
The noble Lord's definition will affect every construction site, as he indicated, whether it is a building site, a civil engineering site or even a process engineering site. It would make all the construction operations on that site subject to the provisions of the Bill. I know that that is what the noble Lord intends because that is what he says, in a rather provocative way, because he wants to be persuaded that the process engineering industries have a title to be excluded. As I indicated, that may lead to severe problems within the industry.

1865
I am content therefore to see the definition remain as it stands in the Bill, with some of the amendments that we have been discussing for the past hour or so. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, indicates that he wants the minimum of exclusions and indicated some of those in his amendment. I should like to mention one exclusion which has not been mentioned in an amendment but I feel that I should raise it at this stage. I wonder whether there should be some de minimis exclusions for relatively small contracts. I mentioned that point to my noble friend when I had a meeting with him. Are we expecting the repair to a broken window in some commercial property which has been requested in writing to be subject to all the provisions of the Bill? I believe that there should be a limit of perhaps £25,000 on any one contract so that the Bill is seen to apply more particularly to the larger contracts instead of bogging down small business in a whole series of red tape.
The reason I make that suggestion is because I believe there is a precedent for it. That comes into the construction, design and maintenance regulations of 1994 which I understand are health and safety regulations and therefore not similar to the de minimis provision I have in mind. However, it excludes small sites from those regulations where the number of workers is less than five. There is therefore a good precedent for that and perhaps my noble friend can say something about it at this stage.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, perhaps I can put forward a different viewpoint for consideration. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, suggested that there is a need to exclude certain aspects from the operation of the Bill because they are not wanted by those specific industries—mining, the process plant industry and small contracts. I wonder whether that is because of a misconception of what the Bill is about.
I may have misconstrued it altogether but it seems to me that the Bill seeks to ensure that where we have a contractual morass within the construction industry there is a fall-back position to protect everyone in the industry from the previous regime of litigation concerning contracts that have not been fulfilled adequately and endless arbitration and disputes procedures. It is a fall-back position to protect the people operating within the industry rather than an imposition of some new series of regulations, red tape and other paraphernalia. If one looks at it in that light, the arguments from the processing industry, the mining industry and the small contractor effectively fall away.
I am concerned that, because of the way the Government seem to have drawn the exclusions so far, we could end up with the core of the construction industry being covered by the Bill and the periphery that affects the construction industry being covered by other legislation such as the Sale of Goods Act, but there could be a grey area between the core and the periphery that would not be covered either by the Bill or by the Sale of Goods Act. That could develop into a morass of its own and interested parties would no doubt feel that
1866
they could get an advantage by operating within that grey area. It may be that my interpretation of what the Bill sets out to do is completely erroneous, but my view may also have some merit and therefore should colour the way the Government and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, consider the issue.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Perhaps I may follow on from some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Since the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and I started in the industry the enormous change has been the increase in subcontracting—and not just one but several different layers. As the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said, it is often the small people at the end of the chain who will suffer. I therefore believe that having a lower limit would be counterproductive. This should be seen as a simplification and a benefit for them and I am sure they all welcome it, as do many of the of the organisations listed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie.
One item may be missing from the noble Lord's otherwise excellent definition. I go back to our supply of precast concrete beams and whether or not they are special. If the Minister looks with favour on the amendment, perhaps that part could be looked at again.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pursue a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and to ask for the Government's thinking on it. I refer to professionals. Normally there is a distinction between the supply of goods and the supply of services. I should be interested to know a little of the Government's thinking in revising that to the extent that they have in Clause 102.
Another question has been put to me. I do not share this concern but if others do it is a concern that should be addressed. The question is about whether certain further exclusions ought to be made. I do not read them as being included within the Bill but the contracts that have been mentioned to me are contracts such as insurance and guarantee, including the provision of bonds, the financing of construction operations and joint venture agreements. Can the Government confirm that arrangements of that type are not covered?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Howie, has given us a fairly complex amendment to deal with. He was kind enough to say that he put down the amendment so that I could give my reasons for what we have put down and that as I had already done so I need not do so again. That delightfully gets me off that hook and I am grateful to him for that.
Many people complained that the clause is too long. However, the noble Lord's amendment is even longer. I can only say that if the noble Lord constructs a building like he constructs a clause it must be a very decorative and interesting building at which we would all have to look, even though it may not necessarily be one of artistic merit. I shall consider the merits, artistic or otherwise, of his amendment.

1867
We have had the advantage of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I did not realise that he is such an expert on these matters. I understand that among other great attributes that he has he is a jobbing electrician and that he has even done work in your Lordships' House. It was very brave of the works directorate to give such a desperately important job of work to the noble Lord; that probably explains why the lights in my room always go "phut"!
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may explain to the noble Earl that I had no involvement in making any connections with regard to the electrical work, so any faults he may find are not down to me. I would also advise him that I had a period in the construction industry some 30 years ago, and it advises me even today. I also have contacts within the construction industry even now.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply relieved to know that the noble Lord did not have any responsibility for connecting electricity in the House. Obviously when my lights went "phut" it was only the bulb and not due to the misapplication of any sophisticated technique.
The amendment tries to provide a more comprehensive definition of the construction industry not only by adding in certain areas of work which we believe should not be there but also by going over some fairly undisputed ground in much greater detail. I think that very often less is more. In other words, it is better to have less than to have more. The amendment is designed to define the construction industry in respect of a different issue in that the noble Lord uses the working group 10 definition. That was based on a totally different issue; namely, the liability for latent defects, which was also commented upon in the Latham review. It specifically included the suppliers of components, which we have already discussed. The working group definition may serve well for the purpose the working group had in mind but I do not think it is satisfactory for our purposes.
I do not think it is necessary, for example, to add "conversion" and "restoration" to the list of activities in subsection (1)(a). Those are already covered by "alteration" and "repair". It is unnecessary to refer specifically to "water-proofing" in new subsection (1)(e). I would hope that the construction of a building, even one designed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, would always be taken to mean that the finished product will at least be waterproof and will keep out the rain.
In its enthusiasm to ensure that no conceivable construction activity should fail to get a mention in the Bill, the amendment provides a new definition which is very extravagant in its coverage. For example, under the amendment having a car resprayed would count as a construction activity under new subsection (1)(e). That is a very remarkable thought and a quite acute misdirection of effort for this part of the Bill: any obvious error can be rectified easily. But it illustrates the point that many activities which take place in the construction industry also take place in other industries. The boundary has to be drawn with care and restraint.
1868
The original Clause 102 allows for the exclusion of work on plant, machinery and steel work for the process engineering industry. I hope that we may be able to discuss this fully when we reach a number of the detailed amendments later on. I point out that one of the Government's main difficulties with the noble Lord's alternative definition is that it does not deal appropriately with process plant.
There are always good things in anything which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, suggests: we have to hunt for them sometimes, but they are there. He will find that the Government are prepared to move some of the way towards him. They have done so. I forget the word which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, used, but I believe he said that he was satisfied or encouraged, and they were words of an approbatory nature as regards Amendment No. 134.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater thought that there should be a de minimis exclusion of small works of about £25,000. I understand why he said that. He was concerned that if one asked a person to put a new window in one's house, one should not have to go through all this rigmarole. In fact, I do not believe that it will be necessary to do all that. The danger of fixing a downward limit is that contractors may find it convenient to split up a large contract into a number of smaller ones so that they are below the figure of, say, £25,000. Oddly enough, if one took my noble friend's suggestion on board, one would have to realise that it is very often the small contractors who are most hit. For all that, I quite agree with my noble friend that if one has a contract for £100 one would not necessarily expect to have all the rigmarole of this part of the Bill attached to such a contract.
I wish to think about what my noble friend has suggested and find out whether there is some way of making it clear that it does not refer to the ordinary jobbing builder or electrician, if one may so put it, but that it does not also fall within the trap of enabling people to split up large contracts into a number of smaller ones, which would have a bad effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the professionals were included. This measure has been put forward deliberately because there are professionals of different kinds whose work affects so much of what goes on in the construction industry. She also asked whether insurance was covered. An insurance contract as such is not in the Bill. If it is construction work it will be covered, but the insurance itself will not.
I understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has tabled this amendment. I know that he means the amendment to be helpful, but it is not helpful to try to define too many things, as his amendment does, because it constrains the operation of the Bill very considerably. I shall certainly take account of what has been said, but I suggest to the Committee that it would be better to accept the clause as it is in the Bill and to see whether there are any ways in which we can make it better, having considered all the views which have been expressed in Committee today.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: When I seemed to speak in praise of Amendment No. 134, which I did, gladly, I was trying to intimate to the Committee that in bringing forward that very small amendment the Government had become dimly aware of the fact that their definition was unsatisfactory and that they were trying to make amends, albeit in far too modest a way. I am pleased with what little we got. I have high hopes that our debate so far will produce further amendments and improvements to the Bill.
The Minister mentioned the phrase "less means more". He will realise that that phrase was coined by Mies van der Rohe, the famous architect; therefore, it is totally appropriate for a debate about the construction industry. The noble Earl suggested that I put too much in the amendment, and he could be right. I shall leave it at that. There is one merciful thing in what he said. He did not say that in the size of the definition the Government "had got it about right". That is what they usually say on these occasions. They usually say that the precise number of words that have been put in are right. In fact, there is no doubt at all that their definition is too scanty and I have tried to make it less so and more inclusive.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, put his finger on my reason for bringing forward this amendment and it is this. I welcome Part II of the Bill in general terms and I have done on numerous occasions. It is intended to help the industry. It can only do that to the extent to which the industry is included. We know from our examination of Clause 101 as it stands at the moment that that leaves out about half of what is normally considered to be the construction industry. So one pleases half of the construction industry and the other half is left weeping into its beer. That is why I have tried to extend the element of inclusion so that the aim which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, identified can be properly met and not only have half a job done, which the Government seem to be content so to do. As regards the exclusions, I speak purely from memory, but I believe I am right in saying that they were WG10 exclusions. I may be mistaken, but that is my recollection.
My last word on the subject at the moment is this. The Minister reminded us of latent defects. I can recall several unhappy hours in this Chamber debating at great length the latent defects Bill several years ago. We ended up with an Act which was totally unsatisfactory. One of the unsatisfactory parts of this Bill—and I shall not press the matter at the moment—is that it does not include latent defects. It should, because the present legislation is very poor.
However, I have high hopes that the noble Earl will be convinced, even persuaded, by the arguments which have been put forward from all sides of the Committee this evening and that he will consider what has been said and redraft Clause 102 nearer to the kind of perfection that we seek. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1870
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Provisions not applicable to contract with residential occupier]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 140, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 141.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 59, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) This part does not apply to a construction contract which is exclusively for the provision of a dwelling for one of the parties (whether the dwelling is provided by the erection or the conversion or enlargement of any building or structure) or which is for work done on or in relation to such a dwelling, including the means of ingress thereto or egress therefrom.").
The noble Lord said: Nothing would induce me to prevent my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel from moving Amendment No. 141, so I shall not be pressing this amendment and therefore it will not be passed. I await Amendment No. 141 with bated breath.
As the Bill stands, its provisions do not apply to someone who "intends to occupy" a dwelling. We all know where good intentions lead. We also know that intentions may change. An intention to occupy, which can be changed at any time, will be sufficient to avoid the provisions of the Bill. I am perfectly sure that that cannot have been the intention of the Government. The dwelling in whole or part is required to be the subject of operations to which the contract relates. These operations may include non-dwellings, for example an office block with flats above. Therefore, it is important that only contracts relating solely to work in connection with a dwelling are excluded from the legislation by this provision. The amendment is intended to tighten up a part of the Bill that needs it. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is grouped with Amendments Nos. 141 to 143. I shall refer in particular to Amendment No. 141. The Committee will be aware that the problem described by my noble friend is a serious one. The expression in the Bill as it stands is rather vague and uncertain. The clause excludes contracts with the residential occupier from Part II of the Bill. It is intended that such properties should not be affected by the construction contract regime. My amendment has the effect of deleting the concept of occupation from Clause 103 and substituting mere possession of the residence as a qualification for exemption. The amendment is suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. It has examined the drafting with great care. It has serious doubts about what "occupation" means. Does it mean actual or constructive residence? When is the intention to occupy formed? Can a person occupy one property and simultaneously intend to occupy another? Those are questions which the Law Society of Scotland is worried about and which give rise to the amendment.

1871
Amendment No. 142 is also proposed by the society. Its effect is to modify the definition of "flat" by removing the peed for a flat to be a self-contained property. In the view of the society, the concept of self-contained flats does not take account of Scottish law dealing with tenements or the nature of tenemental property. The ownership of Scottish tenements is qualified by the concept of common interest. That includes mutual obligations of support and maintenance, especially in terms of common property such as passages and stairs. The roof may also be common. Furthermore, the terms of Clause 103(2) take no account of the fact that many properties are not self-contained. There may be common elevators and car parking and refuse disposal facilities. In an undeveloped property there may even be a common water closet. The society believes that the amendment is necessary for clarification.
Amendment No. 143, which I endorse, stems from the same source. The amendment is consequential upon the Committee agreeing to Amendment No. 142. I hope very much that the Government will favourably consider amendments put forward on behalf of a serious body which has looked carefully at the issue. There are some problems in relation to Scottish law. I am sure that the Government are glad to be made aware of them.
Baroness Hamwee: A person may occupy one property and intend to occupy another, particularly if the other property is in the course of construction. Looking at Clause 102(1), that is not necessarily the case if the property is in the course of extension, and certainly not if it is being demolished or dismantled. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has made me think about the words, "as his residence". To occupy property as one's residence suggests that that may be one's main residence. I should like to know whether or not that is intended. If "any residence" is intended it may be clearer to have the words, "occupation of it as a residence".
Lord Hylton: It would he very helpful if, when the Minister replies, he explains why Clause 103 seeks to exclude residential occupiers. To my knowledge, there have been some very bad cases where individuals, who have not received professional advice, have entered into contracts, for example, for the purchase of prefabricated houses or other kinds of system built residences. In the event, it has been found to be unsuitable for the purpose. I would have thought that individual owner occupiers were exactly the kind of people who needed the protection of the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I, too, question why the exemption is needed at all. Perhaps the Government can explain the purpose of Clause 103.
Earl Ferrers: I am glad to say that none of the amendments in this group is at odds with the principle of having an exclusion for contracts with residential occupiers. We believe that such an exclusion is needed for two reasons. First, there is already in place considerable legislation to protect the right of the consumer. In this case, the client will be a consumer as
1872
it is a household contract. Secondly, there is a small but significant risk that unscrupulous contractors may try to browbeat those unfamiliar with the new law into paying for shoddy work. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. It is prudent to ensure that the provision does not apply to those who carry out works on their own premises, but wanting an exclusion and getting it right are two very different matters. Even if Clause 103 is not yet quite right we must be careful that we do not make matters worse.
For example, Amendment No. 141, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would have the undesirable effect of removing the exclusion of contracts where the owner was not actually in residence at the time of the work. That would be likely to be the case if the house was being built or extensively repaired. I can think of an occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may buy a house and wish to do it up. He may desire to get out of the way while all the dust and filth is lying around. He may go off to somewhere like Crete and have a nice holiday and come back to find that everything is all right. Under the amendment that particular situation will not be excluded from the Bill. Similarly, although Amendment No. 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has a great deal to commend it, it would not cover the situation where, for instance, one part of a house had been converted into a flat and the main householder wants to place a refurbishment contract for the whole building.
It is true that at present the residential exclusion would not apply to a contract which was related solely to work on common areas. We have to give more thought to that point. There is clearly a great deal to consider, particularly in the light of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I am concerned that it should be fair and workable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether "residence" means main residence. When the Bill refers to "residence", it means any residence. So it would include a second home or a holiday cottage. I believe that covers her point. It would be a pity to insert any such constraining words as "main residence", because that muddles it up, and I understand that is not the noble Baroness's purpose. I hope that she will be content with the word "residence". It means her house in London, her house in the country, her house in Scotland, her house down at the seaside, or wherever she may be. If it is her residence, it is covered by the Bill.
I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was aiming at, if I may be so rude as to say so. He asked a question which I find difficult to answer because I am not certain what he asked. I am not suggesting that he should necessarily ask it again, unless he wishes to do so. I should like to look at Hansard, consider what he said and to write to him to give him a proper answer.
6 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I wonder whether I may intervene. The Minister suggested that under the terms of a contract under this Act, as it will become, a consumer might be required to pay for shoddy work. I am sure

1873
that he did not mean to suggest that one of the results of the Bill will be that parties to a contract have to pay for shoddy work. I am sure that he did not mean that, and I give him the opportunity to correct what he said.
The Minister explained that domestic consumers, if one can describe as a domestic consumer someone who is having work done on his house or building a new house, are covered by other legislation. But what about the contractor who may be at risk from an unscrupulous consumer?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I hope that the Minister will not brush aside the problem of "occupation" and "intention to occupy" which the Law Society of Scotland raises. It is not clear to me—we have had this before in Part I—when an intention to occupy is formed. I can intend to occupy the Minister's house in Norfolk, say, at some stage in the future. I am not sure whether I shall be able to do so, and in what circumstances, but that is my firm intention. In 20 years' time, I shall be living in the Minister's house. Is that an intention to occupy?
Earl Ferrers: In no way did I mean to disparage the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and still less those of the Law Society of Scotland. What I was saying was that if his amendment were accepted there would be the difficulty that if the building was being worked on and he was not in residence because he decided to go away, that part of the construction would not be covered by the Bill. I take account of what he said, but I understand that his amendment would leave that loophole, which is something we do not want.
The noble Lord asked when an intention becomes a fact. I believe that we had this discussion the day before yesterday. He may say that he wants to live in my house, and has every intention to. I can tell him that he jolly well will not. So however well-intended his intentions may be, they might not come to fruition. On the other hand—if we are going personal—if the noble Lord were to offer me a handsome sum of money, the conditions would be separate and different. However, I do not think that is likely either.
Lord Williams of Elvel: All that I am saying is that we need some definition of the words "intention to". I hope that the Government will be able to satisfy us, either by ministerial statement of what it means so that the courts can understand, if it comes to that, or produce something on the face of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I shall look into the point made by the noble Lord.
Lord Howie of Troon: I sincerely hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to the comments on the Scottish question made by my noble friend Lord Williams. Matters of great importance to my fellow countrymen were raised, and dealt with eloquently by a fellow Celt. However, in view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 144, I should inform the Committee that if the amendment be agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 145. Amendment No. 144, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 59, line 45, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 145 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is odd to have a subsection which consists of seven lines and then a further subsection which provides:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2)".
If the Government cannot get seven lines in a Bill right and have to reserve their position to amend it by order, there is something wrong with the drafting of legislation.
My preference would be my amendment, but if the Minister can explain that there is some good reason why the Government have to go back on seven lines they have put in the Bill, presumably after due consideration and study, then I should prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, which at least would preserve the principle that if primary legislation is to be amended by order, then that order should be subject to approval by resolution and debate by both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I approach the matter slightly differently, thinking that there may be something in the pipeline. I wondered whether the proposed commonhold legislation might come up with definitions which might require the Government to review this subsection. I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. To redefine "a dwelling" is pretty fundamental. We should be able to describe it simply enough so that it does not have to be changed. However, I am open to argument.
Earl Ferrers: That is always a good thing. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was becoming rather pugilistic when he said that if the Government cannot even get seven lines right there must be something wrong with the drafting. He knows that is a whole load of fluff and flannel, if I may respectfully say that to him. Unusually, that happened to be so on this occasion.
The noble Lord knows well that in any Bill one has to include clauses which allow the small detail of the Bill to be changed from time to time without reverting to primary legislation. Otherwise, one has to produce huge great Bills, or sometimes small Bills, which become caught up in the pipeline. One cannot amend something that appears to be wrong once it is operating in practice. We have no reason to believe that this will not be right. But we believe that it is desirable for the Secretary of State to be able to make minor changes in technical definitions without recourse to primary legislation on each occasion.

1875
Definitions may require fine tuning after they have come into action. There may be a need for modifications from time to time, as new developments emerge. It is not a case of the Government not having it right the first time. The Government wish to make sure that any legislation that Parliament puts onto the statute book is flexible in the course of actions which might take place in five or 10 years' time. That is why we want to have this provision.
I accept that the amendment of primary legislation should not be a matter for negative resolution. We shall certainly consider the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which would make it subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness. I always try to be helpful and to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Williams, but he does not look, as usual, as though he is too satisfied. He should be satisfied because I have made a great concession by accepting what the noble Baroness has suggested in principle.
Lord Williams of Elvel: So there is a little more "fluff and flannel" corning up. The noble Earl cannot get away with all that. The expression "dwelling" means a dwellinghouse or flat. All those expressions must have been defined in law already. They must have been studied and there must have been endless pieces of legislation which have defined those terms.
However, I cannot do more than express my astonishment that, after all these years, the Government cannot produce a proper definition of "dwelling" in a Bill such as this one, without having the power to amend it as they see fit in the future. Nevertheless, as the noble Earl is prepared to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Provisions applicable only to agreements in writing]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 60, line 7, leave out ("whether or not it is").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 147 and 149 in my name and Amendment No. 148 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is obvious that they are probing amendments.
Amendment No. 146—to leave out the words "whether or not it is"—seeks to ensure that an agreement is made in writing if it fulfils paragraphs (b) or (c) or is signed by the parties. I am concerned about the evidence that would be required as to whether or not an agreement where there is a written form has been agreed if it is not signed.
Amendment No. 147 suggests a wording:
"Where parties wholly or substantially agree otherwise than in writing".
It queries how much one needs in order to reach agreement. I am aware that the law requires the main terms to be certain and such terms to be agreed as amount to an agreement. But I am bothered about the wording of the Bill as drafted.
Amendment No. 149 would amend subsection (5) where it is suggested that written submissions which are not denied constitute an agreement in writing. That is a little dangerous. There may be no denial for reasons which do not amount to accepting or admitting—"admit" is the verb that I have chosen to use—the agreement.
Those amendments are probing amendments to try to understand what some of those provisions add up to.
Clause 104(4) refers to "evidenced in writing". That makes me wonder what is the point of Clause 104(2)(a). It does not seem necessary to have the two together. That point was also in my mind. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: Amendment No. 148 in my name is almost as short as an amendment can be in that it consists of only two words. In Clause 104(5) there is reference to:
"An exchange of written submissions in arbitral or legal proceedings".
Since Clause 105, which is the heart of Part II of the Bill, refers to adjudication—the most important part of the Bill—I wonder why adjudication is not mentioned in Clause 104(5). I have suggested that the words "adjudication or" should be inserted before the word "arbitral".
There may very well be a reason for that wording and I just wondered what it might be. I hope that the noble Earl will tell me.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: These three amendments would make it easier for parties to avoid the provisions. I hope that there is no need to consider whether the intention behind the fair contract provisions is right, or to entertain the idea that parties should be free to opt in or out at will. The three amendments, Amendments Nos. 146, 147 and 149, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would seem to make it easier for parties to continue in their old ways—by making sure that an agreement was never signed, or that not too much of the detail was written down, or by simply refusing to admit the existence of an agreement.
One of the amendments, Amendment No. 147, could also cause some confusion and litigation. As currently drafted, in order to establish his rights to fair contract treatment, it is enough for a party to be able to point to a written document which was the subject of an oral agreement. But if Amendment No. 147 was in force, he would also have to prove that such a document was "wholly or substantially" instrumental to that agreement.

1877
We should be apprehensive for fear that unscrupulous parties might try to push contracts outside these provisions by making oral agreements where written ones are needed. We do not want a mass of litigation to arise over whether contracts can be considered written or not. I suggest that most people are wise enough to get at least something in writing before they embark on lengthy and expensive construction work. If they do, there should be no doubt that they are entitled to fair contract provisions. I believe that their interests would be better served if the noble Baroness's amendments did not form part of the Bill. However, she said that she intended them to be of a probing nature.
I am inclined rather more favourably toward Amendment No. 148 of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. This would make it possible for an exchange of communications in adjudication proceedings to provide evidence of a written agreement, if that was not denied by one of the parties. I can see much sense in that, especially since we hope that most disputes will be subjected to adjudication in the first instance. Perhaps I might suggest to the noble Lord that he withdraws his amendment, as I should like to reflect upon it and return to it perhaps at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am still confused. An agreement is in writing if it is made in writing—that is subsection (2)(a). Then subsection (4) explains that an agreement is evidenced in writing—which is the third of the alternatives in subsection (2). If the agreement is made in writing but not signed, how is that different from it being evidenced in writing? Perhaps I am worrying unnecessarily and I certainly shall not push the point now.
Earl Ferrers: I believe the answer is that construction work is often started before all the documents are signed and sealed, even though they have been agreed. The builders come in and start the work and often the documents are signed later. The document, which has been agreed orally, should be part of the contract as though it were signed, even if it were signed later.
Baroness Hamwee: Through my professional work, though not much in the construction industry, I am familiar with people failing to sign contracts. My experience is that often they do not sign them because they have not quite agreed them. I see this as an area of considerable concern but I shall not press the point tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 148:
Page 60, line 17, after first ("in") insert ("adjudication or").
The noble Lord said: I thank the Minister for his kindly attitude towards my Amendment No. 148. I hope that it is a portent of things to come, but I shall not move the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: It was also a reflection of Christmas past.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 104 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I did not give notice of my intention to oppose the clause and I certainly do not oppose it. However, no doubt the noble Earl will be aware that Clause 104 is inappropriate for Scotland given the terms of the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995. That is the view of the Law Society of Scotland and I am sure that that will be taken into account.
Earl Ferrers: I shall always take into account what the Law Society of Scotland says, even if it is mouthed through the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I always take into account what he says and I shall see that the matter is investigated.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Right to refer disputes to adjudication]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 60, line 25, leave out ("A") and insert ("Any").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 151. The Committee will be aware that Clause 105 is one of the most contentious clauses in the Bill. It has given rise to a great deal of discussion and controversy. Taken together, Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 would have the effect of ensuring that any parties to the construction contract may opt for adjudication procedure to resolve a dispute.
Again, I must refer to the Law Society of Scotland. It believes that bestowing a right in Clause 105 to refer a dispute to adjudication procedure is illusory and that allowing a discretion to either party to opt for the procedure is more realistic. If there is a right on one side there must be an obligation on the other side. It is the view of the Law Society of Scotland that any party, including third parties, should be allowed to opt for the procedure. Amendment No. 151 is consequential.
I realise that the issue of rights and obligations to go to adjudication is a major issue. However, I put it forward because it comes from a source which I know the noble Earl respects. I hope that we shall have a proper debate on rights and obligations and not simply illusory rights. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: It is our firm understanding of the words as they appear in the Bill that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord add nothing to the effect of the Bill. There should be no mistake about the access to adjudication being a right and no doubt that all parties to a construction contract should have the same right. We believe that the Bill has those effects.

1879
However, given the source of the noble Lord's arguments and the particular aspect of Scotland that he has introduced, we shall read the report of the debate in Hansard and consult again in order to see whether we remain firmly of our view that the two amendments are unnecessary. I hope that with that small assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that where a party to a construction contract has a right there must be an obligation on the other side to accept that that right can be enforced. That is the point which the Law Society of Scotland is making and I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to reconsider the matter. We shall see what happens at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 60, line 26, leave out ("resolution") and insert ("decision").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is tabled in order to query the use of the word "resolution" in the second line of Clause 105(1). Resolution suggests something that is final. This is a probing amendment to enable me and perhaps other Members of the Committee to understand whether what is intended is an interim or a final outcome.
I have used the word "decision" not believing that it is necessarily the happiest of terms but because it enables me to raise the issue. It does not appear to me that a final resolution is intended, given that adjudication is a mechanism for allowing everyone to get over the hiccup and get on with the job. If it is to be final it raises issues about enforcement which I do not follow. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in speaking to Amendment No. 152 I speak also to Amendment No. 159 standing in my name. I shall reveal that it comes from the Law Society of Scotland. It takes the view that the terms of Clause 132(2)(d) are too wide and that if not limited by the concept of relevancy they result in adjudicators exercising their powers to ascertain facts in too wide a fashion. That will result in cumbersome procedures. The amendment is therefore designed to focus the attention of adjudicators who initiate fact-finding exercises on the relevant facts. The amendment gives guidance on the scope of the fact-finding exercise.
Lord Berkeley: Amendment No. 152 goes to the heart of whether it is an interim or final resolution. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 162A. Not being a lawyer, I do not know whether the word "resolution" is correct. I wonder whether the insertion of a word such as "interim" would help to clarify the sentence.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: With these amendments, we are starting to move into the fundamentals of the adjudication process and how the adjudicator should operate. In Amendment No. 152, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is clearly worried about the word "resolution" and believes that it implies a permanent solution. I hope that I can reassure her and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about that.
It is quite clear from the wording of Clause 105 that adjudication must have force to resolve disputes. Nevertheless, parties would be free to agree whether it should be final and binding or effective for a more limited period. Parties might choose to allow the matter to be reopened by an arbitrator or in the courts at practical completion. We anticipate that in many cases they will do so.
Amendment No. 159, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is an attempt to restrict an adjudicator's right to ascertain the fads and the law. I cannot agree with him, and nor can my Scottish colleagues. An adjudicator should have access to legal or other expert advice and should not have to rely solely on the evidence offered to him by the parties if better evidence is available within the time available to him. There is no need to specify that the adjudicator should restrict himself to the "relevant" facts. We should leave it to the expert to decide what is relevant and what is not; to do otherwise could be a recipe for wrangling and delays. I am sorry if that is a disappointing reply for the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee: As the noble Lord has been speaking, I have realised that another factor which made me suggest the word "decision" is that that is the term used in Clause 105(2)(b). I shall read what the Minister said. I shall not pursue the matter. I appreciate that sometimes there are very fine differences between quite similar terms and, although fine, they may be important.
As I said in moving the amendment, I am by no means wedded to the words "decision" which in itself carries the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred. I shall read what the Minister said and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 60, line 27, at end insert ("and the other party is under a corresponding obligation to submit to such a procedure").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 158 and 162 which are also in my name.
This amendment is self-explanatory and self-evident. There seems very little point in having a right to refer to a dispute if the other party to the dispute is not obliged to defer to the procedure. That is more or less the point which my noble friend Lord Williams raised a short time ago, to which he receive a somewhat encouraging reply from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope that the noble Lord will take the same view of Amendment No. 153. It is a matter of right and obligation.
Amendment No. 158 is more meaty. Clause 105 is probably—I think certainly—the most important clause in the Bill since it deals with the speedy resolution of disputes, which is the best way to achieve speedy construction and the saving of costs in the construction industry.
However, throughout the industry the clause is regarded generally as inadequate and confusing. As I said on Second Reading, the draftsman of the Bill appears to have confused—and continues to confuse in relation to the scheme with which we shall deal later—arbitration and adjudication. They are separate matters and should be kept separate. The only supporter of the clause as it stands appeared to be the Government. Even the Law Society is against it.
As I reminded the House on Second Reading, adjudication is not a new idea, although the noble Earl seemed to think that it was. Traditionally in the construction industry, the adjudicator is either the engineer or the architect. He acts in a quasi-judicial way, trying to resolve disputes so as to expedite the contract, leaving at the end, after he has made a decision in each dispute, the possibility of the parties going on to arbitration, which is a different matter. It is different because the arbitration cannot be appealed against except on points of law, whereas the decision of the adjudicator—the engineer or architect—can be appealed against. That is the whole idea of the backstop of arbitration or even the courts.
In Amendment No. 158 I have asked that the adjudicator should be an independent individual rather than a company or a partnership. I go on in paragraph (e) to require that the decision is to be implemented and:
"be final and binding upon the parties unless and until it is revised by an arbitrator".
That means that the decision must be accepted and acted upon. It is not "can be" or "may be" but "must be". I then go on to provide that where a decision includes payment, that must be discharged within a very short time limit so that the injured party is not injured further by undue delay.
I turn now to Amendment No. 162. Subsection (4) relates to the scheme to which we shall turn later and refers to an Arbitration Act which has not yet been passed. The Arbitration Act is entirely irrelevant to the adjudication process. It has nothing whatever to do with it, although in their scheme the Government are trying to impose a modified form of arbitration when it should be adjudication.
An adjudicator's decision does not involve an arbitral award and it cannot be enforced as such. I am told that there is a legal case, Cameron v Mowlem, in relation to that. Moreover, I remind the Minister that this part of the Bill is wholly unacceptable to the industry. It seems to me rather weird that a Bill which seeks to help the industry includes provisions which the industry will not accept. Perhaps the Government are trying to impose them on the industry against its will.
It is extremely important that the adjudicator should be immune from prosecution. He must be indemnified. If he is not, he will not come forward. He must be
1882
protected against making a decision which may be slightly mistaken. He must have that protection. That is the same protection which the arbitrator has. Why should an arbitrator be indemnified but an adjudicator not? There is no answer to that question. The two should be treated in exactly the same way.
I do not want to delay the Committee but Clause 105 is the most important part of the Bill. If the Government wish the Bill to work—as I am sure they do—it is essential that it should work in harmony with the industry and not against the grain. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is right to say that Clause 105 is a very important part of the Bill. I believe that what is required on the face of the Bill is an outline of what adjudication clauses in contracts should include. That would not allow parties to a contract just to strike out adjudication clauses when preparing a contract, which I understand happens at present. Indeed, Clause 105 would not allow such a practice to take place.
It must also be the intention of the clause to deal with disputes in a limited time in order to keep the work on the contract flowing. That is another reason for having a dispute resolution process by adjudication rather than necessarily referring everything to arbitration or to the courts at a later stage. I understand that adjudication takes place now and that this is to make certain that the contracts about which we are talking should provide the opportunity for an adjudicator to do his work.
If a contract has that intention and the procedures include what is set down in the Bill, then the rather more draconian measures that we have seen outlined in the draft scheme of construction contracts will not come into play. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, indicated, they are very much more draconian; indeed, the process is very close to a form of arbitration. That seems to me completely the right approach. It will encourage the industry to act responsibly in knowing that adjudication, in the first instance, can be an interim form of settlement. At the same time, the final result can be argued at arbitration or in the courts at the end of the contract. It will not withdraw that right.
I believe that it would be in the interests of both sides to provide for a quick way of resolving disputes. I say that because the scheme, as I mentioned, is much less flexible for later alteration. Therefore, if you do not have the right form of adjudication on the face of the Bill, the scheme would provide another form which is, as I said, much less flexible.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister should look carefully at Amendment No. 153 which would at least get both sides to the table. I am also attracted to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Amendment No. 158 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, as I believe that there is a requirement for the adjudicator to be an independent person. Again, paragraph (e) would encourage the parties to a contract to settle the matter satisfactorily rather than leave matters unresolved. Therefore, I give a certain amount

1883
of encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will do likewise.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in expressing my support for Amendment No. 158. I do not want to speak for long on that amendment, but I believe, as the noble Viscount rightly said, that it begins to open up the whole question of Clause 105 and why it is that a recommendation made in the report of Sir Michael Latham—a report which was so widely supported—seems to have been lost in translation. That has produced much opposition to the clause. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that fact. I hope that he will be emollient when given the chance, take the clause back and look at it again to ascertain whether it implements the decision of Latham in the way intended.
Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee an anecdote. Some years ago I had responsibility for rooms that were available for dinners and receptions. A construction firm entered into a contract for an evening reception and everything was settled. The price per head was agreed; the attendance was expected; and there was no complaint about the quality of the drinks or the service. However, when the bill for the evening was returned it was only paid to the extent of two-thirds of the total. The matter was brought to my attention and I had to decide what should be done. I was asked to write to the chairman of the firm to express deep concern. It was then that the message came to me that it was always the practice of that firm in the construction industry to withhold some part of every bill on principle and to leave it open to negotiation at a later stage. Great surprise was expressed that I had been upset by such a normal practice. However, when the firm learnt that that was not the custom in the catering business, the rest of the bill was promptly paid.
I mention that example because it is a matter upon which Sir Michael Latham put his finger and which won very general applause. I refer to the way that very substantial sums of money are regularly withheld, occasionally for a good reason but often for no reason at all. It was on that account that Sir Michael Latham put forward the proposals on adjudication which are included in the clause.
I do not want to discuss all the matters that are wrong with the provisions. Indeed, there is great confusion about the clause in the minds of those who have read the Bill concerning adjudication and arbitration. A great deal of support exists for the idea of adjudication and the consequences which follow, especially in relation to an appeal. If the Minister has not had an opportunity to take full account of the views of the industry, I hope that he will do so in the light of what has been said this evening. It is a most important part of the Bill. It must be right. There may be very good reasons why the department would like to make some changes to the Bill. I hope therefore that it will pursue that course and not be put off by others who might see advantages in leaving the clause as it is.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, I wondered whether the work he carried out as regards the rooms would be covered under Clause 103 as being a "flat", a house, a "dwelling" of multiple occupancy, or whatever. It would be an interesting academic exercise.
I turn now to Amendment No. 153. I believe there is some confusion as regards Clause 105. I have received many representations from the industry. Is it the Government's intention that any party to a construction contract within the long definition in Clause 102 should be able to go for adjudication? If that is the case, is the other party to the contract required to join in the adjudication? Or is it optional? I believe that I know the answer. However, I hope that the Government will consider clarifying this part of the Bill so as to make the legislation simpler for those we are trying to help have an easier contractual life.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon in his amendments. My noble friend rightly said that this issue goes to the heart of Clause 105. As I said when introducing an earlier amendment, it is possibly one of the most important clauses in the Bill and has, indeed, caused a great deal of worry, confusion and debate. I hope very much that the Government will understand and take advantage of the debate in Committee this evening. I hope they appreciate that we are not happy with the way the Bill is drafted. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said, something seems to have been lost in translation between the Latham Report and the Bill as drafted. I hope that the Government will give comfort to my noble friend by accepting his amendments or at least the thrust of them.
Lord Lucas: I am very happy to make clear to the Committee that we are discussing adjudication and not arbitration. We are discussing what is in the Bill, not what is in the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater so clearly pointed out, the two are different. The Bill is a flexible, wide ranging and simple provision whereas the scheme is a fallback which is a good deal tougher than the terms which two parties might well agree upon had they the good sense to sit down and write their own contract rather than relying upon what is a fallback and designed to be so.
Amendments Nos. 153, 158 and 162 cover a number of complex issues, and it may help if I start with the easier points. First, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has already tabled an amendment, Amendment No. 156, to increase the time-limit for adjudication and to allow an extension by the parties. We are not prepared to increase it outright to the 63 days suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in Amendment No. 158 since that would be far too lax for the vast majority of disputes, but I believe that the right to extend will allow parties to set sensible deadlines where it would be in no one's interest to insist on an inadequate period.

1885
Secondly, Amendment No. 162 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has picked up concerns that the adjudicator should be granted immunity lest it prove too difficult to get someone competent to act in a costly dispute. We accept the principle of this but the wording of such a provision needs careful consideration. If the noble Baroness will withdraw this amendment, we will aim to bring forward a suitable amendment as soon as possible.
Next, it is our intention that any award made by an adjudicator should be paid promptly, and we will reflect upon the need for the provision proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in Amendment No. 158 to ensure payment within seven days.
However, there is no need for Amendment No. 153 to insist in primary legislation that parties must "submit" to adjudication or that the award should be implemented or made "binding". I have already pointed out in discussing Amendment No. 152 that adjudication must have force to resolve disputes. If an adjudication procedure is not intended to resolve the disputes which are referred to it and does not require parties to submit to the process and act upon its outcome, it will be defective under the terms of that clause.
As far as the adjudicator and his powers are concerned, I do not believe it is necessary to specify that he should in all cases be independent. There may be times, for example, when parties wish to use someone connected with the project as an adjudicator. It is enough that he should act impartially—though of course he must be seen to do so.
Similarly, I do not agree with the provision in Amendment No. 158 to restrict an adjudicator's right to ascertain the facts and the law. As I have already pointed out on Amendment No. 159, he should have access to legal or other expert advice and should not have to rely solely on the evidence offered to him by the parties if better evidence is available within the time available to him.
Perhaps I may give comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Any party to a dispute has a right to start adjudication and that adjudication is something which other parties to the dispute must enter into.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that, to the extent to which I promised to come back with alternatives to the provisions they have suggested, we will do so and that my arguments for not doing so on the other parts of their amendments are sufficient to enable them to withdraw them.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have been called many things in my day but I think this is the first time I have ever been called a noble Baroness. I do not know what has happened in the course of this long debate, but I had not noticed and I hope it does not show. Amendment No. 162 was put down by me. I cannot remember what the noble Lord said about it, but I hope he agreed with it.
1886
I should like to go back to Amendment No. 153. I thought we had agreed earlier when we were discussing Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 that rights went hand in hand with obligations. Did we not take a view along those lines? I think we did. That is all I am saying in Amendment No. 153. I am merely putting into the Bill the obligation which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seems to find implicit in it, though I do not myself find it implicit. I would rather see it made totally explicit. I think he has misunderstood my amendment in the same way as he had some trouble with my gender.
Turning to Amendment No. 158, there is something in what the noble Lord says about the adjudicator not being required to be independent. That was in fact often the case where the adjudicator was the engineer or the architect: he would have a contractual arrangement with the employer and would therefore be thought by some not to be independent but in fact his professional obligations made him independent. I shall study what the noble Lord said about that.
I was confused, too, by what the noble Lord said about the adjudicator and the law. I think he said something about the adjudicator being able to obtain what advice he could in the course of his investigations. The noble Lord will correct me if I am mistaken. That is, in fact, what I am asking for. I am asking that the adjudicator should take the initiative in investigating matters: that is, he should ask for advice. I am not suggesting that he should become some kind of a detective. I am not using the word "investigating" in that sense.
I shall need to read very carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord said in the course of his reply to this debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 153.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 60, line 28, at end insert ("but excludes any dispute or difference involving allegations of a breach of professional duty").
The noble Lord said: This amendment does not intend in any way to condone professional negligence or breach of professional duty; it is merely to say that a dispute of that nature is quite different from the kind of dispute about contractual procedures which we seem to be discussing in the course of this Bill. However, the Bill uses the words "any dispute" and it might be construed that such a clause would provide or imply that a dispute or difference about professional negligence should go to adjudication. Such a dispute should obviously go to some kind of investigation, but I do not think it can be under the adjudication procedure laid down in this Bill because, by the very nature of things, an investigation into professional negligence or breach of professional duty is complicated and time-consuming and could not be done within the timescale indicated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: If there is a concern about the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, I would prefer all disputes to be subject to adjudication procedure rather than have endless debates about whether a dispute is within the

1887
jurisdiction of the adjudicator or not. I think we shall be straying into that territory if we support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Lord Berkeley: It is difficult to disagree with my noble friend Lord Howie because we are both civil engineers, but I wonder whether the proposal to exclude engineers from breaches of professional duty is not likely to work against them as well as for them. I believe we have heard that this is an interim solution. There may be occasions when the engineers are waiting for payment until this professional negligence dispute is resolved. Is there any reason why they should not go to adjudication to obtain a quick resolution, and then be able to take it further to arbitration, if that is necessary, as for the other types of contract that we are discussing?
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in this civil dispute between civil engineers. I have absolutely no reason to doubt the gender of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I am sorry that I expressed myself in a way that led him to think that I had.
Amendment No. 153A raises a specific point. It arises from the concerns of some construction professionals that disputes involving allegations of professional negligence could be handled by an adjudicator who was unqualified in the specialty involved. My first concern is that such an amendment could rule out an unacceptably large proportion of construction disputes, since a great many could involve some sort of breach of professional duty. There would also be considerable problems in defining what was meant by a "breach of professional duty". At the very least such an amendment would leave it to a variety of professional bodies to determine the application of primary legislation.
I am also concerned that this amendment could actually increase the number of allegations of professional negligence: any party who wished to avoid the process of adjudication could simply throw in some such claim to scupper it. Not only would this make it all too easy to opt out but it would also tend to increase the cost of professional indemnity insurance. In addition, the adjudicator's powers would be far from clear with such an amendment in place. Granted that he could not act in a dispute where a breach of professional duty had been alleged, how should he behave if he nonetheless uncovered evidence of such a breach—even if no allegation had been made? He could find himself in a legal minefield.
The way round these difficulties, and one that is already available under the provisions as drafted, is for parties to agree that an adjudicator's decision should have only temporary effect, so that any findings of professional negligence may be re-opened in the courts once the work is finished. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was suggesting. In addition, the scheme for construction contracts will make it clear that an adjudicator may decline to decide a matter which is unsuited to the procedure of adjudication. Contractual agreements may
1888
include a similar provision. I hope with those few comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: As the saying goes, I heard what the noble Lord said, and I was not terribly comforted by it. I was confused, too, by his notion that an adjudicator might uncover some element of professional negligence in the course of some other investigation. However, he would be adjudicating on a particular dispute and if he uncovered anything which was not related to that dispute, that would be none of his business until such time as that became part of a dispute. But, leaving that aside, my only objection is the fact that by its nature a professional negligence problem is likely to be a complicated one which will require substantial investigation. I think, for example, of negligence in engineering design. That would require an investigation which would take far longer than the timescale which the Bill permits. The adjudicator could come to no sensible conclusion in that time, even an interim one. He could merely blow the whistle and say that it was half-time and that the people concerned should come back again the following year, or something like that. I am not convinced by the Minister's comments. I see the drift of the Government's answer, but that is quite inadequate.
Lord Monkswell: I hope that I can offer an explanation which might resolve the problem. As I understand it, if there is a dispute between two parties to a contract, the adjudicator is called in to make an interim judgment one way or the other. The debate this evening has concerned ways of keeping contracts going, making payments and other such matters, but there may be an occasion where one party to a contract is doing some work and realises that the work may not be right and that the job ought to be stopped. Perhaps the drawings need to be checked and the engineers need to be consulted. That party calls in an adjudicator with the express purpose—and perhaps the result—of stopping the job and requiring some further action by the other party. If one thinks of the adjudication process as making an interim judgment on one side or the other rather than always one way, perhaps that will resolve the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, foresees.
Lord Howie of Troon: I regard that as a piece of adjudication, and a good example of it. I repeat that I am not convinced on this matter. I shall examine the arguments that were put forward by the noble Lord at my leisure and perhaps return to this matter at a later date. In the meantime I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers: In moving the Motion that the House be now resumed, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before five minutes past eight o'clock. The Committee will wish to he aware that the initiator of the debate which follows is a maiden speaker. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

1889
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Film Industry
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda The Earl of Drogheda rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for long-term tax incentives to encourage and sustain the British film industry.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to put forward a proposal for a constructive and realistic way for the Government to help and encourage the British film industry. Before doing so I should like to reassure your Lordships on one point. Although it has taken me some time to summon up courage to make my maiden speech, I promise your Lordships that I shall not make up for lost time.
Your Lordships may well ask why I feel that the British film industry deserves a helping hand at this time. There are various reasons. On one level the cinema is an industry like any other. On another level it is entertainment, education, and, at its best, an art form. It is arguably the most influential art form of the 20th century. On yet another level it can be a sort of cultural ambassador for this country all over the world.
On the face of things one might question the necessity of helping British cinema at all as it seems to be flourishing at the moment. We see films with British actors, British directors, writers and technicians being nominated for Oscars every year; indeed, several won Oscars this week. I think the answer is that it could flourish far more and should be placed on a more solid base and, most importantly, British cinema should be able to share in the rewards it generates to a far greater extent than it does at present.
I hope I might be allowed to give a couple of examples. The film "Sense and Sensibility" is a most English story and almost, incidentally, a bucolic advertisement for the British tourist industry. It was made entirely in this country with a British cast and a screenplay written by Emma Thompson but it was produced in Hollywood. It will produce handsome profits, most of which will go back to Columbia Pictures. "Four Weddings and a Funeral"—a film that everyone assumes was English—cost 4 million dollars to make, grossed 400 million dollars, and was in fact produced by a Dutch company.
We are extremely fortunate to have in this country a great theatrical tradition. At the risk of sounding complacent, it is fair to say that our theatre is the envy of other countries today. Moreover, the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company are supported by a substantial state subsidy.
One might say that the theatre here is actively fostered by the Government. But cinema is a different matter from theatre production. It is infinitely more
1890
expensive for one thing; and with a few rare exceptions most British films rely today for their funding largely on television companies and Hollywood.
One has the impression that the cinema is looked on by the Government as a rather disreputable and tiresome relative of the theatre, a relative who is always asking for money. There is no significant state subsidy for the production of films, nor is it realistic to expect there to be one. We should not lose sight of the fact that film making is a gamble. It is, as one film critic succinctly put it, the "funding of hope over experience".
So why should the Government help film makers at all? In the Government's eyes, after all, the film industry is an industry like any other and should be treated no differently. If the risks are higher, so are the possible profits. Is it reasonable to ask the Government to encourage what the Treasury doubtless sees as reckless gambling? I believe that it is, not only for the sake of the film industry but for other considerations as well.
Let me emphasise that the Government would not be bringing help to a dying industry or even a sick one. They would be encouraging one which is full of vitality at the moment despite the lack of government support during the past years.
The creation of every new business is a gamble, and in a way the production of each new film is like the creation of a completely new business. Unfortunately, the capital investment necessary for the making of a film is large, and because of the high risk involved, the venture capital required for making films for the cinema almost always comes from abroad, where more favourable fiscal attitudes prevail.
The supply of talent that has been fostered by our theatre is now increasingly being tapped by Hollywood, which wisely makes use of British directors, actors and technicians and frequently makes films in British studios and on British locations.
This is obviously not something to be discouraged. However, it must be remembered that most of the profits from these American-backed films go back to the United States instead of staying here to be used to build up the British film industry.
In an ideal world, it would surely be preferable for the British film industry to be established and controlled in this country. In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s the absence of a serious rival in the form of television meant that the profits from the cinema were larger and easier to come by, and this provided the necessary capital for reinvestment in films. For this to happen today, with the overwhelming presence of television, we need a real incentive for capital investment if the film industry is to flourish. As things stand, it is only in the United States and in other countries with a favourable fiscal attitude that there is the right climate to encourage the necessary venture capital to be invested seriously in films.
In order to produce films of high quality on a consistent basis it is necessary to revive the British film tradition. A great film, or indeed any great work of art, is rarely produced in isolation. In the 1940s and 1950s, for example, for every "Kind Hearts and Coronets" (a film that may strike a chord with your Lordships), and "Whiskey Galore" (which may also do so), Britain

1891
produced dozens of amiable but now forgotten films which created the working soil out of which several good films and, a few great films emerged.
Two things are now needed. One is for the encouragement of investment in film by British production companies. The other is for greater encouragement for companies from other parts of the world to film in the United Kingdom. We lead the world in technology and expertise in the film industry. This is no empty boasting. Your Lordships may not be aware that there is a prize called the Cartoon d'Or which is awarded to the best animated film of the year. From the inception of this prize in 1990, it has been won by British, films every year with one exception, when it was won by a film made in France—for which the animator was British. And since we share a common language with the Americans and are regarded by them as not very different culturally, a very small incentive is needed to persuade American companies to come to film here.
Unfortunately in Great Britain, although lip service is paid to the idea of encouraging film production, in reality we have excelled at discouraging it. Let me give an example. In order to raise money, films generally need a star. Foreign film stars coming to work in this country get taxed at source and if the rate of tax here is higher than that in their home country, they are taxed at that rate. The net effect is that the producer has to indemnify the star, which costs him more and is an unnecessary discouragement for him to make his film here. Canada, France, Ireland and Germany have recognised this problem and apply a lower rate of tax in these cases. Although I realise that this offends the British sense of fairness, it seems an occasion when to act too rigidly according to one's principles may give one a momentary feeling of self-righteousness but in fact is a self-indulgent route to a hollow victory.
Much has been made, and quite rightly, of the British successes at the Oscar ceremonies this week. However, the story behind the making of one of these, "Braveheart", vividly illustrates our problem. The shooting of the film began in Scotland, where it should have been completed. It was based in Inverness, where the local economy enjoyed a boom as a result—illustrating, incidentally, the advantageous side-effects to the economy derived from film production. Half-way through filming, however, it was moved to Ireland. There were various reasons for moving to Ireland, not least the Irish fiscal incentives which, even with the considerable expense in the move, still made it financially worthwhile. Moreover, the producer was persuaded not merely by fiscal incentives but by other imaginative ones that helped the production generally. For example, 600 horses were provided free by the Irish army together with other practical assistance.
The solution that I should like to suggest for the Government to help the film industry is not unrealistic and certainly not a Utopian one. First, could we not begin immediately by creating a climate, financial and otherwise, sympathetic to film makers? Secondly, I would suggest reviving the Eady levy. By this, a proportion of tax from cinema tickets was returned to the film industry for re-investment in film production.
This levy worked well for nearly 35 years until it was discontinued in 1985. It was a highly ingenious device of the Civil Service which gave immense help to the film industry and was copied by nearly every European country. Although discontinued by us, it has been retained by the other countries, and I feel sure it could be re-introduced here without any loss of face to the Treasury, perhaps under another name.
The most realistic help the Government could give British films would be through tax concessions. I am not an economist and shall not bore your Lordships with what would certainly be confused economic arguments. However, I know that the repeal of Section 68 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 would be an enormous help to the film industry, as would the introduction of 100 per cent. capital allowances in the first year of a qualifying investment.
Finally—and I hasten to assure your Lordships that my family connection plays no part in this suggestion—I believe that we should study the Irish example very carefully and extract all we can from it.
The Irish Government's attitude to the film industry has resulted in an enormous increase in the number of foreign films being made in Ireland, and also stimulated home grown production. Other countries are already beginning to emulate the Irish attitude since they have seen the many benefits that derive from it. Good films define a nation and establish a national identity in the eyes of the world. Film is both a tangible asset and an intangible one—like the BBC World Service or the British Council. The reputation of these two organisations as standards of excellence cannot be measured in purely financial terms. The benefits that derive from them extend far beyond what their aims are perceived to be.
It could be said that the survival abroad of the image of this country as an upholder of civilised values despite much evidence to the contrary is largely thanks to them. This in turn is of incalculable value to our trade, tourism and standing in the world. British cinema could, and should, enter this pantheon and become a symbol for excellence as well. I beg the Government to consider my suggestion.
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Earl on behalf of the whole House for such a thoughtful speech. We remember his father as a Knight of the Garter and, perhaps one should say, the King of Covent Garden, at both the Royal Opera and the Royal Ballet. It is in a way curious that the noble Earl has continued a royal association with his photography. I notice that he has photographed a royal publication on the Queen Mother's garden and, more recently, was photographer for the official brochure on Buckingham Palace. To the noble Earl I say simply: his father would be proud of him tonight. We hope to hear him often in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I last spoke on film in June 1995 in a debate which stemmed from the report

1893
of Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Committee on, a joint European film and television industry. However, I should like to take noble Lords back further than that, to the time when my noble friend Lord Gowrie was Minister for the Arts. He gave a very forthright reply to a question I asked about grants for film. He said that film as art deserved, and received, a grant from the British Film Institute. Meanwhile, he continued, the British film industry was highly successful and did not need any help. I remember that at that time "Chariots of Fire" had just been released. Thus, my noble friend Lord Gowrie separated film into two different types: the rather fragile art film and the far more robust industrial film.
However, I have to tell the House that I believe that my noble friend was wrong. When, 10 years later, Sub-Committee B examined film, we found that there was not a robust British film industry at all. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, for disagreeing with him slightly on this matter. We found that, as he said, Hollywood is the western world's film factory, and the only one. There is not really an industry in this country. There is a craft. As he said, we are good at winning awards, but we are not so good at winning audiences.
People quote the Ealing comedies, as the noble Earl did, as the epitome of the British film industry; but, sadly, those films lost so much money for Sir Michael Balcon that he was forced to sell his studios to the BBC. Without a doubt, we make isolated brilliant films: "The Third Man", "The Elephant Man", and recently, "A Close Shave", starring Wallace and Gromit. But these do not add up to an industry. Indeed, the only facet of film activity that does add up to an industry was defined for us, a little cynically I thought, by Michael Winner. He said that the British film industry consists of the "Hammer House of Horror", the "Carry On" series and the "Doctor in the House" series. Those were "product", to use an Americanism. That is what Hollywood is so good at.
It is sobering to think that Sir Lawrence Olivier and Audrey Hepburn were not the backbone of our film industry, but that Barbara Windsor and Sid James were. So indeed were Charles Hawtrey, Hattie Jacques, Kenneth Williams and the great James Robertson Justice. So I think it important that government refer to British film as "craft" or "art" and treat it as art, and assist it as art and forget about industry, because it is not an industry. British film as an art form will certainly be my standpoint for the rest of this short speech.
The question is how to help it. Not, my noble friend will be pleased to hear, by subsidy. That merely creates lame ducks, as the noble Earl said. In his evidence to our committee, Herr Elmar Brok of Bertelsmann said:
"In Germany we have a subsidy programme for movies which is a disaster. You pay a lot of money for movies that will never see a cinema. And then you have a situation in which directors produce movies in order just to get the subsidies and have never the aim of coming to the cinemas".
We found that the same was true of French films, which did not make it to the big screen. And we found the same situation in Australia.
1894
So I am very pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, excluded the word "subsidy" from his Question, but included "tax incentives". Since that was one of Sub-Committee B's principal recommendations, I am bound to agree with him. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 131 of our report:
"We recommend the introduction of 100% first year tax write offs for investment in qualifying British films. This would represent a considerable improvement over the current write off which is straight line over three years … We further recommend that the incentives should be introduced at the earliest opportunity".
That was our recommendation just under a year ago, on 4th April 1995. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench tell us what has happened? We have not received a letter from the Government saying that they disagree with our recommendation; but nor have we had any indication that there will be 100 per cent. tax write-offs. We used the phrase "at the earliest opportunity". I do not call a 12-month delay early. I sometimes wonder whether anyone reads these reports apart from the committee members themselves.
A tax incentive would help British films. There is such an incentive in Ireland, as the noble Earl said. However, there is still a caveat. The films that go to Ireland are not Irish films. They are known as "mobile product". They generate a lot of work and a lot of income, particularly for the catering trade. But the films are not about Ireland. They do not employ Irish actors, technicians or equipment. They are not really Irish. The same would apply here, though probably not to the same extent. Mobile product arriving in Britain probably would use British technicians and equipment; and though it would not be a British film, it would generate a hive of British film activity. So certainly on balance mobile product would be welcome. I look forward to a positive response on tax from my noble friend on the Front Bench. Better late than never.
The noble Earl asked for a tax incentive on traditional cinema. I back him on that, as does my committee. But British cinema must help itself, too. I quote one more piece of evidence given to our committee by M. Cazès of Lumiere:
"Each time I meet the United Kingdom producers the only thing they ask is 'How am I going to finance my film?' This is not the question. The real question is 'How am I going to make my film have enough revenue for someone else to finance it?'".
I have said that British film is a craft, not an industry. Perhaps it should be more of an industry. Perhaps our foremost directors should think less of Oscars and more of the box office. If they do not, the lasting epitome of the British film industry will remain Hattie Jacques as matron in "Doctor in the House".
7.27 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, some 20 years ago, when I was Minister for the Arts, I somewhat astonished myself by deciding to find a sum of money for creating what later became known as the Association for Business-Sponsorship of the Arts. I obtained the money from my noble friend Lors Barnett, who was Financial Secretary at the time, and I was accompanied in that endeavour by the noble Earl's father, Lord Drogheda. Between us we managed

1895
to persuade Lord Goodman to take the chair, and the Association for Business-Sponsorship of the Arts prospered.
I was therefore more than delighted to hear the noble Earl speaking tonight on a related subject. The arts should, and do, embrace film, and much else besides. I believe the noble Earl agrees with me on that. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who said that he hoped we should hear more from the noble Earl particularly on this subject.
The noble Earl put his finger on the two key points. One is the possibility of tax assistance; the other is the possibility of the recreation of something like the old Eady levy. I agree with him. Any remaining remarks I make are in reinforcement of that view.
Harold Wilson was a film fan. He asked me to carry out a survey of the wider scene, including films. As a result, he set up a working party, which endorsed the Eady levy, and discussed—although I do not think much was done about it—the question of tax relief, tax support, tax gentleness one might say, so far as the industry was concerned. As a result of that, it is my view that those two actions were the foundation of the prosperity and eminence of the British film industry which obtained in the succeeding years.
The Eady levy disappeared due to the collapse of the industry. It became no longer worth while to collect at the box office—which is how the Eady levy worked—a small sum which went back into production. The sum was small and the industry was disappearing. But the British film industry has always lacked production money. It became almost impossible for distinguished directors like my noble friend Lord Attenborough—whom I am sorry we do not see here tonight; I hope that his attendance in future will be more frequent—to raise money to produce films in this country. If we are to enable British films to be made in this country with British money, we must do something about it. That is the whole point of the operation.
If we accept the two suggestions, we will be able to do that. First, we are asking in the Eady levy merely for the redistribution of money within the industry. The levy consists of a small proportion of the box office money being passed back into British productions. The charm of the scheme is this. If, as in the present case, most of the films exhibited are American, the small percentage added to the price of the ticket is exercised with American films as well as British films. In that way we take a little return to put back into the British production industry, whether the film exhibited is British or American. It therefore reverses to a small extent the situation which is operating at the moment. Furthermore, it does not cost the Treasury anything. I hope therefore that when the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, replies he will make favourable noises about the reintroduction of something on the lines of the Eady levy.
I am not qualified to judge the tax question; I am not a tax expert. However, I have a strong feeling that it would be possible to introduce a form of tax relief which would not need to be spread elsewhere. The concern of the Treasury is that if it gives on one
1896
point, it will have to stretch in other directions. It is possible, in relation to the film industry, to devise a form of tax relief which will not spread elsewhere. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will also think favourably about that.
That is all I want to say. As I am one minute within my time, as distinct from the speakers hitherto, I shall sit down.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Drogheda for introducing this Unstarred Question. If we leave the British film industry entirely to market forces, I suspect that we will continue to have a diminishing film industry. Most countries, including the US, actively step in to help their own film industries and in so doing they protect their own culture and encourage employment at home.
We are all now familiar with the famous Section 35 of the Irish Finance Act which encourages film production in Ireland. Under the original Section 35 tax incentive, corporate investors were able to write off 100 per cent. of their investment against taxable profits although that has now dropped, I believe, to 80 per cent. Investment is made through shares in an Irish domestic company and held for at least three years to avoid capital gains tax except for low budget films, usually under 1 million Irish pounds, where one year is the limit.
To qualify, 75 per cent. of the work has to be done in Ireland. However, the government remain closely involved in all aspects of the feature film industry and producers have to obtain advance consent from the authorities before being able to take advantage of the tax incentives being offered. The arts ministry scrutinises everything, making sure the production industry benefits the country as a whole.
There are other areas of finance such as the Irish Film Board, though the amounts are considerably smaller. Another attraction is a favourable corporation tax of 10 per cent. as against our 40 per cent. Various other bodies in Ireland have targeted the film industry, offering financial support. The rules were modified after a thorough investigation by the Irish Treasury. In spite of that, the scheme has been extended for another three years.
What we need are tax breaks for foreign companies and private individuals investing in British production and companies wishing to establish permanent production bases in the UK. We also need a system of accelerated tax write-offs against production costs to be made available to UK corporate investors and international film companies.
Will the Treasury consider that? Will they consider relaxing the rules on withholding tax? As the Irish have shown, tax incentives are a powerful and proven method of stimulating production provided their use is constantly monitored in order to avoid abuses. Our own Secretary of State concluded that small independent production companies need to be encouraged to develop into larger, more sophisticated operations if the industry is to be viable. If that were so, we would be able to put forward package deals with maybe half a dozen films to

1897
potential investors rather than the usual one-off which, from an investor's point of view, is not attractive. I am sure the finance would be there if the tax advantages were in place.
Will the Government examine not only the Irish experience but also the approach of other countries to their film industries and consider something similar? We have a skilled workforce and wonderful studios. But all, or nearly all, investment is foreign with profits being exported. To survive we need to be more than just a service industry.
There is much more I could say. But as, over the years, I have taken part in many debates on film and media issues in your Lordships' House, I do not wish to detain the House any further.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I too add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Drogheda for giving us the opportunity tonight to debate tax incentives to encourage and sustain the British film industry. Although buoyed by our recent successes at the Oscars, we should realise that film-making in this country is at an important crossroads. While British creative film-making skills are keenly sought the world over and our flexible labour laws are favourable to film work compared to other nations, Britain is rapidly becoming an uncompetitive place in which to make films. Thanks to our present tax system, low and medium-budget films and television programmes cost 10 per cent. more to make here than in America or almost any other European country. The governments of those nations give special treatment to their film industry. We must act to compete with them. We are not looking for subsidies but generous tax breaks and incentives without which the British film industry will decline.
In 1993 seven major American studios compiled a joint paper in response to the question, "How does the UK compare as a competitive location?" Their answer was:
"For much of the time, it compares poorly. There are insufficient fiscal incentives to produce in the UK … natural attractions—local talent base, availability of studios and technical staff—are not powerful enough magnets to overcome the sheer financial disadvantage of producing in the UK".
They went on to call for a constant factor which would enable them to use the UK's natural attractions and shift production here.
The Government must realise that foreign film companies are no different to large multinational companies such as Nissan which have been attracted to Britain by generous tax breaks and favourable deregulated working practices. If we could offer a 10 per cent. inward investment incentive to foreign film companies wanting to work here, we could increase the number of projects being made tenfold. One need only look at Ireland to appreciate the immediate effect legislation can have. After the introduction of tax incentives for film production, investment grew from £3 million in 1992 to £100 million in 1994. It is salutary to remember that the recent Oscar-winning
1898
film "Braveheart", which should have been shot in Scotland, was actually filmed in Ireland because it was cheaper to do so. That cost the UK some 45 million dollars. The key reason for Ireland's success is that it is an English language production base in Europe. The United Kingdom should be the first port of call for American film finance seeking a European location.
It is worth pointing out that besides introducing substantial investment incentives to encourage film production in this country there are a number of anomalies in the tax system which currently put off film makers thinking of shooting in this country; for example, "withholding tax". This means that if a singer, such as Michael Jackson, wants to record a disc here, he does not have to pay tax on his earnings, whereas for a live show he would. The film industry argues that this should apply to film. At the moment an actor is taxed both if he performs live—for example, in the theatre—but also if he comes here to make a film. To be on a par with the music industry, he should not pay tax on the latter. The fact that he does puts off many big stars from coming here.
The British film industry and the US studios which finance most film investment are also seeking an acceleration of the tax write-off which is currently available to film makers. In the 1993 Finance Act, the Government accepted the case for providing financial incentives for film production in the form of tax write-offs in order to allow the UK film production sector to compete on equal terms in international markets. At the moment only a third of film production costs can be written off. By accelerating this benefit—allowing 100 per cent. of the cost to be written off in the year of production—the film maker would benefit from a 6 per cent. saving on his budget.
The American studios have made it clear that this saving would be enough to persuade them to bring substantial new film investment to Britain. It is estimated that an acceleration of the tax write-off available to film makers would generate at least 1,200 new jobs in the first year that the regime was effective. This would be achieved with no revenue cost to the Exchequer. Acceleration of the existing tax write-off would have only a small "cash flow" effect for the Treasury.
As a revenue earner for Britain the film and video industry is potentially enormous. At present it generates an annual turnover of more than £1 billion with annual growth of some 17 per cent. It also employs 250,000 people in Britain. For every extra £1 brought in, 38 to 43 pence would go to the Government, while every job created in the film industry would create a further 1.7 in the community. Film making also provides a fantastic showcase to promote Britain's attractions.
In conclusion, 70 per cent. of films worldwide are made in the English language and yet the UK has a market share of just 4 per cent. Even this tiny percentage is more than £1 billion a year. It is clear that any increased share of the market would be a substantial boon to the British economy. I hope the Government will now take action.
7.42 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on his very fine maiden speech. If I did not agree with everything he said in his speech, I certainly would not take him up on any of those points now. I agreed with much more than I disagreed with. I hope to follow that up outside the Chamber.
The British film industry has undergone quite a change—and a change for the better—over the past 10 or 11 years. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and I, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, took part in the proceedings which led to the Films Act 1985. In those days film attendances were down to almost rock bottom. It looked like the British film industry would disappear. Admissions were down to about 50 million a year. I made a very intemperate speech one day blaming that almost exclusively on the main exhibitors in this country, which at that time were EMI and Rank, for having such disgusting cinemas which discouraged people from going into them, and for seeking to sell them, if possible, for their real estate value. Whether I was right or wrong, it was extraordinary that within three years there was an enormous investment in this country, mainly by American and Canadian companies, which resulted in a completely new way of going to the cinema. The multiplex, a multi-screen building, sometimes having as many as 14 screens, was introduced. People now go to the cinema possibly with no specific film in mind. If the film they have as their first choice is booked up or the time is not convenient, they can go to see another and they can have a meal in the same building. The pattern of cinema-going has changed.
During all this time British film production has been extremely patchy. As the noble Viscount said, to call what we have an industry would be an error. If we have anything approaching an industry we must thank Channel 4 and the BBC for it. They have held the ship together during this troubled voyage. That has led to an interesting and difficult overlap between television and film—two vastly different areas in terms of the way the product is produced and indeed the way the product is viewed. Time being limited, one cannot go into that now.
I wish to confine my remarks to exhibition in the first instance. We now have the multiplex, and there are plans to build more multiplexes all over the country. Investors, who are mostly American, although some are British, are always on the look out for sites on which to build new multiplex cinemas. One of the problems British films have is that they find it extremely difficult to get distribution and exhibition. It is not perhaps unknown to your Lordships that one of our most distinguished film makers is a name abroad but is virtually unknown here. He wins prizes all over Belgium and France. There are others in the same category. We have young film makers who are achieving extraordinary success at festival level but find it extremely difficult to get the kind of commercial exposure that they deserve. Would it not be an idea, when planning applications are made for multiplexes, that local authorities or others should look for an
1900
undertaking by the multiplex company to allow at least some provision for the showing of films which are not American first-run films?
One can see why the multiplex companies want predominantly to show American first-runs. That is basically what people crowd in to see. Probably one of the most foolish things that was said about the British film industry in the past 10 years was said in the vernacular of the football field by the writer of "Chariots of Fire". He said, "The Brits are coming". But the Brits never came. It was a very foolish thing to stick out his neck in such a way.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Colin Welland.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, of the name. However, I should not like to go down on record in Hansard as having blackened his name in such a way—an admirable man, I may add.
People who are enthusiastic about films do not care whether they are British. They want to be entertained by good products, in good surroundings, and in a language they can understand. English is the language which we understand. Subtitled and dubbed films do not do very well outside London. In this country we are always in the shadow of the American industry. Because films are one of their largest exports, the Americans see to it that we do not become too powerful. They always have done so. When Lord Willis (who made such useful contributions) was in the House, he always used to stress that. We have to find a niche for ourselves in this area with the kind of films that we do well.
I see from the Clock that time is running out. I remind your Lordships of films like "Sense and Sensibility". That is the kind of film we do well. It is a relatively low budget film and shows our acting skills. That is the kind of film that should be supported. Pressure should be put on exhibitors to show it as much as possible. That is the only way we can hope to compete with the American majors. I hope that that point will be taken on board.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, on his excellent maiden speech in opening the debate. It was a brave way to make a maiden speech but I was not surprised, having known and respected his father greatly.
The British film industry, or art, is not big but it is not inconsequential. It is, for instance, bigger than our motor vehicle industry. It periodically employs some of the world's best directors, writers, actors and technicians. It has great potential, not least because it uses the world's prime language. We also have in the UK a booming consumer market for film, but those audiences are watching American films distributed by mainly American distributors. I agree very much that that is of crucial importance and often under-estimated. Those audiences are in fact starved of British films.
When looked at more closely, and given the enormous potential, the condition of Britain's film industry is far from satisfactory. In fact, very few British

1901
films are made here and many of those great directors, actors and so on, have to work abroad. The recent upward blip in US film making here, which the Minister will certainly make much of, is mainly because of weak sterling since the EMU débâcle. The reality is fundamentally unsatisfactory. We do not seem able to finance our own films, let alone secure national distribution for them. Nothing the Minister says tonight, I fear, can disguise the fact that this Government have done little to help, and some things to harm, our film industry.
In 1984 there was at least government policy activity, which subsequent experience in the industry suggests was not overwhelmingly helpful. Then we waited 11 years until last year's response to the Select Committee report, and that did not add up to much either. There was in that response welcome support for a London film commission and for a so-called West End showcase. I ask the Minister where that is. It was supposed to give a high profile to British films, but itself demonstrates a very low profile. The BBC was prompted to help save Ealing Studios, the National Lottery to give money to films, and that was puny in total and little of it was in fact given by the Government.
Above all, at the heart of the Select Committee report were proposals for self-financing fiscal incentives to promote production, which is at the centre of our debate tonight. The Government ducked all of that. Mr. Dorrell, in another place, as relaxed over film as over beef, said that the Chancellor would, in his Budget, carefully consider the Select Committee recommendations together with the logic which underpins them. We waited for the Budget and found nothing. I hope today that the Minister is not again going to say that we must wait for the Budget because the Government cannot keep ducking out that way.
The most amusing and, perhaps with hindsight, the most ominous aspect of Mr. Dorrell's announcement of 6th June 1995, was that he had in fact dramatically set up a new committee within his department to ensure that the needs of the industry, "are better understood by Government". That, I must say, was a really major initiative. It was also an interesting admission, by implication, that the film industry's needs had not been properly understood over the previous 16 years. I ask the Minister what this great new team has achieved? Are they responsible for the subsequent total silence and total absence of constructive Government proposals?
Outside government there has been no shortage of constructive proposals for tax incentives for the industry. Apart from the excellent Select Committee report, there were the recommendations of the British Screen Advisory Council last October for fiscal measures. There was also, last May, the British Film Commission paper on the economic case for stimulating investment in the UK film industry. The latter seemed to involve some loss of tax revenue, but the Select Committee's recommendations were aimed to be self-financing, as are Ireland's famous Section 35 reliefs, which have been frequently referred to tonight and which have certainly had a dramatic effect on the
1902
Irish film industry and employment in it. The cost to the Irish Treasury trebled to £19.9 million, but the additional revenues to the Treasury also trebled. So I ask the Minister what is the Government's approach to such self-financing, or nearly self-financing, fiscal incentives. We cannot accept that subventions from the lottery constitute a proper Government response. We cannot accept another invitation to await another Budget. We would like some precise response today, even if it is only to say "goodbye".
In 1918, the American President, Woodrow Wilson, introducing legislation specifically to benefit the US film industry said,
"when people see American movies, they buy American products".
I fear that with this Government a more relevant quote is from Bette Midler who said,
"when it's 8 p.m. in New York it's still 1938 in London".
I hope that that is not true in Whitehall and Westminster. I ask the Minister to think about 1996. After 17 years of non-incentives to the film industry, have the Government still nothing to offer?
7.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I must begin by saying how grateful we all are to the noble Earl for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important topic today. It is one which my Secretary of State and I both feel matters a great deal to this country. Perhaps I may pick up the comparison made by my noble friend Lord Mersey. We believe that it is both an industry and an art. It is also important to our culture and, as has been explained, to tourism.
The noble Earl made a bold and interesting maiden speech, which no doubt owes a lot to his own profession: photography. That is an occupation for the "best" people. I can say that with confidence because it is my wife's profession as well, and I know from her how well known he is. Certain reference was made to some of the subjects of his photographs. On one occasion, which he will have forgotten, he took a photograph of me, but I do not believe that that entitles him to any great accolade!
This has been a tremendous week for the British film industry. Our actors, actresses, directors, writers, designers, animators and technicians, have mounted their annual raid on the Academy Awards, and I am delighted that they have once again come away with so many richly deserved prizes. I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in congratulating all of our winners and all of those who received nominations. I would particularly like to congratulate Nick Park, of Wallace and Gromit fame, as a distinguished graduate of the National Film and Television School, for his incredible achievement in winning a third Oscar. I believe that this means that Nick Park has now won as many Oscars as the film "Jurassic Park"!
Perhaps I may come down more to earth. Your Lordships will be aware, as has been debated through most of the contributions this evening, that the question of changing the tax system for film was most recently

1903
considered at the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in another place on 7th March. At that time my honourable friend the Financial Secretary reiterated that the Government take the needs of the film industry very seriously. He explained that the industry already enjoyed a tax régime which is more favourable than that for many other industries, and that the Government provided assistance to the industry in a number of ways.
Finally, he made clear that the Government would keep the situation under careful review, which I hope explains the Government's position that was asked for by my noble friend Lord Mersey. The Government will always consider the case for further assistance in the light of developing circumstances. While I know that my colleagues in the Treasury have made it clear that they do not see a case for any action now, they will keep the matter under careful review as they consider future budget proposals.
Much has been made by a number of contributors this evening, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, about the tax incentives offered by the Irish Government. This is a system which rewards people and companies which invest in film production companies. It is not a relief for the cost of making a film. Furthermore, a report commissioned by the Irish Government shows that the cost to the Irish Exchequer for special reliefs to encourage investment in the film industry has far outweighed the benefits. The report estimates that the measures cost the Irish Exchequer around £19.4 million during 1994–95, while the benefits that arose totalled no more than £13.5 million, which I notice is the definition of "nearly self-financing" used by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
As a result of this report, changes to the scheme have been introduced in the recent Irish Budget to improve targeting and cost effectiveness because there has been great concern that it is not actually the film industry, but the big middlemen, who have been the beneficiaries of much of what has occurred.
It has been rumoured that certain films have been shot in Ireland in preference to this country because of the reliefs available there to the investors. However, the evidence is that factors other than tax are in play, such as the availability of members of the Irish armed forces as extras at very little cost to film makers. In this context, it is as well to remember that the incidence of VAT has come as a nasty surprise to one or two people.
Reference has been made to other countries. International comparisons are notoriously difficult. Looking round the world, it is difficult to compare one country with another in this respect. It has been suggested that Canada provides a good model for this country. However, that is based on an entirely different approach to taxation from that which we have in this country. I understand that in certain circumstances it is possible to receive a tax credit that exceeds the cost of the film.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to the withholding tax. The withholding tax merely exercises our taxing rights over people who earn money in this country. Before its introduction, our experience was that some foreign actors made films here, returned home and the tax was
1904
rarely paid. That led to significant loss of tax which was due from people who could well afford to pay it. Because these are difficult matters, the Government have brought together, in an advisory committee under the chairmanship of a former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Sir Peter Middleton, key figures from the film and financial sectors to discuss the obstacles to obtaining private finance for films and how they may be overcome. The committee is currently consulting the film industry and potential investors and is due to report to Ministers in July. We look forward to seeing some practical and effective proposals at that time which we hope will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
I should like to explain briefly what the Government are doing to help the British film industry. We believe that the industry is in very good shape. The number of films being produced in this country has increased in each of the past three years. That contrasts with figures for other leading film-making countries such as the United States and France where production has fallen since 1990. Part of the reason for that investment has been the changes to the tax regime introduced by the Finance Act 1992. Big budget productions like "Rob Roy" and "Judge Dredd" have been filmed in this country as a result of those changes. Our confidence in the strength of the British production sector is reinforced by the fact that currently our studios are so busy that two major new investments in studio facilities are planned. I refer to the proposed developments as Leavesden and Hillingdon. The latter is an American proposal, which hardly suggests a United States antipathy to doing film business in this country. They will add significantly to our production capacity and, along with the best technical support available in the world, will help to ensure that even more films are made here in future.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, pointed out, cinema admissions are buoyant. They have recovered from the slump in the mid-1980s. Admissions in January of this year were 29 per cent. up on January 1995. We are delighted that British film makers are rising to the challenge of producing high quality films for which there is such a strong demand. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that this has been achieved without the reintroduction of an Eady levy, for which we understand there is no great clamour from the industry.
Reference has been made to the National Lottery. We estimate that in the next five years about £70 million could be invested in film production in England alone by the Arts Council. If one takes the whole of the United Kingdom, the figure should amount to something like £80 million.
In addition to looking at more general problems about overcoming obstacles to attracting finance, Sir Peter Middleton's committee will look in particular at one proposal in advance of its final report. I refer to the proposal of the European Commission for an audiovisual guarantee fund to attract additional private finance by reducing the risk involved for individual investors in single film productions and the

1905
development of portfolios of film investments. The proposal is an interesting one, and we look forward to receiving Sir Peter's report next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about the showcase cinema. A feasibility study is to commence next week to look at whether or not a cinema dedicated to showing British films can be viable and what other complementary activities may be undertaken to ensure the best use of it. We expect the consultants who undertake the study to report before the end of May. In addition, the Government have announced their pump-priming support for a new London film commission which has already opened its doors and is very busy, although the formal launch will not take place until the summer.
The Government are very proud of the British film industry and the highly talented and internationally renowned people who work within it. One remarkable statistic that is often repeated, but is none the worse for that, is that over the past 20 years 30 per cent. of all Oscars have gone to British talent. We are delighted that this tally has been added to this week. We wish to ensure that the industry continues to thrive. I have explained this evening the many important initiatives that are being undertaken. I conclude by reiterating what I said at the beginning of my remarks. We in the Department of National Heritage believe that film matters. If there are things that we feel can properly be done, we shall not hesitate to do them.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
8.6 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 105.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 60, line 32, leave out ("7") and insert ("14").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 154 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 155 to 157. Clause 105 sets certain time limits which in our view are too rigorous. Amendment No. 154 seeks to postpone the time limit on the appointment of the adjudicator. Amendment No. 157 seeks to create a longer interval for an adjudicator to arrive at a decision. The Government have put down Amendment No. 156 which may meet our concerns. I shall leave my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon to speak to Amendment No. 155, if he so requires. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: I support the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in what he said. Amendment No. 155 is a small and self-evident amendment. Its only purpose is to add a measure of precision to a matter which at first sight appears imprecise. If there is a time limit it ought to have a starting point. My amendment is intended to provide it.
Lord Lucas: As I hope the Committee will be able to judge from Amendment No. 156, we have been listening to the industry. We are convinced that in many
1906
cases it will not be possible for an adjudicator to reach a decision within 14 days. We no longer wish to insist that every adjudication agreement includes a 14-day timetable. I hope that that will satisfy the intent of Amendment No. 157. We also believe that some adjudications will take more than 28 days. I believe it right that parties should be able to agree a suitable extension. In order to safeguard weaker parties, however, we propose that such an extension may not be agreed until adjudication proceedings have started. That means that parties could not give away their right to quick adjudication in the contract but would be able to take a separate decision on each dispute as it arose.
But time limits should still be challenging. Amendment No. 154 would double the period to appoint an adjudicator. We do not believe that that is necessary. Appointment should be a relatively simple matter, and we certainly wish to avoid the situation which has arisen in some arbitration proceedings where the appointment of a tribunal has dragged on for months. By far the easiest way to ensure rapid appointment is to name the adjudicator in the contract. Naming a reserve or two might also be good policy.
Where the appointment of an adjudicator is left to another person or an institution there is no need to build in unnecessary delay. In these days of fax machines, electronic mail, and computerised record-keeping, it should be possible to name a single adjudicator and refer a dispute to him within one week. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment No. 155 also appears to introduce unnecessary delay. It could be interpreted as requiring a party to the dispute to notify the others before proceeding to adjudication and may have been laid in the belief that the period of an adjudicator's appointment needs some formal starting date. That is not the case. Clause 105(2) would require an adjudicator to be appointed within seven days of any party starting the process. We do not wish to slow things up by imposing steps that could be unnecessary.
If parties wish to stipulate formal notification in their contracts they are free to do so, but we do not wish to insist upon it in statute. Most parties will not embark upon adjudication lightly. While it is intended to be cheap and quick, it is neither free nor instant. If parties seriously believe they can get something put right with a couple of letters or phone calls I am sure they will do it. Where a dispute goes beyond the immediate goodwill of the parties to resolve, the adjudicator should be brought in as soon as possible. We would oppose any intermediate steps. I hope that noble Lords will reconsider the need for their amendments.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am entranced by the Minister's remarks about months. My noble friend is talking about an extra seven days. That is hardly months, hardly an unconscionable delay. I think my noble friend should pursue his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I certainly will, with that encouragement. I have taken advice, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise. Unless it is written into the contract—I agree with the noble Lord that if it is written

1907
into the contract—that a certain person, or two or three people, will adjudicate in a dispute in the contract, there is then a question of finding an appropriate adjudicator who must be impartial, as I think we agree, although the Government did not accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Howie. Nevertheless, I think that it was understood that he should be independent.
The adjudicator, whoever he or she may be, may have many other things to do, a full diary, and so on. I and others feel that seven days is a short period of time. We are talking about calendar days rather than working days. There could be bank holidays; there could be weekends. It is a short period unless the adjudicator's identity is specified in the contract. I ask the noble Lord to reflect upon what I am saying, because it has been represented to me as being a little too short. Given that the Government rightly want to impose some timetable, seven days seem to me and to others to be too short. I hope very much that I can persuade the noble Lord to look again at the matter.
Lord Lucas: My noble friend Lord Ferrets and I are united in thinking that, having listened to the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we should consider what he said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 60, line 32, leave out from ("days,") to end of line 35 and insert—
("(b) require the adjudicator to reach a decision within 28 days of referral or such longer period as is agreed by the parties after the dispute has been referred;").
The noble Lord said: spoke to this amendment with the previous one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 60, line 38, at end insert—

("(e) enable the adjudicator to have regard to Codes of Practice published by the Construction Industry Board;

(f) preclude subsequent legal proceedings against the adjudicator; and

(g) provide for the adjudicator's finding to be binding unless appealed.").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 162A in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Amendment No. 160 relates to the adjudicator's role. The Committee has already discussed possible legal proceedings against the adjudicator. So I do not need to go into that. I wish to expand upon the codes of practice which the Construction Industry Board is publishing and will publish in the future.
I accept that to date the Construction Industry Board has been considering codes of practice in respect of tendering rather than the performance of contracts. Nevertheless, I am advised that the board is considering codes of practice related to the performance of contracts as well as to tendering. If that is the case—one cannot deny that it is the case, because it is the case—I would have thought that the adjudicator should be allowed to have regard to those codes of practice when they are produced. It is important that the adjudicator be fully apprised of what the board, which, after all, is the overall body supervising this arrangement, believes to be right in terms of practice.
I recognise, and the Committee will recognise, that codes of practice have different functions and different legal status. There have been many debates in this place on the legal status or otherwise of codes of practice. I am not trying to put codes of practice into legal forms; in other words, I am not saying that the codes of practice should be like a highway code or anything that can be quoted in evidence in court. All I am trying to establish is that as and when the Construction Industry Board produces guidance in the form of codes of practice, the adjudicator should be enabled, including in his decision, to have reference to such a code of practice.
I leave out paragraph (f) for the time being because we have already discussed that. I come to paragraph (g) of the amendment which will:
"provide for the adjudicator's finding to be binding unless appealed".
Again, we have had some discussion of what happens when the adjudicator adjudicates. Our belief is that the proper method of going about this is to say, "All right, this is binding, so it must be implemented unless it is appealed." In our view that is the right way rather than to leave slightly in the air the matter of whether there is any binding adjudication or whether there is more in the nature of arbitration. How far an adjudicator's findings should be binding is complex. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to that in our earlier debates. Nevertheless, I feel it useful to propose the amendment so that the Government can put on the record how they see an adjudicator's position; how they see the finding by an adjudicator; and in what respect it can be binding or non-binding.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley will be speaking to his amendment which puts a slightly different picture, but in my view a reasonable picture. I hope that we can, first, concentrate the debate upon the codes of practice question. Secondly, I hope that we can get to the point of the status of the adjudicator's decision. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I wish to speak to my Amendment No. 162A. My objective in tabling the amendment is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It concerns a worry that many noble Lords expressed during the Second Reading debate as to whether the adjudication was binding or interim and, if it were the latter, at what stage could either party seek arbitration or some other means of resolving the dispute.
We must remember that we are looking at contracts which have a wide span—the largest perhaps like Waterloo Station, which has been mentioned ad nauseam

1909
this evening as a good example. If the steel roof of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, with its glass had been made six inches too big for the foundations and there had been some adjudication, that would have been fine, but I do not believe that anybody could have expected the contractual dispute to have been resolved in four or even eight weeks. So I personally am convinced that there has to be an option for the adjudication to be revisited, perhaps at a time that one might define as "after substantial completion of the contract", or some such wording. It is not quite so important whether it is a requirement to revisit it. With small contracts I am sure that the two parties could agree that the adjudication was final and binding.
I received my amendment from the Law Society of England and Wales (as distinct from that of Scotland). I do not believe that it has proposed this amendment as a means of increasing lawyers' fees, which is a subject about which we have had much discussion. I believe that it is a genuine attempt to draw out the problem and try to have drafted in the Bill with the utmost clarity whether the decision has to be interim or may be interim or whether there is an option for either party to seek arbitration or some other means of resolving the dispute and when that can take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave us some explanation earlier this evening. As I said, I tabled the amendment basically so that we could have a resolution of the problem and, I hope, clarity. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to look again at this amendment.
Lord Lucas: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, to some extent we have already covered the substance of these amendments. The Committee will be aware that we accept the principle behind the point on immunity for the adjudicator.
Amendment No. 160 also suggests that the adjudicator should be able to have regard to codes of practice published by the Construction Industry Board. We are very sympathetic to the suggestion that the adjudicator should be a best practice operator. There is nothing in this legislation which would prevent an adjudicator having regard to appropriate codes of practice. If parties wished to make doubly sure by putting a reference in the contract, that is up to them. They may even choose to insist that certain guidelines are followed. However, we do not feel that this should be a matter for primary legislation.
With regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and that part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which refers to it, the effect would be to make an award binding and to put that system into the Bill. We are well aware that many people would like adjudication to resolve disputes only until practical completion of the contract. They would like it to be possible to re-open an adjudicator's decision once the work was out of the way. We have no problem with that. Parties would be free to make that clear in their adjudication agreement under the contract. There is nothing in the Bill which says that adjudication should
1910
be either one way or the other. We show no preference in the Bill. We do, of course, show preference in the scheme. But that is the subject of a later discussion.
However, we are not prepared to forbid agreement to the contrary; that is, to insist that adjudication could never be permanent. Some in the industry see the advantage of knowing where they stand once an adjudicator has ruled. But not everyone may be prepared to agree to submit to a process which makes temporary decisions but denies them access to the courts, sometimes for years. It would not be right to force them to do so.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we finish this discussion, with regard to the first point, I accept that it may not be right to put on the face of the Bill the matter of enabling the adjudicator to have regard to the codes of practice issued by the Construction Industry Board. Nevertheless, there is a case—I may have to return to this point at another stage—for putting the codes of practice issued by that board, which, after all, is the overseer of the whole arrangement, into a slightly special category rather than in just any other code of practice that happened to be around or any other piece of guidance that may have been issued by any other non-statutory body.
I am in some difficulty on the question of the nature of the adjudicator's finding. In practical terms, if there is a dispute between two parties to a contract and if they go to adjudication, the adjudicator will make up his mind and say, "Right, this is the answer." What then happens? Presumably, the payments are made according to whatever the adjudicator has found. Those payments are made under the adjudicator's finding, which is, therefore, to that extent, binding.
What happens when someone says, "Yes, but in the contract we did not actually say that the adjudicator's decision would be binding, but that it would be binding subject to, say, Clause 53(4)(b) of the contract", and so on? What would be the status of any such decision? I am still unclear and I believe that my noble friend Lord Berkeley is unclear, whether the Government want an adjudicator's finding to be binding and payments made accordingly subject to something else, or whether the Government are, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seemed to say, rather neutral about whether or not the adjudicator's finding should be binding and that should be something left to the contract. Can the noble Lord help me on that point?
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may add that I am increasingly unclear also. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, put the issue very sharply. Adding to my own lack of understanding is Clause 105(4)—a clause to which we shall turn in a moment—which states that:
"The scheme may apply & the provisions of the Arbitration Act".

1911
It seems to add to the optional nature of everything that is being done, which was indeed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my amendment earlier today.
Lord Berkeley: I do not believe that there is any situation in which the adjudication could be made binding on all contracts. If there is a serious problem, one cannot expect disputes worth tens or hundreds of millions of pounds to be resolved in four weeks. I do not know whether there is a category of dispute which could be made binding or whether the wording should perhaps be more on the lines of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to discourage people from revisiting the adjudication. That matter does need clarification and resolution. If we in this House have trouble understanding the provision this evening, I worry about the industry applying it in the future.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Our position is clear; we do not mind what people agree so long as what they agree is within the terms of the Bill. The Bill does not specify binding or any other particular form of the finding being unbound. We recognise that certainly with regard to major contracts it would be surprising to find arrangements which allowed a dispute involving £1 million or £100 million to be settled in 28 days by a single individual choosing his own evidence and having no form of appeal. However, whatever is provided in the contract, most contracts provide a standard clause which states that the decision is binding until practical completion. If nothing is stated in the contract, as things stand at present adjudication will be binding. Therefore, we expect that, as the provisions stand in the Bill at present, if nothing is stated in the contract, adjudication is binding. If something is stated in the contract to make it less than totally binding, that will be acceptable so long as it is within the terms of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: Does the Minister mean "binding" when he says that it will be binding until practical completion, or does he mean that it is an issue which will not be revisited until after practical completion, which is very different from being binding?
Lord Lucas: No. I mean binding as in, "will be settled", and that is the end of it unless you have a dispute which can be taken to the court. That is a strictly limited category connected with errors of law and misbehaviour.
Lord Howie of Troon: That is where the Minister has us worried. There is confusion between adjudication and arbitration. One cannot have a situation in which the adjudicator's decision is binding and can be sorted out only on a point of law, which is what the Minister said. The adjudicator's decision must be subject to revisitation, not only on points of law but on whether he was correct in his decision in terms of the contract and the context in which the contract was carried out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure that my noble friend is right but the problem is, what happens when
1912
there is an adjudication which is sort of binding subject to practically everything one can think of and when payments, perhaps large sums, must be made and the contract must continue according to adjudication? I would like the Minister to go through the practical circumstances. Where are the parties at that point? Are they bound by the adjudicator's decision until such time as the problem is revisited, to repeat that expression, in one form or another or are they not bound? What is the situation?
Lord Lucas: Adjudication is a right under the Bill. In order for the adjudication to be effective, the adjudicator must be able to issue a decision. That decision must be implemented. Therefore, if the adjudicator comes to a decision, that decision will be implemented and the payments will be made. The only point at issue is whether the adjudication can be reopened at a later date, as though it had never been made, and the whole issue rejudged, or some version of it—I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was describing and it is a common way in which such things are done—or whether that should be an end of it; it should be an adjudication verging on arbitration and something which comes to a clean end.
The Bill does not express itself on that matter one way or another. It allows either form, or any other imaginable form, so long as it fits in with the provisions of the Bill and there is an effective arbitration. We would expect different contracts to use different forms of arbitration. The only time in which we descend into certainty is in the scheme, which provides that arbitration is binding almost as though it were arbitration, although it is not.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that my noble friend is right. He is describing what I mentioned in an earlier intervention; that the scheme for adjudication should be this quick way of resolving disputes. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, equally understands that to be the purpose of adjudication. It is the resolution of that at a later date which a contract can agree to by arbitration or by going to the court after the contract has been completed.
It is in order for the work to flow and for the contract to continue that such arbitration is placed on the face of the Bill. If that form of adjudication is not in the contract, as my noble friend said, one must rely on the scheme for construction contracts, which is much more draconian, as I indicated. I know that it is wrong to try to muddle the words "adjudication" and "arbitration" but when I read the scheme—I found great difficulty in doing so—to my untrained mind it was almost a form of arbitration. It would be much more difficult to reopen it at a later date. The scheme is the quick resolution. If what is in the contract is what is required in the Bill, I understand that it can be reopened by arbitration after the contract has ended. However, it is not like the scheme, which would be the fall-back position.
Lord Berkeley: I do not know whether I have understood the Minister. Whether or not the adjudication is binding depends in the first instance on what is written in the contract. However, whatever is written in the contract, if it is not binding, adjudication

1913
or some other resolution of disputes cannot be opened until substantial completion, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said. Am I correct in that interpretation?
Lord Lucas: I shall certainly write to the noble Lord if he is wrong. I believe that he is right and I believe that an award which could be reopened immediately would not be a conclusive adjudication and would not fall within the terms of the Bill as I understand it. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord if there is any doubt about that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Would the Minister be good enough to copy the letter to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, setting out what on earth the Government mean by the provision? I really do not understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 60, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I had not realised that the amendment would be so topical. In moving Amendment No. 161 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 191, 192, 193, 194 and 197.
Amendment No. 161 seeks to delete the reference to the Arbitration Act 1996 in Clause 105. Seeing it at that point I stumbled and wondered whether it might more appropriately appear in Clause 111. However, having listened to the previous debate, I am not sure whether it should be there at all or whether it should be there and strengthened. It may not be wise to take up much of the Committee's time pursuing that matter because underlying issues need to be resolved first.
Amendment No. 191 in Clause 111 seeks to change the subject matter of the clause. Clause 111(1) allows the Minister to:
"make a scheme & containing provisions about the matters referred to in the preceding provisions of this Part".
The term "matters" appears to me to include everything that has already been referred to in this part of the Bill; for instance, Clause 101, which defines a construction contract, Clause 102, which defines construction operations, and Clause 103, which deals with the exclusion of residential construction contracts. I do not believe that it is intended to allow the Minister to rewrite those provisions, among others. I have therefore sought to define the scope of the Minister's powers more strictly to what is to be the subject of the scheme for construction contracts.
Amendment No. 192 seeks to suggest that if the Minister is to have powers to make regulations regarding the scheme, we should at any rate address whether he should have similar powers to amend that scheme. I may be told that the clause contains a power to allow amendments, but I tabled the amendment in order to ask that question.
Finally—and I do not believe that this contradicts what I have just said—Amendment No. 197 seeks to provide that regulations made under the section which
1914
creates a scheme should be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I was grateful, as I am sure were other Members of the Committee, to see a copy of the draft scheme, which according to the accompanying letter from the Minister one might call a draft draft. He refers to it very much as a first shot, which has an appealing honesty about it and recognises the difficulties that there are in creating a satisfactory scheme.
He says also that the Government intend to have both consultation and discussion before a statutory instrument is laid. The very complexity of the matter and its controversial nature seem to me to indicate that the affirmative resolution procedure will be appropriate.
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that that consultation and discussion will be the widest reasonable consultation and discussion with all sections of the industry. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to confirm that. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I was rather surprised to find my Amendment No. 194 suddenly popping up. It has the effect of leaving out "Lord Advocate" and inserting "Secretary of State" for Scotland.
I raised this matter on Second Reading and my reason for doing so was quite simple. I did not believe that the Lord Advocate, estimable though he may be, was quite the man to be dabbling in construction contracts. At that time, as I recall it, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out that the Lord Advocate was chosen because he knows about arbitration.
That did not help me very much. I know that the confusion is not as great as we thought it was, but we know that there is a confusion between arbitration and adjudication. The scheme will deal with other matters in relation to arbitration and adjudication; for example, payment and so on. I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has a department not unlike the Department of the Environment, which deals with such matters, is to be preferred to the Lord Advocate. But I leave it at that. The Government may be right. I doubt it but they may be.
I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 161 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That seems to me a very sound, sensible and succinct amendment. I was going to speak about this issue on the debate that the clause stand part until I noticed this amendment.
This is where we get into difficulties. We must not forget that the intention of the Bill, which we applaud, is to help rather than hinder. That is the idea. Everything in it should tend towards helping rather than hindering. Sir Michael Latham wanted an arrangement whereby adjudication was followed by arbitration, for which we have argued constantly and which has been the practice followed in the construction industry since Brunel's time.
Most contracts of any size are carried out under standard conditions of contract. There are quite a variety of those established by the Institution of Civil Engineers and other groups. There are standard conditions of

1915
contract under which large contracts are carried out and which would almost meet the requirements of Clause 105. They could very readily be tweaked and altered in such a way that they do meet the requirements of Clause 105. Therefore, all contracts of any size in future will be carried out under standard conditions of contract which suit the requirements of Clause 105.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is quite right that through the contracts, adjudication and arbitration arrangements will have been sorted out in the way that we have asked for. The problem is—and this point has been touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater—that smaller contracts may not be carried out under those standard conditions of contract. Under the provisions of subsection (4), the scheme will then apply to those contracts; but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said and as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, admitted, the provisions of the scheme which hang over the whole of this part of our discussion like a very dark black cloud are more onerous than the conditions in standard conditions of contract.
The Government are saying that, whereas large contracts will be carried out under the standard conditions of contract, small contracts will be carried out perforce under the conditions of this scheme, which are more onerous. Why hit the small contracts when a small contractor is less able to safeguard his interests than a larger contractor? I suggest that subsection (4) should most certainly go. Later I shall suggest that the scheme should go too, but perhaps this is not the time to forecast such dire pronouncements.
Earl Ferrers: We now come to a number of detailed amendments concerning the scheme for construction contracts. That is a set of provisions which will operate when a contract fails to make proper provision for a number of matters which are the subject of this Bill. It would operate where contracts do not contain adequate arrangements for adjudication or where payment arrangements were deficient in certain respects. The scheme will be made as a statutory instrument by the Secretary of State in England and Wales and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. The draft proposals for England and Wales have already been made available to your Lordships.
Amendments Nos. 161 and 193 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would have the effect of moving the reference to arbitration law from Clause 105 to Clause 111. We know that there are some who feel that such a reference is not at all necessary, but we feel that not only is it necessary but that it also belongs rightly in the clause which deals with adjudication.
As regards the scheme-making powers to which Amendment No. 192 refers, I assure the noble Baroness that under Section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978, the powers to make a scheme would also confer powers to amend it from time to time using the same procedures.
With Amendment No. 197, the noble Baroness raises the more important point of whether such powers should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which has been mentioned more than once today. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that we have been quick to concede that, where we have not got it
1916
quite right, we are happy to make amends, and indeed amendments. I have already undertaken to return with amendments to make the powers of amendment under Clauses 102 and 103 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
However, the power to make the scheme for construction contracts is somewhat different. It would not be used to amend primary legislation as it currently applies; all it would be used for is to apply and, if necessary, modify certain provisions of arbitration law which would only operate within the very limited confines of scheme adjudication. It would not amend the Arbitration Bill, or the equivalent Scottish provisions—as applied to those seeking dispute resolution through arbitration—and it is not, therefore, a Henry VIII clause, which I know always frightens everyone. I can assure the noble Baroness of that. It is right, therefore, in this respect that it should not be subject to affirmative resolution.
The noble Baroness asked whether the consultation and discussion over the draft proposals would be in the widest form. I believe that I can assure her that that will be so. We have published the draft proposals because Members of the Committee were concerned to see the sort of proposals that we had in mind. They are draft proposals, and they have been sent out not only to Members of this place but also to others in the industry for consideration. They will let us have their views. It will then be up to the Government to produce draft proposals which will then be sent out for consultation before the appropriate statutory instrument is laid.
I turn now to Amendment No. 194 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It seemed to surprise the noble Lord that it was on the Marshalled List or in this group of amendments. In fact, it made him jump. Of course, I do not blame him. I understand his puzzlement as to the reason why my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has been nominated as the Minister responsible for making the scheme for construction contracts for Scotland. I believe that we had such a discussion on Second Reading and I thought that my noble friend Lord Lucas had dealt with it as he has dealt so excellently and clearly with all the other matters raised. However, perhaps the concentration of the noble Lord was relaxed at that moment. He needs to be convinced and I shall try to do so.
The noble Lord said that the Government may well be right. That was most generous of him. However, I happen to believe that the Government are right and the noble Lord is on the right track. Shortly put, the reason why my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate is the appropriate Minister for the job is that he has ministerial responsibility in Scotland for dispute resolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland has no ministerial responsibility in that area. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that my noble and learned friend should be the Minister who is to make the scheme in Scotland. I hope that that explanation is helpful and that

1917
the noble Lord will agree that my noble and learned friend the Locd Advocate is the correct person to undertake that particular responsibility.
Lord Howie of Troon: Yes, that explanation has helped me. In fact, it went further than I expected. It indicated the areas of responsibility upon which I was not clear. I understand that the Lord Advocate is involved in disputes, but is he also involved in payments as part of the scheme?
Earl Ferrers: If the payments are part of a dispute and disputes are the responsibility of the Lord Advocate, I presume that my noble and learned friend will be responsible for that aspect.
Lord Monkswell: In his response the Minister mentioned on at least two occasions the fact that the draft scheme—this first shot, as he described it—had been made available to Members of this Chamber. I have to advise the noble Earl that it has certainly not been made available to me. Moreover, following sight of the document by courtesy of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I checked with the Printed Paper Office and with the Library of the House but neither department recognised the document. Therefore, could some other mechanism be found to ensure that all Members of this Chamber have sight of such documents?
I do not believe that the situation is particularly unique; indeed, we have had other Bills recently where draft schemes have been circulated. It is possible that there is a need to devise a circulation mechanism rather like that which applies to a Green Paper or a White Paper to ensure that all Members of this place have access to the relevant documentation.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may add to the questions that have been put to the Minister before he responds. Does the noble Earl have a timetable for the consultation or, at any rate, for the first stage of the process? I am not sure whether responses have been requested from the industry by a particular date. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell the Committee how he sees the process going in terms of time; and, indeed, tell us how that will fit in with the progress of the Bill. In addition, my concentration may also have been a little relaxed—to use the noble Earl's wording when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon—in that I am not sure whether the noble Earl responded to Amendment No. 191.
Earl Ferrers: I should like first to point out that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, greatly disturbed me. It is an important document and I gave instructions that copies of it should be sent to every Member of the Committee who had spoken. I believe that my noble friend Lord Lucas signed the letters, so I do not understand what has happened. The noble Lord was either left off the mailing list, or the letter may have gone astray, which may explain why he has not received it. Instructions were also given that copies should be available in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library. I am disturbed that the noble Lord was unable to obtain a copy from those departments. As I said, I am most
1918
upset about the matter. The noble Lord should have received a copy of the document, but perhaps he will allow me to look into the matter to ascertain what happened. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my apologies for the fact that he has not been in receipt of the document.
The noble Baroness wanted to know about the progress of consultation and the relevant dates. I believe that the results of the consultation will probably appear after Royal Assent. Clearly one has to leave a certain amount of time to allow people to react to the documents. Therefore, the response is not likely to be available all that soon.
As regards Amendment No. 191, I should point out that this amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the Secretary of State's powers. It would mean that the provisions of the scheme could override any arrangements parties had freely entered into by contract, even where they met the statutory requirements laid down in Part II of the Bill. I believe that that would go too far. The purpose of the scheme is to supply provisions which can be used where matters are not adequately dealt with in the contract. It is not our intention to go further than is necessary to achieve the minimum statutory safeguards, as the amendments would do. That is the reason why we are not too keen on the amendment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that her concentration was not relaxed at that moment. Indeed, I believe that my concentration was not as fine tuned as it might have been in that I failed to reply adequately to the amendment. I can only apologise for that omission.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure that my concentration has been entirely engaged and, indeed, perhaps not my intellect. I do not really understand the Minister's response. I was trying to limit the Secretary of State's power by the amendment. However, we have debated the issues for quite a long time and I shall not, therefore, press the matter.
9 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am very grateful for the Minister's helpful remarks with regard to the Lord Advocate. However, I think he helped me in an area where I did not need help at all. He said that the Lord Advocate had a significant role here because the question of payment would be part of a dispute. He will see that Part II relating to payments is not about disputes. I think I am right in saying that it is about ordinary payments in the course of the contract. Since it is not about disputes, it is none of the Lord Advocate's business and should happily be handed over to the department of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Earl Ferrers: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is very keen on pushing this all over to the Secretary of State. He probably knows far more about Scottish law than I do, but it has its own peculiarities and idiosyncrasies and I am advised that this slots well into the responsibilities of the Lord Advocate and does not slot into the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord says, "Well, there is a difference

1919
between payment and adjudication", I dare say there is, and I shall certainly look at the point, but I assumed that his argument ,was tied up with the fact that the arbitration or adjudication also depended upon payment. If it depends upon payment, or if the payment is dependent upon the result of the arbitration or adjudication, that falls within the responsibility of the Lord Advocate. I will, of course, make sure that I have not misdirected myself and have not informed the noble Lord incorrectly.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I could thank the Minister for his words of apology and his obviously serious intention to look into the situation of my not having received the document and its not being available to the House as he thought it should be.
Is it sensible for Parliament to complete its consideration of this Bill and for it to be passed for Royal Assent when we do not have responses from the industry on the scheme that is being drafted? I ask the Minister whether it might be useful when circulating this draft to ask the industry for at least an interim response in time for Parliament—whether it be this House or the other House—to have in front of it a report from the Government on the industry's response to the draft scheme.
Earl Ferrers: I think the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is slightly confused. In order to assist people, we have provided the draft proposals for their consideration. That is not necessarily an obligation upon us but we have done it. We cannot put the substantive proposals out for consideration until the Bill is passed into law because we have no statutory right to do so. It has to be after the Royal Assent that the statutory requirement to produce the proposals for discussion is undertaken. For that reason, it would be wrong to delay this matter, because it is only with the passing of the Bill that the Government will have a statutory obligation to put the proposals out for consultation.
Baroness Hamwee: I am delighted to hear that the Minister regards the power to make regulations as an obligation to consult. I do not think that is what the Bill says but I am very pleased to read it that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 162A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 105 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I put my name to a clause stand part debate on the understanding that I fully comprehended what Clause 105 was meant to say. However, after our debates in Committee, I have at the moment no idea what Clause 105 is meant to say, nor have I any idea how that clause will appear when the Bill is finally enacted. It is rather difficult to oppose the proposal that the clause should stand part when I do not understand the clause.
Lord Lucas: In order to assist the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in opposing this clause on a future occasion, I will certainly arrange for a letter to go to him and
1920
to others who have expressed an interest in this clause in order to put them in a better position to oppose it at Report.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Entitlement to stage payments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 61, line 4, after second ("to") insert ("payment by instalments,").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 165 and 169. These are grouped with Amendments Nos. 164 and 166 to 170.
Since the Bill was published, the point has been made many times that the construction industry understands the term "stage payments" in a much narrower way than was intended by its use in Clause 106. The Bill is intended to give the right on longer contracts to payment by instalments, by stage payments, or by any other kind of periodic payment. We do not wish to restrict the right to "stage payments" only in the very specific terms understood by the industry. This was an error and we apologise for the confusion caused. I therefore commend to your Lordships Amendments Nos. 163, 165 and 169.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will have perceived, again we have been a listening Government and have listened to the concerns of people.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have two amendments in this group which stand in my name, Amendments Nos. 164 and 170. I need not detain the Committee for any length of time because they are more or less in agreement with the amendments just spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I welcome those amendments of his and would merely say that they would be slightly improved if my words were added to his words. Then he and I could be in greater harmony than we usually are.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 61, line 4, at end insert ("or other periodic payments").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 61, line 8, leave out second ("is") and insert ("was before the commencement of the work").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to inquire at what stage the parties should have agreed that the duration of the work is estimated to be less than 60 days. I can envisage a situation where, when the parties start off, the work is estimated to last a particular length of time, but as it goes on it is accepted that the contract is slipping—that is understood by both parties—and therefore they may be forced to agree on how long the work is likely to continue. It is a minor point but I did not understand whether that agreement as to the duration of the work should be reached before the work starts or whether it can be reached at any time. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: We would not particularly wish to limit the circumstances in which parties could agree that the

1921
work would last for less than 60 days. I do not think that there appears to be much benefit to anyone in doing so. If a party were being bullied into waiving the right to periodic payment by agreeing to an unreasonably short duration, he may simply refuse to agree. In the same way an employer may secure his position by making sure that a sensible period is specified in the contract. I do not think that the amendment of the noble Baroness would be of great assistance.
Baroness Hamwee: I might understand that reply if I read it when my intellect is less relaxed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 61, line 10, leave out ("stage").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
SCHEME FOR TRUST FUNDS: REPORT BY TI1E SECRETARY OF STATE
(". The Secretary of State shall submit a report to both Houses of Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act on proposals for a scheme for trust funds.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple probing amendment to see where we are on trust funds. As the Committee will be aware, trust funds were in some respects an essential part of the Latham Report. My understanding is that agreement has not been reached between various participants in the industry, and therefore what Sir Michael Latham proposed in his report has not come to pass. The object of my amendment is simply to ask the Government where we are at the moment on trust funds and where we might be going in the future. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The concept of trust funds is contentious in the construction industry. Despite repeated efforts by senior representatives of the industry over a long period, no workable scheme has emerged which can command any agreement within the industry. If no solution has come forward by now, we can be fairly confident that none will in the foreseeable future.
There are several problems. The first is that trust funds may fundamentally alter the cashflow of contractors in that sums of money will have to be set aside regularly to maintain and to replenish the fund, and they will therefore be unusable while they are in the fund. That is a prospect which is attractive neither to clients nor to most contractors simply because it is expensive to have considerable sums of money lying idle. The construction industry always has considerable cashflow difficulties and if one locks away a certain slice of cash into a trust fund that may exacerbate the difficulties with which businesses have to deal.
1922
The Government are not convinced that trust funds are consistent with well established practice in respect of insolvency. Parliament has agreed an order of creditors if a company is liquidated under the Insolvency Acts. Trust funds would change that order by ring-fencing payments owed on construction contracts from the main assets of the insolvent company. That may be very convenient for the unsecured creditors who are on construction contracts but it would be very much less acceptable to secured creditors who are claiming on a depleted stock of assets.
I understand the reasons that people think it would be a good idea to have a trust fund. But the fact is that it would make certain sums of money unusable by the industry which is always short of money. It may create its own forms of financial difficulties to industries, and it is not acceptable by the industry as a whole. Therefore we have decided not to proceed with it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. Do I understand that the Government now say that not only is there no agreement within the industry and therefore at present there cannot be any trust funds, but also that the ranking of creditors would be so destroyed by such a trust fund arrangement that the Government themselves are setting their face against trust funds even if there were an agreement in the industry?
Earl Ferrers: We are saying that we do not want to legislate on this issue unless there is agreement within the industry. One of the reasons why there is no agreement is that the industry, which is much concerned with cash flow, will find that deflecting some of its funds into a trust fund will exacerbate the problems of financial viability within the industry. We would not wish to see that happen.
Conditions may change; an industry may find this a good thing to do. But to remove willingly, by legislation, certain sums which are applicable to various contractors and to put them to one side exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problems of the industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand those arguments. However, the noble Earl put forward a further argument about the ranking of creditors. I understand about the ranking of creditors. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that if trust fund arrangements were agreed certain funds would be put aside to the disadvantage of other creditors. That means that the Government are not prepared to see a trust fund arrangement even if industry were to agree. As I understood it, that is what the noble Earl said. I may have got it wrong.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe that the noble Lord is far wrong. There are the Insolvency Act procedures. If a firm goes bust, the Insolvency Act procedures work. If one has ring-fenced a sum of money, other people would be disadvantaged.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I know all about that. To get it absolutely clear, the Government do not want to

1923
disturb the procedure of insolvency legislation. We have to conclude that even if—it is unlikely—the industry on all sides were Lo agree that trust funds were necessary, the Government would say, "No, we cannot accept on the basis of the Insolvency Act". I fully understand. I am now clear on the subject, but I wished to have that completely and clearly on the record.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord keeps saying that he quite understands everything I say; I am so glad he does. He is correct that if all the industry were to say, "Yes, we want this", the Government would still have very grave reservations about introducing the provision.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Dates for payment]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 61, line 17, leave out ("an adequate") and insert ("a").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 173. Amendment No. 172 seeks to delete the description "adequate" from the mechanism for determining payment. What is the test for determining whether the mechanism is adequate? Is it an objective test? If the parties agree that the mechanism is adequate, why does it have to be described as adequate? It would merely be an agreed mechanism. Does some third party determine that the mechanism is adequate or inadequate? To the extent that that third party considers it inadequate, will he impose the provisions of the scheme? I seek to ask how the mechanism will work in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: Amendment No. 173 is grouped with Amendment No. 172 and deals with the issue of adequate mechanism. The Bill gives no description of either adequacy or mechanism. My Amendment No. 173 attempts to remedy that defect in the Bill.
The mechanism relates to the amount of payment due and when it is due. Without defining the mechanism, the Bill lacks any objective standard that might be applied to it. Presumably the object of the clause is to ensure that at any time a party to a construction contract can establish a debt. Without such a debt being established, there is no prospect of legal action to recover outstanding moneys, and many of the proposed remedies set out in the Bill may prove ineffective.
It is essential that the constituent elements of an adequate mechanism should be set out in legislation and not left—perhaps to the scheme, who knows? Without these elements the avoidance of payment provisions will be a simple task for any unscrupulous contractor who seeks to delay payment. The Bill should include a description at least of the elements of an adequate mechanism. My amendment attempts to set out what those might reasonably be.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness was concerned about what would be considered "adequate" in a payment mechanism. A payment mechanism will be considered
1924
adequate if it is successful in determining the amount of the payments and when they become due. Some idea of adequacy is important. If the mechanism failed in either of those tasks it would be considered inadequate, and the relevant procedures in the scheme for construction contracts would apply instead.
It would be unwise to be too prescriptive as to what constitutes adequacy. Compared to many of the payment arrangements about which we hear at the moment, simply clarifying the amount and the time of the payment is a big step forward. Other refinements would complicate matters and constrain contractual freedom.
Amendment No. 173 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for example, spells the matter out in fairly good detail. However, it could be taken to read that the intervals between payment should all be the same length and that payment dates should be specified in the contract. Both of those run counter to many modern payment regimes. It would also require the payee to be notified of the amount due to him before the expiry of the payment interval, and that is far too tight for many standard contracts. Such a detailed description of adequacy would need to be perfectly right to be workable, and there is no perfect answer for all types of work and all types of contract. We want to see that payment is made, that the timing is known, and how much it will be.
Baroness Hamwee: I take the Minister's point about what the subject matter should be. But is he suggesting that under Clause 107(1), if the parties fail to agree, it means that the mechanism has been inadequate and therefore the scheme for construction contracts will kick in? That seemed to be the logic at the beginning of his reply to the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I am not sure that I follow the noble Baroness quite as well as I should do. It may be that my intellectual mechanism has slowed up, too. Certainly, the parties are free to agree how long the period is to be between the date on which a sum becomes due and the final date of payment. That is in the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Baroness is concerned that, if the parties do not agree on that, this provision should operate. I believe that is so. The whole purpose of a contract is that it should include what payments are to be made and when they will be made—on the first of the month, every two months, or whatever it may be, and that people should be notified in advance of the sums of money they can expect. If the contract does not apply that provision, and if there were a dispute, this part of the Bill could come into operation.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister is making my argument for me, which means that what we are talking about is a mechanism rather than an "adequate" mechanism. I am still unclear as to how one can judge whether it is "adequate". It seems to me to he almost irrelevant. Either it is a mechanism or it is not. I shall not press the matter further at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 173:
Page 61, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
("(1A) The constituent elements of an adequate mechanism as set out in sub-section (1)(a) above are as follows—

(a) construction contracts shall specify the payment interval;

(b) the payment interval shall commence when any work under the contract commences;

(c) the due date for payment shall be the date of expiry of the payment interval;

(d) the final date for payment shall be stated in the construction contract; and

(e) contracting parties shall be advised in writing by the due date of the amount and the basis of the assessment of the payment to be made to them.").

The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may be correct in saying that Amendment No. 173 is prescriptive. So it is; that was the idea. I can see that he may not want it in the Bill. The Bill merely says an "adequate" mechanism. That is a fairly flimsy way of legislating. It refers to the scheme, and if the noble Earl remembers, we spoke a little earlier about the payment part of the scheme, which seems to have been forgotten.
The payment part of the scheme is also flimsy. It is just feasible that the payment part of the scheme may not be thought adequate by some pettifogging Scots lawyer. A little further thought must be given to this part of the Bill. I do not intend to press the amendment and I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Notice of intention to withhold payment]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 61, line 40, leave out ("award") and insert ("decision of the adjudicator").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 are small amendments but they are quite clear as to their meaning, and I hope that they will be acceptable.
The amendments are identical and both leave out the word "award". That is a term applied to an award by an arbitrator. Instead, the amendments insert "decision of the adjudicator". That clarifies the distinction between arbitration and adjudication which bedevils this part of the Bill and has caused some unseemly discussion in this Chamber. I hope the Minister will accept these simple and direct amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It is always tempting, when the noble Lord says "I hope that the Government will be able to consider this simple amendment", to do so. We always consider simple amendments, as well as difficult ones.
It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is sensitive to the word "award" which I suspect he identifies chiefly with arbitration proceedings. It is true that the word has particular associations with arbitrators, but of course they do not enjoy a monopoly over the word. It is also frequently used in connection with other decisions, particularly where money is involved. Subsection (4) of Clause 108, where it appears, is concerned entirely with payment.
1926
I do not believe that the word "award" is inappropriate and the alternative suggestion does not serve so well. However, I am happy to consider the matter again to see whether we have got the right wording. If the noble Lord will be content with that, I shall ensure that that is done.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am content and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord's consideration will bear fruit in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Right to suspend performance for non-payment]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 176:
Page 62, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Payment made under this Part shall be without prejudice to any right of the party making payment to claim repayment or compensation, or both, pursuant to the Scheme for Construction Contracts.").
The noble Baroness said: I do not think it would be fruitful to pursue this matter before seeing the explanation of the workings which we were promised earlier this evening. That being so, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 62, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5)").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 177 goes hand in hand with, and paves the way for, Amendment No. 181. As drafted, the Bill appears to assume an immediate resumption of work when work has been properly stopped following a suspension. That level of rough justice is too rough, even for the construction industry. The duration of the suspension may be easily definable but provision has to be made to cover time lost and costs incurred in demobilisation of plant and staff and then remobilisation at a later period, or perhaps, if there is an extension of time, changing from summer working to winter working, where the costs may very well be quite different. The defaulting party in this matter should be responsible for the time and for the costs. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The two significant new elements here are further extensions of contractual time limits to allow for disruption and the idea that costs should be recoverable against a defaulting party. The provisions of Clause 109 permit the suspension of work but they are not intended to encourage it. Suspension should always be a last resort where one party has refused payment and has failed to give effective notice of doing so or where he has refused to comply with an adjudicator's award. If suspension happened in other circumstances, we would always expect the remaining parties to pursue their claims vigorously.

1927
Since legitimate suspension should only occur where conflict is serious, there are dangers in making it too easy for parties to add further elements to the dispute. Extending contractual time limits by the period of suspension might be relatively straightforward but adding further periods for consequential delays and disruption is unlikely to be a simple matter. We would not wish to stop parties pursuing extensions of time or indeed the recovery of costs if they made proper provision for that in their contract. But that is a very different matter from giving them a statutory right in those circumstances which might encourage suspension in cases where it would be by no means easy to work out the full consequences. That could lead to further litigation, the very thing which we are trying to avoid. I hope the noble Lord will realise that, although his amendment may be well intentioned, it would lead to more complications than if it were not in the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: There is a difficulty in this situation and I suggest that one should look at the matter from the other direction. The assumption is that if someone does not pay, the contractor has a right to stop work. But what would happen if one party wanted to delay the contract and cause difficulties for the other party'? Under this clause virtually the only recourse is to stop work. That stopping of work might put the contractor into difficulties, which might be exactly what the first party wants. We need to be careful about viewing from one perspective. I suspect that that is what my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is getting at in his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: I did not have anything quite so Machiavellian in mind, though it is extremely interesting to have it put there by my noble friend. The noble Earl is overlooking the point that, while extensions of time are quite proper and occur frequently, they have consequential knock-on effects. It is those consequential knock-on effects with which I am hoping to deal in this amendment.
The consequential effects may be consequential on other parties. The stoppage of time of one contractor may produce adverse conditions for a sub-contractor or even a later sub-contractor, perhaps throwing him from summer working into winter working. That is easily the most obvious example of what I have in mind. I am sure that the Minister will pay close attention to my comments when he reads Hansard, as he always does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 62, line 17, after ("computing") insert ("for the purposes of").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 179 and 180. I admit at the outset that Clause 109(4) is somewhat ambiguous. Our intention was to make sure that where suspension had been properly conducted any contractual time limits, such as for the purpose of incurring penalties or winning bonuses, would be extended by the period of suspension. Several experts have pointed out to us that the clause can he react differently. The amendments
1928
which I have laid are designed to rectify that situation. I hope that they will meet with the approval of the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 179 and 180:
Page 62, line 18, leave out ("for the completion") and insert ("the time taken").
Page 62, line 19, leave out first ("or) and insert ("to complete").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 109, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we leave Clause 109, I am advised by the Law Society of Scotland that it is of the view that the clause has no useful place in Scots law in view of the common law of retention and the law of unjustified enrichment which applies in Scotland. I sometimes wish that we had the law of unjustified enrichment in England and Wales.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is remarkably knowledgeable about many things. Before coming to this Committee stage I briefed myself on a number of matters but I have not done so on unjustified enrichment. I am sure that. I am rich in intellectual knowledge and that is about as far as it goes, and that does not go very far anyhow. I shall certainly look at the point and consider who is justified and who is not as regards enrichment. I shall ensure that that point is considered before the next stage of the Bill.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Prohibition of conditional payment provisions]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 62, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (5) and insert—
("(1) Any provision in a contract whereby payment to a party who is required to provide construction work is dependent on payment being made by some other person is void.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment leaves out a very large part of Clause 110 and may seem somewhat severe for that reason. I shall explain why. The clause is unclear because it mixes the problems of insolvency with those of payment where no insolvency occurs. These are two separate conditions and they should be kept separate.
The main contractor can defend himself against insolvency. He should not attempt to recoup his costs from the subcontractor or from a number of them. As always, the devil is in the detail and the detail here is how the subcontractor is to know when or if the main contractor has been paid. The subcontractor is entitled to be paid for the work he has done whether or not the main contractor has been paid for the work he has done.
I know that the big contractors do not care for this amendment and they have a problem. Insolvency is a serious matter and if it is to be dealt with in the Bill, as it probably should be, this is not the place to do it. The Bill should leave payment and insolvency as separate

1929
matters. The clause should be split in two to indicate that it deals with two quite separate and disparate matters. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 182 is agreed to it will not be possible to move Amendments Nos. 183 to 189.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My noble friend's Amendment No. 182 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 185 to 189. Referring to Amendment No. 185, my noble friend has rightly pointed out the problems of the insolvency provisions in Clause 110. I accept that it is an extremely difficult and complicated matter. As drafted, the difficulty with the Bill is that sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors down the line may well suffer undeservedly if the contract between the main contractor and his client cannot be fulfilled. This was the purpose of the trust funds originally proposed by Sir Michael Latham in his report. I understand what has been said about trust funds, but there is a problem about insolvency. I agree that this matter is subject to the insolvency Act, but I believe that my noble friend has a serious point in arguing that the matter should be thought through more carefully. For instance, if there is a case of insolvency it may be sensible for the insolvency practitioner—the receiver or whoever winds up the company—to be required to allocate certain funds as a matter of prior credit, rather than unsecured low-ranking credit, to the sub-sub-sub-contractors down the line. This may require an amendment to the insolvency Act. I do not believe that the Bill has yet got it right. I do not have a ready-made solution to the problem, but I believe that it has to be thought about again.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 189, I have always believed that subordinate clauses should contain verbs. This particular subordinated clause has no verb and my amendment proposes to insert one.
Lord Lucas: I should like to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. In so doing, I should like to speak also to Government Amendments Nos. 186 to 188. The most substantial of the amendments are Amendments Nos. 182 and 185. They stem from a desire to abolish completely the effectiveness of pay-when-paid and pay-if-paid clauses when they appear in contracts. I have much sympathy with this. We are already going a long way to rid the industry of the wholesale application of such measures.
Nevertheless, there appear to be limited circumstances where, if parties have agreed to a pay-when-paid clause in a contract, it should be effective. Such circumstances are, fortunately, not only limited but very rare. I refer to the situation where payment at the top of the chain is withheld by reason of a party's involvency. If parties have signed up to a contract where such an event is enough to defer payments lower down the chain, we believe that the relevant provisions should he honoured. Risk-sharing is
1930
not uncommon in the construction industry. Parties regularly make contracts where risk is a consideration; and risk is also a factor of business life. While it is likely that many smaller contractors may be persuaded to bear some risk in order to win a contract, that is not necessarily a bad thing. At least under the arrangements that we propose here it will be impossible to enforce pay-when-paid unless it is clearly part of the contract.
At the moment we believe that many larger contractors simply use the excuse that they have not yet been paid in quite unjustified situations and without any contractual basis. Such practices must cease. Perhaps I should also add that in agreeing that a pay-when-paid clause may operate in the event of insolvency, a party would not be signing away all rights to payment. It would merely mean that the insolvency rules operate in the normal way, and the parties would have to recover their money accordingly. I hope that I have said enough to persuade both noble Lords respectively to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Amendment No. 186 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers is in a similar category. Part III of the Insolvency Act 1986 refers to a "receiver or manager" and it is right that Clause 110(2)(b) follows the same wording.
Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 are intended to clarify the criteria for insolvency used here. Chapter I of Part III of the Insolvency Act 1986, which applies to England and Wales, largely supplies the wording used in subsection (2)(b). Chapter II, which applies in Scotland, refers to the appointment of a "receiver". These amendments are required to leave no doubt that such an event would qualify as insolvency under the terms of Clause 110. I hope that Amendments Nos. 186, 187 and 188 will meet with the Committee's approval.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will feel able to move Amendment No. 189 when we reach it, not least because my noble friend Lord Ferrers has some particular comments that he would like to make on it.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: I should like to make a few comments in support of the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Howie that the pay-when-paid clause should be separated from the pay-when-paid insolvency clause. Even with the amendment to line 25 which changes "void" into "ineffective", to me it reads that pay-when-paid clauses are ineffective unless the third party has gone into liquidation. The insertion of a full-stop there and a new paragraph might help. I believe that the intention is that the pay-when-paid clauses should be ineffective, "full-stop". We should then go on to talk about what happens when the third party becomes insolvent.
Lord Howie of Troon: I confess to being somewhat reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He seems to be apprised of the dangers of pay-when-paid and all such things. I strongly welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Berkeley who supported my belief that the issue of payment as a whole should be considered separately from payment in conditions of insolvency. However, we have reached

1931
that point in the Bill when what I shall do is look carefully in Hansard at what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, and see what happens when we come to the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 62, line 25, leave out ("void") and insert ("ineffective").
The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 184 and 190. Amendments Nos. 183 and 190, and Amendment No. 184 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams—I beg the noble Lord's pardon for suggesting that I will move it, because that is for him to do—are all concerned with the word "void" as it appears in Clause 110.
I understand that the clause is a problem in Scotland. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been told that by—who else but the Law Society of Scotland. I gather it causes a problem where a contractual clause cannot become void. It is either void from the start or it is not. The meaning that we intended to convey here is ineffective. My Amendments Nos. 183 and 190 would make that substitution and so rectify the position.
The noble Lord wishes to put in the word "unenforceable". I dare say that there is not much to choose between the two words. One might say that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other; but in this case I believe that it is seven of one and five of the other because we have our amendment down in two places and the noble Lord has his amendment down in only one place. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Just because the amendment is down twice does not mean to say that it is right. It is twice wrong.
The noble Earl is right. I have been advised by the Law Society of Scotland. But it is generally true, not only in Scotland but in England and Wales and probably Northern Ireland too (though I do not know about Northern Ireland), that a statutory provision cannot make a contractual provision void but at the same time impart efficacy to those conditions in certain circumstances.
A void term or condition is void ab initio and is merely an apparent condition; but in fact once it is declared void it has no legal existence or effect. Using the word "ineffective" does not seem to me to solve the problem entirely. I am advised that the word "unenforceable" is the right word, not only in Scotland but elsewhere.
I leave the matter at that. It is for the noble Earl to reconsider whether the Law Society of Scotland is right, the Scottish Office is right or I am right.
Baroness Hamwee: Is the Minister suggesting that if Members of the Committee put every amendment down three or four times, they would win the point?
Earl Ferrers: I was merely trying to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for once was lacking his normal perspicacity because he had not realised that it
1932
was necessary to put the amendment down twice and had put it down only once. If the argument against using the word "void" once is wrong and holds water, then the argument for putting the amendment down twice equally holds water. I believe that the noble Lord made an error in putting down his amendment once. That is why I thought that we had scored some Brownie points by putting it down twice.
Of course, I shall consider the words of the noble Lord, put forward as they were with the authority of the Law Society of Scotland. I do not suppose there is a great deal of water between the two words, if one can put such a thing between two words, but we all know what we intend. I shall certainly look again at the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 nor moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 186 to 188:
Page 62, line 31, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 62, line 32, after ("under") insert ("Chapter I of").
Page 62, line 32, at end insert (" or the appointment of a receiver under Chapter II of that Part,").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 182. I beg to move the three amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 63, line 2, after ("he") insert ("grants").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: When I saw this amendment, I could not think why the noble Lord had tabled it. I could not believe that it was necessary. I was not sure whether it was a frivolous amendment, a probing amendment or that he was just trying to be unusually awkward—I did not believe that that was likely because the noble Lord is not usually awkward. But I wondered whether I should come up with an unusually robust response.
I know that the noble Lord is an assiduous reader of Bills. I commend him on that. All of a sudden the light at Damascus hit me and I realised that there was a mistake and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had found the mistake. I congratulate him on that. If I were to write a report on the noble Lord, rather like a headmaster at the end of the term I would say that he concentrated, was industrious and was sometimes right. On this occasion the noble Lord is right and I am happy to accept his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 63, line 7, leave Out ("void") and insert ("ineffective").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 [The Scheme for Construction Contracts]:
[Amendments Nos. 191 to 195 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 63, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Where any provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply by virtue of this Part in default of contractual provision agreed by the parties, they have effect as implied terms of the contract concerned.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment aims to ensure that where the scheme for construction contracts operates, the relevant provisions will become an implied term of the contract concerned. That simply means that if the scheme's provisions are used they will have the same force as though they were written into the contract in the first place and parties may rely on them in the same way. That had been intended from the outset and we believe that an amendment is required in order to leave no doubt about the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 111, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Howie of Troon: When my noble friend Lord Williams and I recently visited the Minister, I said that I was tempted to place the draft scheme as an amendment to the Bill in the form of a schedule. My reason for doing so was to give the Committee an opportunity to discuss the scheme and possibly to amend it. I promptly realised that the noble Earl did not fancy that idea at all. Being the kind of person I am, I revised my opinion. Instead of tabling the scheme as an amendment, I decided with my noble friend Lord Williams to oppose the Question that Clause 111 shall stand part of the Bill.
Much of what I am about to say covers old ground over which we have trawled once or twice today. However, it is none the worse for that and it is worth repeating. We have all agreed that the draft scheme is more draconian than the ordinary contract. It is also much closer to arbitration than it is to adjudication. The reason for that is simple. So far as I can see, parts of this scheme have been lifted wholesale from the Arbitration Bill and shoved into the scheme. That is a convenient way of doing things. Just as the Government plagiarised the tax Bill for Clause 102, so they plagiarised bits of the Arbitration Bill for the scheme.
The difficulty with the scheme, which is more draconian than other arrangements, is that it will apply only to small contracts—the large contracts will operate under the standard conditions of contracts—and relatively informal contracts such as those not in writing. That is because the normal standard contracts will have been adjusted and amended to suit the requirements of Clause 102. For that reason, the weight of the scheme will hear most heavily on the small contractors and the small contracts and therefore the people least able to look after their own interests.
This is not the place to try to amend the scheme but the Bill should make clear, probably in Clause 29, that the adjudicator is not an arbitrator—and I repeat "not". I believe that the scheme is misconceived because it creates a final and binding arbitration with unreal time
1934
constraints instead of a quick enforceable decision which might be described, and has been described, as "pay now, argue later".
Clause 36 of the scheme seems to suspend the timetable while a court deals with the points of law. Again, that is part of an arbitration process and not an adjudication process. It also destroys entirely the idea of the quick fix which adjudication is intended to provide and which was, it will be recalled, the intention of Sir Michael Latham in his report.
The scheme is far too long. It takes several pages to appoint an adjudicator, quite apart from anything else. If one looks at the ICE sixth edition of the Standard Conditions of Contract, it can be seen that it covers the whole gamut of design, construction, contract management, payment, dispute settlements and much more in only 71 clauses with conciliation, which is much the same as adjudication, in one single subsection of 14 lines of text.
The scheme takes 66 clauses to do what the Institution of Civil Engineers does in 14 lines. And we know that many more contracts will he carried out under the sixth edition than under the scheme.
The scheme was no doubt conceived with the best intentions but it is really a monster. The Government should think again and withdraw it. I oppose the Motion that Clause 111 shall stand part of the Bill.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I also oppose the Motion that Clause 111 shall stand part of the Bill for similar reasons to those given by my noble friend Lord Howie. From what we have seen so far of the scheme, it is complex, difficult to understand, confuses arbitration and adjudication, has far too many clauses, and needs serious pruning if it is to make any sense.
The idea that any scheme such as the draft that we have seen should be put into regulations is monstrous. As my noble friend said, at one point we had intended to table the scheme in draft as a new schedule to the Bill. That would have provided an opportunity to discuss it. Under the procedures of the House, it would have been possible to amend the new proposed schedule which would have enabled us to have a debate at least on some of the major points. But the more we thought about it, the more we decided that if we followed that procedure it would take up the time of this Committee not only for the whole of this evening and possibly the night but also tomorrow. We did not feel that my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip would thank us very much if we went on through the night discussing the scheme in relation to construction contracts.
I know that the scheme is in draft but in its present form it is a bad document. In many cases it is also irrelevant because it addresses only certain points which obviously need to be addressed. But there are many matters which the scheme should cover. When we discuss the regulations—and I shall ask the Minister what he intends to do about such regulations—we shall make many suggestions. Unfortunately, when regulations come forward, they are in the form of a statutory instrument which we are not able to amend.

1935
My noble friend and I oppose the clause because we believe that the scheme is inefficient in what it sets out to do. It needs serious amendment. I hope that the result of the consultation process, which is taking place at present, will be serious amendment so that when the scheme comes forward in the form of regulations it is a sensible instrument of law.
Lord Berkeley: I support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Howie of Troon and Lord Williams of Elvel and should like to make a few comments on the scheme for construction contracts. Perhaps it may be useful for Members of the Committee to imagine themselves in the position of a small or medium sized contractor who has heard about the adjudication procedure. He may decide to have a go at it, but will wonder whether he can do so without lawyers. He asks himself, "Can I go through this one or two month procedure without the benefit of lawyers?"
However, such a contractor will be faced with 10 to 12 pages of documentation. When he gets to Clause 61 of the scheme which states:
"Powers of the court in relation to an award … In such cases … the Arbitration Bill shall apply",
he will be completely lost. I share the view expressed by my noble friends that the scheme needs to be completely rewritten, bearing in mind how such a contractor would feel when faced with such wording.
Lord Monkswell: It is impossible for me to comment on the contents of the scheme because I have not as yet seen or read it; indeed, we have already discussed that point. However, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel alluded to the mechanism of inserting the scheme on the Marshalled List by way of an amendment which could then in turn be amended, perhaps I may make a suggestion. It relates to the facility that exists to circulate documentation to all Members of this Chamber—that is, not only those who have taken part in the Second Reading debate and who have, therefore, identified their interest in a particular subject, but all Members who receive the regular paper distribution.
In the future, when the Government have such a draft scheme that they wish to present to Parliament, although not necessarily to be written into legislation, would they consider putting down what one might describe as a shadow government amendment? That would then be available for Members of this Chamber to study with the understanding that, at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill, it would effectively be deleted by an amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for giving notice of his intention to discuss clause stand part, even though he said that he did not agree with it. He is perfectly right; indeed, he did say that he was considering tabling all the draft proposals as an amendment. I told him, in the safest language, that that could be described as bumping along the bottom. Although they may not have been the words that I used when I spoke to the noble Lord, that was in fact what I had in mind.
1936
It is quite difficult sometimes to assuage the desires of Members of this Chamber. We have this scheme in the Bill and if such a provision is in the Bill, then it is perfectly clear that we are going to make proposals. Noble Lords may ask what the proposals will be and whether they can have sight of them before the Committee stage. We then try to send out some draft proposals, but as soon as we do so some noble Lords seek to include them in amendments. I do not know how one can have an amendment relating to draft proposals when the Bill is concerned with making something into law. Nevertheless, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, took my advice and did not table the proposals as an amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked if we could have a shadow government amendment. Quite frankly, I do not see how one could have such an amendment which would later be removed. In fact, we have a Bill which is likely to become an Act of Parliament. One does not put into such Acts proposals and provisions which will not ultimately form part of the legislative vehicle.
Perhaps I may reassure noble Lords who are worried about that. I believe that we sometimes lose sight of the main objective. The Government's intention throughout the whole of Part II of the Bill is to enable contracting parties—and, indeed, to encourage them—to include adequate adjudication and payment arrangements in their contracts. The reason for all the trouble previously was that people had not done so. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to intervene at what is perhaps an inopportune moment. However, the Bill as published has an "Explanatory and Financial Memorandum" attached to it which seeks to explain its background, but which will not form part of the Act when it receives Royal Assent. We already have a mechanism and it may simply be a question of extending it.
Earl Ferrers: There are historical reasons for having financial memoranda. I do not think one could suggest that putting this kind of provision in a Bill would equate with a financial memorandum.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The point that I and my noble friend were making was that it was well within the procedures of this House not to put the draft into the Bill as a schedule but to put it down as a probing amendment and to amend the probing amendment in order to express our views on particular clauses in the draft scheme. For various reasons, my noble friend and I have decided not to adopt that procedure. That is not trying to put it into the Bill; it is trying to find a mechanism to enable this Committee to focus discussion on particular points in what we regard as a defective scheme.
Earl Ferrers: I entirely see that. What I was endeavouring to do—obviously unsuccessfully—was to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on having taken what I consider the right course to move that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

1937
The reason we wanted the clause in the Bill in the first place was that for many years the trouble has existed in the industry that people do not pay their bills. It is in everyone's interests that people should pay their bills and that others should receive payment for what they have done. We want them to include in their own contracts sufficient details about this. When there is a dispute between two parties who have not put that provision in their contract, there will be something statutory to fall back upon. It is for that reason that we have this clause in the Bill, and I think it is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that it is a monster. That is not a very attractive word for a nice piece of drafting. I will certainly see that the matter is considered.
I am distressed. I understand that the paper is not in the Printed Paper Office and I can understand the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. It will be discussed throughout the industry and comments will be made on the draft proposals. It is upon the comments on the draft proposals that we shall provide the proposals, which will themselves be available for consultation. I believe it is important to do this because, if we do not have something in law to help when there is a dispute, people will not be paid. I think the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that these proposals were more draconian than the terms that appeared in normal contracts. If that is the case, that in itself will encourage people to put similar or appropriate provisions in their own contracts. If the scheme achieves that, it will have achieved quite a lot.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this is an important clause. Even if your Lordships do not approve of all the details of the draft proposals—and we shall have to see whether other people approve of them—the principle of having a position as a matter of law when people have not included appropriate details in their own contracts is, I believe, a good thing and will encourage people to ensure that their contracts are correct. I hope your Lordships will agree that this should remain part of the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: "Draconian" was not my word, although I quoted it. It was used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and also by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, earlier in our discussions on the Bill. They were certainly correct in doing that. I followed their extremely good example in describing the draft, as I understood it. I am a little confused because the noble Earl congratulated me at one moment—which I enjoyed, as usual—but a little earlier he said that I was humping along the bottom. I did not quite know what that meant because it does not come within my usual vocabulary. However, I did not think it was intended to be totally complimentary.
There is no procedural reason of any kind whatsoever why the draft scheme should not have been put down as a schedule to the Bill to enable it to he fully discussed, and possibly amended. When we discussed this matter at
1938
the Ministry I gave the Minister examples of precedents where exactly this kind of thing had been done. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I know that he was a little alarmed about it because he did not want the scheme to be discussed or amended. I can see why that is the case because it barely existed. However, it is wrong that we should pass a Bill, an important part of which comprises a scheme which we cannot discuss and amend. That is wrong. I know that there are procedures which make it permissible, but that does not make it right. This is not the way to go about this matter.
The scheme should be included in the Bill as a schedule, preferably put down by the Government at a later stage, so that we can discuss it and amend it. As my noble friend Lord Williams said, if the scheme is introduced by means of regulation, we can discuss it right enough, and we can talk about it all night, but that is all we can do. We cannot amend it and we cannot change it, regardless of what advice we receive from the people to whom we talk. I do not think that Clause 111 should remain in the Bill. The Government have made a mistake and the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Berkeley: The noble Earl is quite right that many noble Lords said on Second Reading that we could not really discuss this Bill properly without having a copy of a draft scheme. We have been given the draft scheme, but what worries me is that—I believe it was in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—the Minister said that the consultation would be open until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As this matter has already been discussed within the industry, I am fearful as regards what those in the industry will say to us who have been debating it, even before Report stage. I think they will crucify this scheme. We shall obtain a reaction from the industry and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to talk about that. But I wonder whether there is not a way of reconsidering this scheme, and perhaps having several rounds of consultation, if it is not possible to do what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has suggested.
Earl Ferrers: I was glad when the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that he enjoyed being congratulated. I enjoyed congratulating him. He was quite right to say that he had not heard the expression "bumping along the bottom". I believe it is an expression that sailors sometimes use when they think that their craft is not working as well as it should. In the days when they sailed boats and something went wrong, they humped along the bottom. I was suggesting that if the draft proposals had been included in the Bill we would have been humping along the bottom and that it was much better to discuss the matter under the Question of whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
It was not a matter of my not wanting to discuss the proposals. The noble Lord wags his finger at me as if I am a sort of wicked old master, but I can tell him that the proposals are available to he discussed. However, what we do not want to do, as has been suggested, is to include them even in a schedule and set them in stone. What we want to do is to have in

1939
the Bill the format as it is in this clause and then put in draft proposals on how we think that should he interpreted. We go out to people and say, "This is the way in which we think that this part of the clause which Parliament is in the process of approving should be carried out; and do you agree?"
The statutory details are in the clause and not in the draft proposals. There is a duty to consult in the Bill. That can only become effective on Royal Assent. Therefore, however much we consult before Royal Assent, we still have to consult afterwards. Therefore the final version could not be in the Bill.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I find it somewhat difficult to persuade him when he sets his mind on something. However, I assure him that we want to consult. We want to ensure that the legal process, the statutory wording, is correct. There is nothing new here. One has the statute saying one thing, and then the guidance or codes of practice putting the statute into effect—the flesh on the bones, as it were. That is what we do here. We are undertaking quite a lot of consultation on the issue.
It is not that we wish to bounce anyone. We do not wish to place draconian measures on anyone. We want some form of background so that when there is a dispute, if people have been unwise enough not to include in their contract some form of resolution of disputes, they can fall back on this part of the Bill. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Howie, even if somewhat reluctantly, to accept that this is the right clause to have in the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am no more set in my ways than is the noble Earl. However, my objection to the procedure is quite simple. The way in which the Government have gone about the matter evades proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is what is wrong with it. I do not believe that it is the right way to go about parliamentary business.
10.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 111, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 9.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Caithness, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Norton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lucas, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L [Teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hamwee, B.

10.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question not decided and, pursuant to the standing order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we have an almost unprecedented situation where the Government have not achieved success in what may be described as a small part of the Bill. I am wondering how they will react. Perhaps I may make a suggestion as to how the Government might recoup the day in the eyes of the House.
It seems to me that there are two issues. One is the substantive question itself, which is that Clause 111 should stand part of the Bill. There was an extensive debate about the inadequacy of the scheme referred to in the Bill, but also about the lack of facility for Members of your Lordships' House to have sight of the scheme. A number of suggestions were made as to how the Government could ensure that the text of the draft scheme was put in front of your Lordships so that every noble Lord had access to it. The Government initially, prior to the current situation, appeared to suggest that they would not entertain any of the mechanisms to ensure that your Lordships' House was fully apprised of the scheme. We hope that the Government can give us a response at this point as to how they envisage the House having in front of it the scheme under discussion. That is the first substantive point.
The second substantive point is a situation which is almost unprecedented; at least it is very rare. The Government have effectively lost further consideration of the business in front of the House because there were insufficient Members present. It is only 10.33 p.m., which is not a late hour for the House. The House has on other occasions sat well after midnight with a goodly attendance. The question arises whether the Government have effectively either felt that the Bill was not worthy of their maintaining sufficient numbers to ensure that they could carry it through or, because of this stage in the Government's lifecycle, there is a tiredness on the Government Benches to support them.
It would be useful if the Government could give some indication of how they explain themselves in this situation, so that the House, at some later stage or even tonight, can consider that and respond accordingly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for moving the adjournment of the House. As I understand it, our standing orders are such that, if there is no quorum in the Lobbies in a Division, the House must adjourn. However, as I understand it, the business that is unresolved at that point comes up as the first business on the next convenient day. I should he grateful if the

1941
noble Lord the Chief Whip could confirm my understanding of standing orders and the conventions relating to standing orders in the Companion. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain that my understanding is correct.
I also hope that the Chief Whip can confirm that it is up to the Government to keep a House and that it is up to the Government to ensure that enough people are around, in whatever part of the Palace may be appropriate, for the House to continue to operate as a House of Parliament. I hope very much that nothing we have achieved this evening, or nothing we have not achieved this evening, will derogate from that basic principle.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, there will be 30,000 very disappointed registered architects tonight. They all believed that by the end of the day Part III of the Bill would have passed its Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made clear, the responsibility lies with the Government Chief Whip. That should be fully understood.
It has crossed my mind that it might be appropriate, even at this late hour, not of course, because it would not be permitted, to move the six amendments which stand in my name, but at least to make the speeches that I intended to make. Then there would be some reassurance to all those 30,000 registered architects that whatever the shortcomings of Part III of the Bill it has many virtues too. That is what I principally intended to say.
I am delighted that the Government have included in the Bill, though it is something of a rag-bag, provisions for the future registration of architects. Indeed, Part III is the most important legislation that the registered architect in this country has experienced for 60 years. That is another reason why there will be great disappointment about what happened this evening.
I also believe that the important matters raised on Part II were worthy of greater consideration. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, showed great restraint in not arguing more strongly and at greater length for the very many important points that he made.
I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in asking when we shall return to these matters. There is provision for further proceedings on Monday, but, as I understand it, that time was restricted to half the day. It would be helpful to know from the Government Chief Whip whether that time will now be extended to a full day and whether, because we have not completed the business before us this evening, the Report stage of the Bill might be postponed. I had in mind to ask the Government whether they would consider that because clearly there is such a mess over Part II of the Bill that it would be quite wrong to leave the House in its present state. If the Report stage were delayed until after the date that is at present fixed it would then be possible to put the Bill in good order. The Government could then bring it back to the House and I am sure that it would have a better reception than hitherto.
1942
I am sorry that it has been necessary to prolong the Sitting for a little while. This was a totally unanticipated event and a matter of the deepest regret, I am sure, to us all.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that it was certainly not my intention to disappoint the 30,000 architects who unfortunately have been deprived of the proceedings this evening. Perhaps I may also support him in his view about extra time, now that the Government have failed to keep a House and therefore we have to proceed, subject to the view of the Government Chief Whip, on the next convenient business day, which will be Monday anyway because we are due to take the Bill further in Committee on that day.
I was devoutly hoping to get to the end of Part III this evening and hear the views of representatives of architects and others. Unfortunately, we have been unable to achieve that. Therefore, I hope very much that the Government Chief Whip will be accommodating in allowing us a little extra time so that 30,000 architects, who are hanging on every word of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and others in the House, will not be disappointed by a shortage of time.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in his appeal that the Report stage be delayed a little. My reason for saying that is that if it were delayed it would give the noble Earl the opportunity to let us have some idea of the results of the consultations which he told us he was already having on the famous scheme. I am sure that, with a little delay, he will be able to give us some guidance on how these consultations are going and what consequences they may have.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a rarity for us to debate the Motion for the adjournment. However, we are suffering under what I might call "unusual circumstances" this evening because there were insufficient noble Lords in the House for a quorum and therefore we are rising somewhat earlier than we originally intended. Nevertheless, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this small debate. I well understand the frustration that some may feel that we have not managed to go a little further with the Bill to meet our intended target.
I hope that the House will not be surprised if I do not go into any great detail about Clause 111. That is not because I am not deeply interested in it, but because those who were in the House will know that I was not present for the initial debate, which I know my noble friend Lord Ferrers dealt with in a most expert manner, aided by his and my noble friend Lord Lucas.
I have a sense of déjà vu. In 1988 or 1989, when I was dealing with the Companies Bill before your Lordships' House as a very junior Whip, against the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, precisely the same thing happened and the House was counted out. It became in my mind what I shall now call "The Williams Gambit". Of course, now, as Government Chief Whip, I should have been prepared for this. I sense that I owe the House

1943
an apology for not making sure that more of my noble friends were here, if not to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his friends debate this interesting Bill, then to be within the Palace of Westminster so that they could support the Government when the time came.
I can confirm that we shall re-start this Bill at the place we left off on the undecided Clause 111, and we shall do so on Monday, although I am reminded that the rule is not strictly that it should be on the next sitting day, hut at a subsequent sitting. However, as the House knows, we shall deal with this Bill on the next sitting day, which is next Monday.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in saying to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that no offence was intended, and I hope that none has been caused, to the 30,000 architects who are waiting to listen
1944
to the deliberations of this Committee. I am also extremely grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, saved us from his six speeches.
I do not believe that any great damage has been done this evening. This Bill has been carefully thought through, planned for some time, and, in the hands of my noble friends when it returns on Monday for the Committee stage, I am sure that the Government will put their case as expertly as they have tonight. With a little extra support I hope that we shall be able to complete the Bill in good time so that we can deal with the final stages of the Education (Student Loans) Bill. I hope that we can now adjourn.

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

  Greenwich Hospital Site: Future
  Greenwich Hospital Site: Future
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Report
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Report
  Environment Agency: Charging Schemes
  Environment Agency: Charging Schemes
  Public Path Orders: Recovery of Costs
  Public Path Orders: Recovery of Costs
  Offshore Installations: Safety Legislation
  Offshore Installations: Safety Legislation
  Asylum Seekers: Appeals
  Asylum Seekers: Appeals
  War Crimes Act 1991
  War Crimes Act 1991
  Single Parents: Benefits
  Single Parents: Benefits
  Liable Relatives and Income Support
  Liable Relatives and Income Support
  Asylum and Immigration
  Asylum and Immigration
  Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Recommendations
  Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Recommendations
  Competition Law: Consultation Document
  Competition Law: Consultation Document
  France—Gibraltar—Morocco Air Service
  France—Gibraltar—Morocco Air Service
  Transport Council, 11th March
  Transport Council, 11th March
  East London Line
  East London Line
  Search and Rescue Helicopter, Portland
  Search and Rescue Helicopter, Portland
  Hannah Research and Moredun Research Institutes: Review
  Hannah Research and Moredun Research Institutes: Review
  Common Fisheries Policy and the IGC
  Common Fisheries Policy and the IGC
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones: Grant Scheme
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones: Grant Scheme
  South West Objective 5(b) Area: Projects
  South West Objective 5(b) Area: Projects