Sitting of 13 May 1996

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

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to make non-departmental bodies more accountable to the House; and if he will make a statement. [27664]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Government are committed to improving the accountability of non-departmental public bodies. We welcomed the recommendations in the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and have recently published a consultative paper on propriety and accountability issues in public bodies.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Chancellor address the vexed question of Members of Parliament who write to Ministers and find that their questions are shuttled off to some agency or other body? Many of those questions relate to the health, welfare and destinies of our constituents. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Ministers who are responsible for their Departments answer such questions? Will he also ensure that non-departmental bodies are more open and democratic, and serve members of the community as they wish to be served?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that all hon. Members have found the experiment involving chief executives of agencies answering questions of fact helpful. I well understand that one or two hon. Members might not approve of the practice, and it is open to them to write directly to Ministers and to ask for replies that can be made public in due course. I shall, however, bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said when we review the practice.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to refer to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools as quangos? Are not those bodies staffed by dedicated local people who give of the wealth and breadth of their experience? Surely they should not be made more directly accountable to the House; they do an excellent job now—and they would no doubt have a view about the withdrawal of child benefit from some of their students by the Labour party.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the work of not only grant-maintained school governing bodies but, by implication, national health service trusts and other bodies that draw on volunteers from the private sector who give their time freely and, in most cases, without payment. Let me record the Government's gratitude to all who serve on such bodies.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is not the real problem about quangos the fact that they have become the unelected, unaccountable and secretive state? As the right hon. Gentleman's party has been swept from office in local government, has it not transferred functions to unelected quangos and packed them with its placemen and women, and are not those bodies—health authorities, for example—totally unaccountable to the communities that they serve? Why does the Chancellor not apply his mind to that problem?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's analysis, and his suggestion that such bodies are in some way unaccountable to their local communities. The Conservative party has argued, and continues to argue successfully, that they are drawn from—and therefore represent, in a very real sense, the aspirations and needs of—their local communities.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the first schools to become grant-maintained was Hendon school, in my constituency, which is now over-subscribed rather than under-subscribed? Is he also aware that, while Labour Members may attack non-departmental bodies in the House, they are happy to send their children to grant-maintained schools? That includes the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Freeman: I note what my hon. Friend says. We have reduced the number of non-departmental public bodies by 43 per cent. since 1979—from 2,167 to 1,227 at the end of 1995. That excludes grant-maintained schools and national health service trusts, but it reflects a welcome downward trend.

    Government Policy Co-ordination
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent review he has conducted of the co-ordination of Government policy; and what conclusions he has reached. [27665]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The co-ordination of Government policy is kept under constant review. I have no proposals to change present arrangements.
    Mr. Hughes: The first part of that answer might be a jolly good thing, because I was going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether there had been a particular review since the local government elections. If the governing party loses half the seats that it is defending, if it is left with about a dozen councils in England, Scotland and Wales, if it has the fewest local government seats that it has had since, I think, the last war and if it is now the third party in local government, is there not something to review and, if so, what is the result of the Government's evaluation of an abysmal local election performance?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would remember that, at the last election, his party lost every by-election seat that it had won and that he would have learnt a lesson from that: one does not take short-term measures when one is fighting a general election campaign, which will be determined in real circumstances in a year's time, when the Tories will win.
    Mr. Jessel: On Government policy on the national lottery and its provision for good causes, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Charities Aid Foundation has announced—if I heard my car radio right about half an hour ago—that there has been no reduction in the general provision of money for charities by the public as a result of the national lottery, and that that is apart from the money thrown up for charities by the national lottery, which is a tremendous national achievement and has conferred terrific benefit?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to that exciting news, which builds on the considerable increase in charitable giving that other Government measures have already achieved. The present lottery additionality is welcomed by many causes.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge the disarray in the presentation of Government policy on British beef, where the Secretary of State for Health accused the public, and not the cows, of being mad? Does the Deputy Prime Minister therefore agree with the Foreign Secretary's assessment in his leaked letter to the Prime Minister that the Government suffer from poor co-ordination of policy? Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept any responsibility for that?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House knows that this is one of the most difficult issues that any Government have faced in a long time; trying to make party points out of it serves no purpose. The Government's policy is clear: we are, where we can, helping the farming community and we are dealing with the issues in world forums and in the world political scene, wherever relevant. We must persuade other people in sovereign countries to change their minds. We will not do so by belittling our effort on a party political basis.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Reverting to the vexed issue of the European Union's ban on British beef exports and the difference—the apparent difference, of course—in the governmental approach to it between acquiescence and possible retaliation, will my right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government concentrate on the EU's ban on British beef exports to non-EU countries as that is clearly beyond the EU's jurisdiction? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, if that aspect of the ban persists, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to retaliate?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend would want to bear in mind the fact that many of those countries introduced a ban of their own and that a significant number of them did so long before the European Union. This is an international issue; it is now a European issue. The beef market in many European countries is suffering more than this country's beef
    624
    market. This stretching, difficult political issue can be dealt with only by negotiation, however aggravated and difficult it undoubtedly is.

    Government Policy (Europe)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new initiatives he is planning to promote Government policy on Europe. [27669]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government have recently published a very clear statement of their policy on Europe in the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, "A Partnership of Nations". I commend it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MacShane: The tiredness of that reply and the feebleness of the previous one show exactly the extent to which the Deputy Prime Minister no longer puts real energy behind any of the Government's policies. His party is now a sick joke over Europe. As a strong European and a man who has given many years of service to his party, does he not feel that the time may have come to retire and enjoy a few years of peace, leaving the party fight to the rabble behind him?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: As the Labour party so cravenly does not want to be isolated on Europe, and as the Liberal Democrats want a European federal state, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party is the only one that wants to see the competencies of the European Union repatriated to this country in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to state quite clearly that the real difference between the Government and the Opposition side is that we wish to have a Europe based on the nation state whereas they wish to have a Europe to which they are prepared to move critical powers, the effect of which would be to undermine the competitiveness of the British economy. Nowhere is that more clear than in their willingness to accept the social chapter and the minimum wage, the effect of which would be to deter investment in this country and to create more unemployment than is in any way justified. My authority for that last statement is the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has made it absolutely clear that the minimum wage, "as any fool knows", to quote his words, will cause a loss of jobs.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify whether the Government see the European Court of Justice as a necessary body to which the Government must have recourse if other European countries take action that distorts markets or prevents free competition, as in the case of beef, or as an unwelcome intrusion into the private affairs of member states? Surely it has to be one or the other.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, it does not have to be one or the other at all. There cannot be a single market without rules and there cannot be rules without someone to enforce them. Therefore, there has to be a European

    625
    Court of Justice. In the Government's view, that does not mean that all its decisions are right, or that some of its powers cannot be improved. As we propose in the White Paper, we intend to address those issues and we shall certainly do so at the intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Caborn: Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House how he intends to promote the new policy on competitiveness that was outlined by the President of the Board of Trade in a speech last week? It cuts across the two White Papers on competitiveness and has left them in total disarray. How will the right hon. Gentleman communicate that?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If I had a problem of that sort I would address it, but as there is no such problem I have not had to put my mind to it.

    Deregulation Task Force
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many firms with fewer than 100 employees are represented on the Government's deregulation task force. [27671]
    Mr. Freeman: We do not hold figures for the number of people employed by each of the firms that has a member on the deregulation task force. However, three of the 12 business representatives are from small firms.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Minister explain why there are more ex-Tory Members of Parliament on the deregulation task force than small business men, bearing it in mind that 99 per cent. of the task force's work involves small businesses?
    Mr. Freeman: The appointments to the deregulation task force—the posts are unpaid—are drawn from those with expertise in different sectors of the economy. I pay tribute to the work of the task force under its current chairman, the right hon. Francis Maude, who has made a valuable contribution to identifying areas in which we should deregulate. Criticism of the deregulation task force comes ill from a party that, as I understand it, wants to scrap the task force and the deregulation unit in the Cabinet Office.
    Mr. Steen rose—
    Madam Speaker: It is scarcely deserving, Mr. Steen, but I shall recognise you.
    Mr. Steen: I explained the circumstances that brought me into the Chamber, and on the way I was delayed by a call that all of us understand.
    Is not the problem with deregulation one of culture, and is not the culture of this place—of hon. Members, Ministers and civil servants—geared to passing more laws? This place spends all its time passing laws. Until we change that culture so that Ministers, hon. Members and civil servants do not think about passing more laws, we will not make the progress on deregulation that we should like.
    Mr. Freeman: Had my hon. Friend been able to put the question on which I had done a considerable amount of research, I might have been able to tell him that, in changing the culture, it is very important for Departments to focus on areas for repeal of primary and secondary legislation. We have made a good start by identifying 1,000 necessary repeals or amendments. We have already dealt with more than 600 of those, and the remaining 400 will have been dealt with by the end of this calendar year. That culture change should apply not only to Whitehall but to Brussels.

    Next Steps Agencies
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase the number of next steps agencies in the next 12 months. [27672]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): With some 70 per cent. of civil servants already working under next steps arrangements, we are getting very close to the original estimate of covering three quarters of the civil service. There are currently 124 agencies in operation, as well as Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, which operate on next steps lines. I would expect about two dozen more agencies to be set up in the coming year.
    Mr. Heppell: Does the Minister agree with the views expressed today in The Guardian by the former chief executive of the Prison Service, that all Government agencies should be protected from incompetent and over-excited Ministers?
    Mr. Willetts: The framework within which staff in next steps agencies work is very clear: they are civil servants; they are bound by normal civil service rules; they are accountable to Ministers; and Ministers, in turn, are accountable to the House.

    Deregulation
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of deregulation. [27673]
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the main objectives for deregulation during the next 12 months. [27674]
    Mr. Freeman: Eleven deregulation orders have passed into law, and there is a steady flow of new orders. We shall also work to make enforcement decisions more business friendly and to encourage a similar approach to regulation in Europe. Specific priorities include pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions joint working and a substantial reduction in the burden of Government surveys.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is sensible to get rid of pointless and unnecessary regulations, it is not very sensible to deregulate merely for the sake of deregulation? Does he agree that many regulations that appear silly to the layman can be justified and should be retained?
    Mr. Freeman: The House will recognise that there is a constant flow of new regulations emanating from Brussels and from Whitehall, which is inevitable in an increasingly complicated society. Some regulations, however, have outlived their usefulness—I refer specifically to Victorian social legislation on what we do on Sundays—and are no longer appropriate. It is appropriate to remove specific burdens on businesses when that is helpful and does not jeopardise the protection of employees or the environment.
    Mr. Pike: Why does not the Chancellor admit that—other than many of those petty, outdated Victorian regulations that surely should have gone many years ago—his Department is increasingly discovering that regulation is necessary for protection in many areas and that it is impossible to remove much of it, contrary to what the Government thought possible a few years ago?
    Mr. Freeman: Interestingly, the Health and Safety Commission has discovered that it can, with safety and without jeopardising the protection of the consumer or the work force, reduce by 40 per cent. the number of health and safety regulations. That shows what can be done, Department by Department, without jeopardising the principles to which the hon. Gentleman referred and with which I agree.

    Deregulation (Small Business Sector)
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals there are to deregulate the small business sector; and if he will make a statement. [27675]
    Mr. Willetts: A package of new measures for small business was announced at the "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March. The measures included a single notification point for tax and national insurance for new businesses and new rights for business in enforcement actions. A further response to the issues raised by small businesses during the conferences will be published in June.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am a small business man—I have been in business for some 20 years—and find the notion of depriving thousands of people of the protection afforded by employment tribunals quite abhorrent. Indeed, that feeling has been expressed wherever I have been. Is it not a ridiculous notion? I hope that the Government are not stupid enough to pursue it.
    Mr. Willetts: There will be no question of making any such proposals without full consideration and legal advice. Overall, however, the Government are committed to reducing the burdens on business. As the hon. Gentleman is a small business man, I am sure that he will recognise that the fact that 500,000 of the smallest companies no longer have to have their accounts audited is a welcome easing of the burdens that they face.

    Government Policy Co-ordination
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent activities concerning the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. [27677]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I continue to chair the ministerial group on the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy and to promote the remarkable success of our polices in creating in this country the enterprise centre of Europe.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. Will he be appearing on television to support the views of the Foreign Secretary, who is seeking ways deliberately to block business in Europe, or the views that he has expressed in the past and which are shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about playing a constructive role in the European Union?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: But the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are wholly agreed on our approach to European policy.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the competitiveness of small businesses. [27679]
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the competitiveness of small businesses. [27682]
    Mr. Freeman: The Prime Minister announced a range of measures to help small firms at the final "Your Business Matters" conference in March. They included further reductions in bureaucracy, measures to help with late payment and a radical review of the Government's business support schemes. The Government will respond in full to the issues raised at the conferences in a publication produced alongside the third competitiveness White Paper in the summer.
    Mr. Timms: Why, then, have the Government placed the new burden on small businesses of having to check the immigration status of job applicants? Would not it have been better for the Government to have supported Labour's amendment to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which would have exempted firms with fewer than 10 employees from that requirement and from the £5,000 fine when they get it wrong?
    Mr. Freeman: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made great efforts to ensure that the burdens on businesses caused by their enforcing the provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Bill are minimised as much as possible. However, the provisions must be effective and we cannot simply exempt small firms from the Bill's general requirements.
    Mrs. Clwyd: How can the Minister expect to be taken seriously on this issue when his boss boasts about stringing along his creditors and when late payments to small businesses doubled when his boss was President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Freeman: That is a travesty of what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State said or implied or believes. In any case, my right hon. Friend is well able to answer for himself and has already done so.

    629
    As for setting a standard for prompt payment, the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have made it plain that the Government must set that standard. The Prime Minister has taken steps to ensure that each Department examines its own practices and pays promptly but, very often, the reason for late payment is that there is some fundamental problem with the invoice or bill itself. One cannot expect Government Departments, which are dispensing taxpayers' money, automatically to pay every bill simply because there is a payment deadline to be met. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied with that reply.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which was the principal Government policy with which he was concerned in the week beginning 6 May. [27680]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have continued to work on a full range of those Government policies for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Arnold: When my right hon. Friend co-ordinates Government policy, does he have the problem that some Cabinet members—[Interruption.] Does he find that some Cabinet members have not spoken to each other for 18 months, which is precisely the problem that his opposite number in the Labour party has with shadow Cabinet members?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a most interesting point, which shows proper compassion for the Labour party's activities. I would be very happy to offer to hold a reception for the Leader of the Opposition, so that his shadow Cabinet could get together in convivial circumstances and try to sort out their difficulties in private.
    Mr. Skinner: Given his Government's record, has not the Deputy Prime Minister got a cheek to lecture anybody about not being united and not speaking to one another? Is it not a fact that a little over 12 months ago his Prime Minister said that he had three bastards in the Cabinet? I told him that he could not count. Then he had a ballot, in which the Deputy Prime Minister refused to take part—Redwood v. Deadwood—and the net result was that the Prime Minister found that he had 89 bastards instead of three.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I shall be very happy to invite the hon. Gentleman to the reception as well—then the shadow Cabinet could really learn what new Labour is all about.
    Madam Speaker: We now come to Question 16.
    The Deputy Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Prescott: Not you again.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, there is more of this; it is me all the way from now on. [Laughter.] I have to keep the deputy leader of the Labour party amused. Since the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) cannot amuse him, I can at least bring a little light relief.

    English Language
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what priority he attaches to English as a language when co-ordinating Government policies. [27681]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government attach great importance to the use of clear and appropriate language in all areas of their work.
    Mr. Rathbone: Although this question does not in any way point to this Chamber, it is notable that the Government are reducing expenditure on the British Council, the great spreader and supporter of the English language throughout the world. Would the Government reconsider the reduction?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's views about the importance of the British Council's work, but the allocation of funding responsibilities must remain a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Flynn: Should not the Procedure Committee be congratulated on recommending that a policy that has applied since 1536 be reversed so that for the first time in 460 years a language other than English is to be used in conducting the business of the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will do his best to speed up the recommendation that both the beautiful languages of Wales—Welsh and English—should be used in the proceedings of the only parliament that Wales has?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It sounds as though this is another example of precipitate action. The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point and I shall give it a great deal of attention later today.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of deregulation on public safety. [27687]
    Mr. Freeman: When making orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, Ministers are required to show that necessary protection for public safety will be maintained. Deregulation is about making legislation clear and less burdensome—not about removing legitimate public protection.
    Mr. Flynn: In the light of the continuing tragedy of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, why do not the Government stop blaming everyone else—from the Opposition to other countries—when the root of this uniquely British disease stems from a decision taken in the 1980s to deregulate the rendering industry? When will the Government learn that the decisions that they are taking on deregulation might cause enormous problems to public safety in the years ahead?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not accept the analysis by the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to pursue this line of questioning about the connection between deregulation and the origin of BSE, I shall be delighted to enter into correspondence with him. He is factually incorrect. I refer to assessing the

    631
    risk to society as a result of introducing new regulations and repealing existing regulations. The Government have recently published a document—I have placed a copy in the Library—to help Departments determine the risk inherent in any repeal of legislation. It details how Departments can quantify risk and the benefit to society of legislating and of repealing legislation.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Trade Unions (Third-world Countries)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he provides to support the development of free trade unions in third-world countries. [27692]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Under the British aid programme, support is provided for projects to improve working conditions and terms of service through the workers group development scheme, and for trade union education and training through the joint funding scheme.
    Mr. MacShane: I had hoped that the Minister would provide a figure as my question was about assistance. As the Minister knows, this year the Government will provide about £200,000 to support democratic trade unionism in the third world. In comparison, the United States will provide about $20 million; Sweden will provide about £6 million; and even the Netherlands—a country with a similar profile to the United Kingdom—will provide some £7 million.
    When will the Government drop their pathetic, mean-minded hostility towards trade unions? Even if the Government hate trade unions in this country, they should recognise that they are part of the building blocks of democracy in the third world. The Government should give support to democratic trade unionism in the third world.
    Mr. Hanley: We support responsible trade unionism as part of promoting good government. Since 1987 we have given £1 million in aid to the joint funding scheme, and every year we give £200,000 to the workers group development scheme for trade union and employee development. That scheme covers important issues such as women's rights, health and safety, and financial management.
    I believe that the new workers group development scheme is a success. It has been fully spent this year, with nine projects. However, there are competing interests for funding by the Department. I believe that the current scheme is a success.
    Mr. Jessel: The power and influence of trade unions were drastically curtailed in this country in the early 1980s, which was followed by the biggest period of economic expansion ever in the history of this country—which is being echoed by the growth in our economy in the mid-1990s. Therefore, is it not poor advice to developing countries that they should foster the development of trade unions?
    Mr. Hanley: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Support for trade unions forms part of our support for
    632
    good government. We want to encourage representative and responsible civil
    societies and responsible trade unions, along with business associations, have a role in this. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that business associations are just as important as trade unions for growth and democracy—and I agree. We are willing to consider support for business associations, but they tend to be more self-reliant.

    Drinking Water
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he is taking with the privatised water companies to provide expertise and material for the distribution of drinking water in developing countries. [27693]
    Mr. Hanley: Four of the major privatised water companies are currently involved in projects funded under the British aid programme, which relate to the supply and distribution of drinking water in developing countries. We will continue to encourage the water companies to bid for new water-related projects in developing countries.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since privatisation, Severn Trent, which of course supplies water to constituents in Mid-Staffordshire, gives £55,000 a year to Water Aid in developing countries; that, last year, about £300,000 was collected from staff of Severn Trent for Water Aid in developing countries; and that, this year, Severn Trent adopted Ethiopia for exploration for and distribution of fresh water? What more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that other water companies follow that lead?
    Mr. Hanley: I am aware of Severn Trent's excellent record, which my hon. Friend is right to bring to the attention of the House. He asks what more can be done.
    During the launch of a recent water initiative called Water for Life, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development encouraged the United Kingdom private sector, including the water companies and other non-governmental organisations, to take an active role in the development of the water sector in developing countries.
    I am pleased that, in addition to the support provided under Britain's bilateral aid programme, the privatised water companies are encouraged to pursue those activities in the water sector in developing countries, funded by the multilateral agencies to which the UK contributes.
    I should also mention the overseas projects board water group, which is convened by the Department of Trade and Industry and chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). It provides a forum for the exchange of information with the major water boards about current activities and opportunities in the water sector in developing countries.

    Reconstruction (South Africa)
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with representatives of the South African Government about Britain's contribution to reconstruction in that country; and if he will make a statement. [27695]
    Mr. Hanley: We maintain a regular high-level dialogue with the South African Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade have all visited recently. Bilateral relations are excellent and British aid to the transition process is highly valued.
    Mr. Rathbone: While I welcome that statement and endorse those efforts, what advance is being made in the European Union to establish a better trading relationship between South Africa and the European Union, which that country desperately needs?
    Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for that question because Britain is highly committed to giving South Africa better access to the EU market as an important way of contributing to its growth. We have argued throughout that the new arrangements should be as generous as possible. However, some EU member states wanted to limit the scope of the agreement by excluding, from the outset of the negotiations, many South African agricultural exports; we have consistently opposed that.
    After several months of talks within the European Union, the 25 March meeting of the EU Foreign Ministers had before it a draft mandate to open negotiations with South Africa. The mandate was not as liberal as we wanted, and we had the option of blocking it, but the South Africans told us that they wanted to begin negotiations as soon as possible so we decided to abstain. We have nevertheless issued a declaration outlining our concerns, with which Sweden associated itself.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to improve the relationship between the EU and South Africa, primarily to further the cause of improving South Africa.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Is the Minister able to assure us that he is doing everything he can in the Council of Ministers to gain entry into the full Lomé convention for South Africa, as that would be of such benefit to South Africa's reconstruction plan?
    Mr. Hanley: Yes. The Commission recently opened direct negotiations with South Africa to work out the details of the trade agreement. The mandate contains an explicit commitment to regional economic co-operation and integration, and states that South Africa will be encouraged to provide improved market access opportunities to its southern African neighbours.
    On EU-South African liberalisation, the Commission has made it clear that it will return to the Council to ask for greater negotiating flexibility if the current mandate proves too restrictive.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade is a very important ingredient in the reconstruction of South Africa? Will he have a word with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that, at a time when funding for trade missions is very tight, trade missions to South Africa have some measure of continuity from year to year so as to encourage mutual arrangements between small businesses in the respective countries?
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend: trade and investment is the key to South Africa's long-term prosperity. The Government are committed to developing commercial links with South Africa, but there is still a role for well-targeted aid. Our aid is designed to help to develop sound policies, to establish models of sustainable development and to focus on disadvantaged groups. We must improve our trade links, and my hon. Friend points in a useful direction with trade missions.

    World Poverty
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Christian Aid group to discuss world poverty; and if he will make a statement. [27696]
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met representatives of Christian Aid and other non-governmental organisations in the development field on 23 January and plans to have a follow-up meeting with them later this year. I met a number of NGOs, including Christian Aid, at a Foreign Office seminar on 25 April. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and her officials have frequent contacts with those organisations, the next such meeting being on 16 May. Our discussions with the NGOs cover a wide range of issues affecting developing countries, including poverty reduction.
    Mr. O'Brien: In view of the Minister's response, will he assure me that he will support the campaign by the Christian Aid group to eradicate poverty in Africa? In 1994, the poor people of Africa paid £10 billion to the country's wealthy creditors and obviously assistance is going in the wrong direction. Will the Minister support Christian Aid's campaign to try to reverse that process?
    Mr. Hanley: Yes, I certainly believe that that is the main focus of our aid to Africa. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have written off £1.2 billion in Overseas Development Administration debt for 31 countries—of which 18 were African—since the 1970s. Poverty reduction in Africa is an important part of all of our programmes. It is one of the reasons why at the spring meeting of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund last month it was agreed that several heavily indebted, poor countries have an unsustainable burden of debt and that action must be taken to reduce it so as not to put their reform efforts at risk. That action is being taken on the multilateral debt side. We are leading not only the European Union but the world community in trying to alleviate poverty in Africa.
    Miss Lestor: Can the Minister confirm that at the recent conference in Oslo, which an ODA representative attended, the NGOs made it clear that they believe that the 20:20 compact—endorsed on a voluntary basis by the British Government at the world summit in Copenhagen last year—forms a vital part of a comprehensive strategy for the alleviation of poverty? Given that the Government have reduced this year's aid budget by £124 million; that, on current plans, the proportion of gross national product devoted to aid will fall to an all-time low of 0.26 per cent. by 2000; and that the fundamental expenditure review does not refer to the 20:20 compact, what plans does the

    635
    Minister have to meet the United Nations target of 20 per cent. development assistance to be invested in basic social services, such as primary health care and education? Why did we achieve only about half of that target in 1994–95?
    Mr. Hanley: The 20:20 concept has attracted a good deal of attention because it is a superficially straightforward idea. However, it is unsatisfactory because it emphasises only the quantity of resources at a time of increasing donor awareness about the need to focus on impact, quality and effectiveness. It is an old-fashioned emphasis on inputs rather than outputs, and we want to avoid a return to the 1970s approach of top down, vertically targeted activities which failed to involve the beneficiaries in any assessment of their needs and priorities.
    In answer to the hon. Lady's fifth or six question, we still have a substantial aid programme. I repeat that the United Kingdom remains the fifth largest donor despite the small budget reduction this year. We have a substantial budget of £2.154 billion in 1996–97. In 1994, our aid programme was 0.31 per cent. of GNP, which is above average for all donors, and the quality of British aid is extremely high. We still have an excellent record in aid. I do not accept the hon. Lady's criticisms. If she wants to make a financial commitment to increasing aid to 0.7 per cent., I would be grateful if she would say so clearly in the House.

    Emergency Disaster Relief
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's emergency disaster relief work. [27698]
    Mr. Hanley: Since 1 April, the ODA has responded to new emergencies in Bolivia, Chad, Ecuador, Georgia, Lebanon and Mongolia, with grants totalling £844,000. It has also continued funding action in more than 20 other long-term situations.
    Mr. Arnold: Is it not the case that the United Kingdom has achieved an enviable reputation for flexibility, speed and effectiveness in the overseas aid that it provides to emergency disaster relief?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our response to emergencies is highly regarded, but we cannot do everything. So it is important that we concentrate on what we can do best: supporting the excellent British specialist non-governmental organisations, running a limited number of direct operations and acting swiftly through our diplomatic posts, as we have in the past month in Bolivia, Lebanon and Mongolia. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our emergency response is excellent.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Comptroller and Auditor General
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the number of accountants employed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. [27701]
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I understand that the National Audit Office currently employs more than 350 qualified accountants and 70 qualified accounting technicians. A further 103 staff are training for those qualifications. In addition, the NAO contracts out about 12 per cent. of accounts audit work to the private sector. As a result, all accounts are audited by trained staff.
    Mr. Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend consider the secondment of just one of those accountants to the United Nations so that Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali could learn the virtues of economy? Could he also send one to the German Government, who have yet to pay their annual subscription to the United Nations? Should not those who call for a single European foreign policy at least be willing to pay the bill?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Comptroller and Auditor General is a member of a three-nation board that audits the accounts of the United Nations. Of course, in that capacity he is responsible to the United Nations and not to the House, but if he is able to establish that contributions have not been paid and that the United Kingdom bears an undue burden as a result of that, it would be open to any Member of the House or the Public Accounts Committee to ask him for a report so that the issue could be considered.

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will increase the allocation of staff costs in respect of the operating budget of the National Audit Office. [27702]
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office estimate for 1996–97, approved by the Commission in January, provides for an increasing number of financial audits, for a rise in the level of regularity and propriety work and for sufficient value-for-money investigations to offer the Committee on Public Accounts a margin of choice in the subjects that it considers.
    Mr. Steen: That was an impressive answer. However, the House should be aware that, as the National Audit Office aims to ensure that we get better value for money, as all the legislation we pass here is properly vetted and costed and as we have approved 7,850 statutory instruments since January 1994, it must be inevitable that we will have to increase even further the staff at the National Audit Office. As we pass more rules, regulations and Acts of Parliament, the number of staff, the amount of bureaucracy and the number of officials will rise sky high. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The National Audit Office is an example to every Department. It is increasing the volume of its work and effectiveness at lower cost—in not just real but cash terms. If every Department were to do the same as the NAO, which works on our behalf, the Government and the House would be a great deal better off.
    Mr. Olner: If Departments really respect the view of the National Audit Office, how come the Government do not accept the views of the auditors in respect of Westminster city council?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Westminster city council's accounts are audited by the Audit Commission, not the National Audit Office.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    British Council
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current role of the British Council in overseas aid programmes. [27699]
    Mr. Hanley: The British Council makes a valuable contribution to the UK aid programme, by supporting the Government's development objectives through activities financed by the grant in aid, and more generally as a supplier of educational and other services under contract to the Overseas Development Administration and other development organisations.
    Mr. Hain: If the Government recognise that the British Council performs such a valuable role, why are the Government so savagely cutting the council's budget by £22 million over the next three years? That is surely the act of a bunch of cretins, and it breaks an election pledge because in 1992, the Conservatives promised to strengthen the British Council. Having seen the council's valuable work in Angola, Egypt and Gaza I can confirm that the council is not only conducting good works but serves as a shop window for Britain's commercial organisations and image abroad.
    Mr. Hanley: Activity in the countries covered is at a record level. The council has 229 offices in 109 countries, compared with 108 offices in 79 countries when we took office. There is no change in Government policy towards British Council grant in aid. We continue to value highly the council's work in development and cultural diplomacy, but the 1995 public expenditure round was particularly rigorous and resulted in a reduction in funds for the aid programme. It was not possible to protect the British Council from the effects, but the way in which that reduction will work its way through is being considered and there will be decisions before the end of this month.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Bishops' Palaces (Maintenance Costs)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what are the annual maintenance costs in respect of bishops' palaces. [27703]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The annual maintenance cost in 1995
    638
    for the 45 diocesan bishops' houses, including the Archbishop of Canterbury's London base of Lambeth palace, was £1,704,000. That figure includes repairs and decorations; other outgoings, such as insurance and water rates; garden outgoings, including gardeners' pay; and the cost of staff accommodation, less incomes from lettings and so forth.
    Mr. Banks: Methinks the right hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. I did not know the supplementary question that I would ask until, like manna from heaven, I saw a story in the Daily Mail reporting the new Bishop of Chelmsford as saying that he does not want his new palace—which offers six bedrooms, three bathrooms, staff accommodation and three acres of ground. That is not sufficient for the new Bishop of Chelmsford. Perhaps he should remember the words of Matthew, chapter 19, verse 24:
    "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
    If a manger in a stable was good enough for the Lord, whingeing from the princes of the Church is not good enough for us.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), with almost Gallic fervour, is trying to score a goal in the last five minutes—but he has not succeeded. The good Bishop of Chelmsford occupies a small amount of the accommodation, but the house is impossibly close to the A12 dual carriageway and one cannot hear oneself speak, think or pray in the palace. It would be a good thing if the bishop found better accommodation.
    Mr. Garnier: If the hon. and saintly Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is so concerned about the size of bishops' palaces, would not one answer be to open them more frequently to the public so that others could also enjoy this architectural heritage, just as we enjoy the heritage of our other great buildings?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. Of the 45 diocesan bishops' residences, only 11 can properly be described as having an historic background. Of those 11, Auckland castle, Hartlebury castle and the palace of Wells are already open to the public; and I believe that the Archbishop of York is seeking to open up Bishopsthorpe in York. My hon. and learned Friend's point is well taken, therefore.

    Residential Property
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the number of residential properties that are owned by the Church of England and not currently designated for use by clergy; and if he will place a list of the properties in the Library. [27705]
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners do not keep central records of Church of England properties that are not currently designated for use by clergy. Each diocese keeps a record of the property it owns and of clergy's houses, and of whether they are empty or occupied. The Church Commissioners own, as part of their investment

    639
    portfolio, a total of 3,720 residential units. In view of the number of these properties, it would not be practicable to place a list of all of them in the Library.
    Mr. Hughes: Given the large number of people who are without housing, temporary or permanent, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, if necessary diocese by diocese, so as to satisfy hon. Members that these properties are being made good use of? During the period between one incumbent leaving and another taking up his post—often as long as six months or more—and on any other occasions when properties are not used for Church members of staff, they should not be left empty. Instead, they should be offered, short term, to meet people's
    640
    housing needs so that the Church's residential property is at all times full and used to house people who might otherwise have no house.
    Mr. Alison: As I have said, that is the responsibility of the parishes and dioceses, but I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's observations are passed on to them, in view of his interest in the matter.
    It might just be worth pointing out that of the 3,720 residential units for which the Church Commissioners have a direct responsibility, only 24 are currently vacant; of those, 18 are under offer for sale on long lease or short letting. We are anxious to pursue exactly the course that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fear that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who I see in his place, inadvertently misled the House when winding up the debate on the civil service pension scheme on Tuesday 7 May. At column 130 I said:
"Is not the real reason the Government's wish to privatise Paymaster? Without the order, a privatised Paymaster could not tender for the contract. Without that substantial contract, Paymaster would be a far less attractive proposition for privatisation."
In his closing speech, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"That has nothing to do with the payment of pensions to former civil servants. The proposals in the order concern entirely the administration of the scheme for current civil servants and are nothing to do with Paymaster's function of paying out benefits and pensions to retired civil servants."—[Official Report, 7 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 130–36.]
The Parliamentary Secretary paid me the courtesy of writing to me to draw this to my attention, but I thought that as he was here answering questions today, he should take the opportunity to put the record straight.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I confirm that the order which the House approved last week does cover all aspects of the administration of civil service pensions. I regret that my winding-up speech did not make that point clear. As you know, Madam Speaker, I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of my letter to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) which clarifies the point.
Mr. Anthony Steen: On a similar point of order to that of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), Madam Speaker. At last Thursday's oral questions, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was recorded as saying that an oyster farm in my constituency had been closed because of an
"unacceptable risk to human health."—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 361.]
That is not the case, because the farm meets the requirements of the European directives, but did not comply with the gold-plating by MAFF officials. I wonder if the attention of the Editor of Hansard could be drawn to that fact.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to draw his point to the Minister's attention. It is hardly a point of order for me, but it is a matter for the Minister.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any information from the Department of Trade and Industry about a statement on the announcement by the gas regulator that some 10,000 British Gas TransCo jobs, many of them located in my constituency, may go as a result of her arbitrary new pricing decision? Frankly, the consumers and the employees of British Gas are caught between Cedric the pig and the unaccountable Clare "Spotted-dick"—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that matter on an Adjournment debate, I shall be glad to consider any application he makes. All hon. Members know that if a statement is to be made by the Government, a notice appears on the annunciator screen by 1 o'clock so that we are all aware of it.
Mr. Robert Key: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were all grateful to you for your statement on 19 January 1995 in response to a legitimate complaint from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In that statement, you said that
"a Member whose constituency is directly affected by an answer should be informed of the answer at the same time as the Member who has asked the question and the press."
You also said that
"It would also be a useful courtesy if any Member tabling a question directly affecting another's constituency—something which should not be done lightly in any case—took care to inform that Member of the action that he or she has taken."—[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 862.]
This morning, I had a two-and-a-half-hour meeting with the staff of Salisbury tax office to try to stave off its closure by the Board of Inland Revenue. The staff told me at 12.30 today that a parliamentary question had been tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Despite my parliamentary questions and ministerial correspondence, he felt it necessary to do that. He did not inform me and I confirmed with his office as soon as I arrived in the Palace of Westminster that he had not sought to inform me. The hon. Gentleman tabled five parliamentary questions about my constituency without contacting me. If he had, I would have advised him to get in touch with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), whose tax office is also threatened with closure.
Will you, Madam Speaker, confirm the views that you expressed in January 1995?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given the House the date when I made that statement and the column reference, which is 862. That statement still stands and it is very firm. Members who table a question directly about another Member's constituency, which should not be done lightly, should in any case take care to inform the other Member in advance that they are going to do so. Such matters should be resolved between Members and should not come to the Chair of the House, especially after firm statements have been made about how we should conduct ourselves in the Chamber.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman going to apologise for his colleague?
Mr. Hughes: I have not spoken to my colleague, but may I accept what you say and explain one point to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, which may require you to adjudicate again and we may be able to respond in the way that you have indicated? My assumption is that my colleague, who is our Treasury spokesman, will have asked questions about a tax office in—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I made it clear in 1995 that if questions are to be asked, which should not be done lightly, the Member should be informed. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was informed about the questions when he saw them on the Order Paper. That is not the way to behave. I will hear no more points of order about that matter because every Member knows how strongly I feel about it. We shall now get on with our business.

Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Northern Ireland Economy
  3.38 pm
  Sir James Molyneaux: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's Report No. 118, February 1996.
  The report named in our motion is an assessment of the implications of the 1995 Budget on Northern Ireland. Lest anyone should assume that I am going to plead a special case for our part of the United Kingdom or, worse still, advocate a separate tax regime for the Province, let me make it clear that my party accepts some responsibility for that Budget. During the debate on the Queen's Speech on 22 November 1995, I ventured to tender advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then reaching his firm and final decisions on the contents of his Budget. My subsequent support during the Budget debate for the Chancellor's proposals was in line with my party's consistent policy since it was forced to become a separate party in Parliament.
  We are in the happy position of finding ourselves broadly in alignment with the Treasury team in reducing the national debt, reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, maintaining the Government's excellent record on low inflation and avoiding a fixed exchange rate. On that final issue, my party's policy pre-dates the debate on a common currency. Our policy is based on a firm conviction that although a common currency can work within a nation—an example was given recently by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who observed that the economies of London and Liverpool are vastly different, with the former giving assistance to the latter—a uniform currency for sovereign nations flies in the face of common sense. As a party, my colleagues and I derive reassurance from the convergence of the Government and the Opposition on most of the principles to which I have referred, and economic policies.
  I have sketched in the national background to our financial structures so that we can examine the position of one part of the nation, which in this instance is the Northern Ireland component. In examining budgetary effects on Northern Ireland, we must look beyond the current year to the decade ahead. One Budget is little more than a blip; it represents a modest shift in balance which has a limited effect, in the long term, on the nation or any part thereof. That is not to say, however, that we should ignore the fact that even a tilt of a few degrees can seriously damage any one of the regions of the United Kingdom.
  It is in that sense that the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council reveals an unnoticed and probably unintentional disadvantage to the Province. The report observes that while newsworthy proposals such as duties on petrol, cigarettes and alcohol are highlighted, the distributional impact on incomes is rarely discussed.
  There is an assumption that the Northern Ireland economy is a microcosm of the United Kingdom economy. The report renders a service in illustrating the fallacy of that assumption. Incomes in Northern Ireland

  645
  are lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. For a variety of reasons, the social security system is a more significant source of income than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Sir George Quigley, the chairman of the economic council, has stated:
  "Given that the changes announced in the Budget tend to favour high earners and that the level of household income is on average lower in Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom, it is not altogether surprising that Northern Ireland households benefit less from the tax and benefit changes contained in the 1995 Budget than their United Kingdom counterparts."
  I am not advocating split-level taxation. However, given Sir George's assessment, which points to a loss to the Northern Ireland economy in total, there is a case for taking the factor into account when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury embarks on his consultations before setting out his public expenditure proposals, and especially the Northern Ireland allocation.
  It might be appropriate to note the concern expressed over public expenditure plans for the next three years. Whatever Government are in power, the closing years of the century will see a tightening of resources. If the undesirable effects of that are to be avoided and if the targeting of social needs is to achieve its objectives, we must embark on a concerted drive to achieve lasting long-term expansion of the Ulster economy.
  Given the inevitability of continual reduction in public finances throughout the years to come, greater use must be made of the public finance initiative. We have already seen examples of capital projects launched well in advance of the date when public finance would be available. I accept that the move from being a service provider to being a purchaser of services places the Government in a position in which they may be replacing a short-term capital commitment with a long-term revenue commitment, but I have great faith in the private sector—particularly in Northern Ireland—and I do not think that it is beyond the capacity of that sector to design measures to avoid that very trap. For the Government, the great bonus is the easing of the pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement, on which we are all broadly agreed in the House.
  In a recent study, our party proposed a merging of the various agencies that deal with indigenous business. We suggested that the Industrial Development Board should be encouraged and assisted in its role of attracting inward investment. When I use the words "encouraged and assisted", I am thinking particularly of the back-up structure that has been considered by Northern Ireland Ministers during past months, in the shape of an all-party council based in both Houses of Parliament. We would strongly support such a system, which would have enormous influence abroad and would put Northern Ireland's industrial capacity in the front rank. Nearer to home, there is much scope for co-operation. Without prejudice to England and Wales, we are planning to step up links with Scotland, our nearest neighbour—so near, indeed, as to be visible across the narrow sea.
  Let me interrupt my train of thought at this point, and mention another hobby horse of mine—the enterprise investment scheme that was introduced in the 1993 Budget. The object of the scheme was, and still is, to encourage small investors to support small companies. It has great potential in Northern Ireland, but there should and could be a much greater take-up. Perhaps it could be
  646
  facilitated by a degree of security for investors. I know that that kind of step may prove difficult, but it should not be impossible. If it proves difficult, perhaps more attractive tax concessions would have the desired effect—throughout the United Kingdom, that is.
  For the benefit of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), let me return to the subject of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) returned yesterday from a duty visit to Glasgow, and I was privileged to engage in discussions there during two weekends in April. Never was the Scottish dimension as real as it has been in recent weeks, with Scottish and Ulster farmers making common cause in the beef crisis. On behalf of my colleagues, let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) in taking steps to ease the plight of beef farmers on both sides of the Irish sea.
  The Scottish dimension is based on a common sense of values, on mutual understanding and on hard-headed business expertise and experience. There is no need for cross-channel structures; no clamour to find a solution. Ulster's relationship with Scotland provides a perfect example of two peoples united, not divided, by the sea, and existing in an atmosphere of trust and friendship. We hope that, sooner or later, we can develop the same relationship with the nation on our southern frontier.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the relationship between Northern Ireland and Scotland. What does his party think of the idea of a ferry service linking Ballycastle with Campbeltown and the Mull of Kintyre? The town and the Mull of Kintyre would definitely benefit economically from such a link.
  Sir James Molyneaux: We have always supported that project and I think that that applies to my colleagues on the Benches in front of me. We will do anything that we can, again in co-operation with our friends in Scotland, to bring it about because we take the view that the more numerous, effective and efficient the links are between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and thereby between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the better it will be for both our countries.
  We hope that, sooner or later, we can develop the same relationship with the nation on our southern frontier, which left the United Kingdom earlier this century. Some day, the path of reunification of the British Isles may become a reality—and, if it does, we really will have a common currency that would work—but that course may become realistic later this year, when the latest initiative, misnamed the "peace process", has run its course.
  That is not to suggest that those of us without ringside seats at that circus should stand around with bated breath. Far from it—we have a continuing duty to co-operate with the Government, the Opposition and the other parties in this Parliament to ensure that the work of the Queen's Government continues before and after a general election. It is that continuing certainty that will, more than anything else, create stability and settled conditions, which in turn will vastly improve the economic prospects for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, to which the greater number of Protestants, Roman Catholics, people of other faiths and of none wish simply to belong.
  3.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) on the way in which he introduced the debate. I listened with interest to what he said and I look forward to the contributions that will follow. The Government share the view that the matters discussed in the Northern Ireland Economic Council report are of great importance to all the people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore a subject worthy of careful debate.
  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about low taxation and inflation. I am not sure, however, whether this afternoon's events will confirm his belief that there is a complete convergence between Her Majesty's Opposition and the Government on the economy's management, but that will perhaps be revealed to the House later.
  I should like to take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the council's work—not only the report under consideration, but the wider body of reports that it has produced over the years. The council was established by Government as an independent advisory body in 1977. Over the years, it has exercised its independent role effectively and it continues to be a valuable source of external comment and advice. The Government find its contributions a useful and thought-provoking stimulus to the process of policy formulation and review, although, naturally, we do not always agree with all its analyses and recommendations.
  On 31 March, I wrote to Sir George Quigley, the council's chairman, to express our thanks for the report on the 1995 Budget and its implications for Northern Ireland. In doing so, I was pleased to acknowledge that the report provides useful summaries of the background to the Budget, as seen from both the national and regional perspectives, and of the economic characteristics of Northern Ireland households, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
  I was encouraged to note the council's overall conclusion in paragraph 6.8 of the report that the net effect of the expenditure and tax changes in the Budget is likely to be "slightly expansionist" in terms of the Northern Ireland economy and that that should "enhance growth opportunities". Right hon. and hon. Members will doubtless wish to comment on a number of points in the report, and it is worth reminding ourselves of the background.
  Recent trends in the Northern Ireland economy have been extremely positive. Unemployment has fallen over an extended period and employment is at is highest ever level, although those are not the only encouraging signs. The council's report recognises that the Northern Ireland economy has performed better than the United Kingdom economy as a whole on a number of important indicators. Given the relative positions that have obtained in the past, this is to be warmly welcomed.
  It is a statement of the obvious, but no less relevant for that, that the restoration of the Provisional IRA ceasefire and progress towards political development would have immensely beneficial effects on the Northern Ireland economy. No one can be unaware that violence has had an appallingly destructive effect on the Province's economic development over the past 25 years. That is why we continue to do all that we can to encourage political
  648
  progress, and it is why the whole community looks to all parties and interests to create the peace and stability which are the essential prerequisites for economic growth. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will say more about this when he responds to the debate.
  I have a particular interest, because of my responsibility for the Department of Finance and Personnel, in what the council's report says about public expenditure. The background to its comments on public spending is well known, but they bear repetition. Northern Ireland's needs have been and continue to be higher than the rest of the United Kingdom's, and that is recognised in the higher levels of public expenditure in the region. The comparisons are not always straightforward and need to be treated with some caution, as the report acknowledges, but identifiable public expenditure in Northern Ireland was some 32 per cent. higher in 1994–95, the last year for which the comparison is currently available, than the UK average.
  That is a very broad comparison, but it none the less confirms that there is a substantial, although I believe justifiable, differential in recognition of the region's particular circumstances. There are, for instance, proportionately very high levels of expenditure on law and order and industrial development, as one would expect, given the events of the past 25 years.
  The report refers to the fact that the Northern Ireland allocation for the current year, 1996–97, is over £8 billion. That is a substantial allocation in the context of the need for tight control over public finances. The report also notes that planned savings in the law and order budget resulting from the paramilitary ceasefires—totalling some £286 million over the period 1995–96 to 1998–99—have been reallocated within the Northern Ireland bloc rather than subtracted from it.
  Dr. Godman: The Minister mentions the reallocation of funds. Does he support the idea of a ferry service between Ballycastle and Campbeltown? Naturally, I would prefer such a service to link with Greenock, but in the meantime I would happily settle for a service between the Mull of Kintyre and Northern Ireland.
  Sir John Wheeler: The principle of such a service is interesting and it is almost certainly desirable. The question of how it would be funded would have to be carefully considered. I am, of course, aware of the degree of concern there is among the residents of Rathlin island and of Ballycastle about their ferry service. Those matters have to be looked at in the round and with very great care as to the implications for public expenditure.
  The amount of money redeployed as a result of the terrorist ceasefires is some £286 million, which is a substantial demonstration of the practical effect of the Prime Minister's undertaking in October 1994. The Government will take full account of Northern Ireland's special needs in setting levels of public spending for the Province.
  The tragedy is that those reallocations, which the report refers to as the public expenditure element of the peace dividend, are at risk because of the breakdown of the Provisional IRA ceasefire. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear, in announcing the outcome of the 1994 and 1995 public expenditure surveys, that the reallocations to economic and social programmes were necessarily contingent on the working assumption of peace.

  649
  The reallocations would, self-evidently, have to be reversed if expenditure on police overtime and compensation were to rise towards their previous levels. If that were to happen, those responsible for terrorist violence would effectively destroy jobs as well as depriving the health service, the education service and all other programmes of resources that could be applied to the benefit of the whole community. The people of Northern Ireland would not forgive them for that.
  Sir George Quigley's foreword makes it clear that the report was completed before the breakdown of the PIRA ceasefire. He rightly observed that the economy was beginning to
  "reap significant benefits from the prospect of a permanent and durable peace",
  and emphasised the need to search for a solution that will consolidate and enhance the gains made during the period of the ceasefire. I endorse those sentiments and re-emphasise the Government's commitment to that search.
  The report also suggested that there should be a debate about public expenditure priorities in the context of peace and stability. I earnestly hope that the situation will develop in ways which make that debate relevant, and I am sure that the Government will play their part in it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office may say more about the report's comments on targeting social need when he speaks later.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley also spoke about such targeting. I entirely agree with his remarks about taking full advantage of the private finance initiative, and I can assure him that the Government are actively examining the possible use of PFI projects in sectors including water and sewerage, health, education, roads, transport and information technology.
  On the broader focus of the council's report, it is indisputable that the economic well-being of Northern Ireland is intimately linked to the performance of the United Kingdom economy. The 1995 Budget was a carefully balanced package designed to protect and promote growth in the UK economy. It included a reduction in the basic rate of income tax, lower tax on savings income, an increase in the lower-rate band well ahead of inflation and continued tight control of public expenditure.
  The Budget was designed to put money back into the pockets of ordinary taxpayers—to let them keep more of what they earn and what they save. That was as welcome to taxpayers in Northern Ireland as to taxpayers in Great Britain. It was also designed to keep inflation under control, as that is a key to protecting the economic interests of the entire population.
  Sir James Molyneaux: Does the Minister realise that I was, in a sense, throwing him a lifeline when I suggested that it should be drawn to the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the United Kingdom and Great Britain have many more high earners per 1,000 of the population than we have in Northern Ireland and that the benefits accruing to the economy on the bigger island are therefore much greater? It is a rather delicate suggestion but perhaps it might be of some help to him when he is bargaining, not for an enhanced slice of the cake but for a fair share of the cake when it comes to the carve-up in the autumn.
  Sir John Wheeler: I was especially grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous and careful way in which he threw the lifeline and assure him that his fine words will be enthusiastically deployed along the line that he suggests in the coming debates at the Treasury.
  I emphasise the fact that we have continued to sustain Northern Ireland public expenditure at levels which take account of the region's unemployment and other problems. This manifests itself in a number of ways. We continue to commit substantial resources to industrial development including inward investment; we have large training and employment programmes and have been piloting a scheme for the long-term unemployed; and the social security programme is running at some £3.1 billion in the current year. Our policies therefore address the whole community, not only those in work.
  The report refers to the council's intention to stimulate a debate on the degree of fiscal autonomy that regional governments might have. Clearly, this is a legitimate area of public discussion and the Government will follow the debate with interest. I must point out, however, that the unified taxation system has served Northern Ireland well over the years, and the report itself acknowledges that the Province continues to benefit from substantial fiscal transfers within the United Kingdom system.
  I would therefore argue that Northern Ireland's interests need to be judged in the light of all the relevant factors, and in the round, rather than on a piecemeal, measure-by-measure basis. If that broader assessment is made, I believe that it is clear that the Province is treated fairly while still being subject to the same disciplines and constraints that apply throughout the United Kingdom.
  To sum up, the Northern Ireland economy has performed well in recent years. There have been a number of welcome successes on the industrial development front over the past year, and we have recently seen substantial private sector investment in new hotels. I am sure that all contributors to this debate will share our wish to see those trends continued, and I look forward to a constructive debate on the important issues raised by the council report.
  4.7 pm
  Mr. John Hume: I should like to express my deep appreciation to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) for putting this matter on the agenda as it deserves a great deal of discussion at this particular time, given that there is substantial common ground among the various parties in Northern Ireland. I wish to deal first with a subject which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned and which is causing a serious economic crisis in our community, but which has not received sufficient attention: bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
  BSE has created one of the worst economic crises in the lifetime of our citizens. Unlike in other regions of Britain, agriculture is our largest industry, and the community as a whole, but especially rural towns and villages, is heavily dependent on it and on the beef industry. We believe that we have a special case and that the problem in Northern Ireland is very different from that in Britain. For example, the incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is less than one tenth of that in Great Britain. The rate of incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland has been declining rapidly, and international observers have agreed

  651
  that measures taken to control it have been extremely effective. The farm quality assurance scheme in Northern Ireland provides an effective guarantee that beef that is given that assurance is free from BSE and from BSE-free herds.
  The computerised tracing system that operates in Northern Ireland is regarded as one of the most advanced in the world. It ensures that every animal can be traced from birth to slaughter. That enables the strictest possible control to be exercised over cattle. Other regions have much to learn from the forward thinking of people in Northern Ireland's agriculture and beef industries.
  There is a powerful case for special status for Northern Ireland, to be put to the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, given our dependence on the industry and the special relationship that I have just described. I appeal to the Minister—as he knows, my party and the Ulster Unionist party have put this request to him before—to reconsider putting that case directly to the Council of Ministers.
  With regard to the broader political scene, I agree totally with the Minister that peace on our streets has an enormous role to play in developing our economy, given what we have lost over the past 25 years because of the violence and troubles. The 18 months of peace demonstrated the mood that has developed and the opportunities to translate the massive international good will, which has clearly emerged in Europe and the United States, into real benefits at an economic level for our people. There is a major opportunity to do that and I hope that there will soon be a restoration of the ceasefire so that, in that totally peaceful atmosphere, all our energies can be harnessed to aid economic development.
  As I said, there is substantial common ground among the different parties in Northern Ireland on the economy. Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was leader of the Ulster Unionist party, we met, and our parties met, and we began a process to discuss matters of common interest. I certainly hope that, as the peace process and the talks process continue—we all recognise the difficulties in the political arena—we shall work closely together on the economy to develop the trust that will help us in the more difficult political field.
  In working together on the economy, we have an enormous amount of international good will on which to call to help us build economic success. As we know, the European Union has designated a special programme of development for Northern Ireland. Through its President and at every level, right across its communities, the United States has expressed its enormous willingness to help us on the economic front.
  There are two major areas in which we can take advantage of that enormous good will of the United States—marketing the products of our indigenous small companies and seeking inward investment. I have some experience of both of them in my constituency, because we set up a local body, whose members are drawn from both sections of the community, to market the products of our small companies in America, using our contacts there, and to seek inward investment.
  As the Minister knows, there has been substantial recent success. We have attracted 2,500 jobs into my constituency from the American investment, and using
  652
  that international good will over the past few years, initial orders from the 200 small companies from all sections of Northern Ireland that I have taken to the United States to market their products, have been worth £42 million. That underlines the enormous opportunity that is now out there for us, to harness the massive international good will and sympathy for our situation in Northern Ireland. A ceasefire is, of course, an essential element in greatly strengthening that good will and sympathy, so that real benefits for our people are created through the marketing of our small companies' products and inward investment.
  As we know, the European Union has designated a special programme for us. When the peace process started and United States representatives and the late Secretary of Commerce were offering us economic assistance, my party and I suggested that, as other countries have it as part of peace processes in other parts of the world, they recognised Northern Ireland and the border counties as a duty-free zone for imports into the United States. I understand that that proposal is being seriously considered and I know, from my personal contacts, that there is substantial support for it in Washington. That would give Northern Ireland an enormous boost.
  Other regions might think that Northern Ireland is getting an advantage. However, we are trying to cure the disadvantage that we have had over the past 25 years. If we can persuade the American Senate and Congress to give us that duty-free status—as a result, products made in our area would be imported duty free into the United States—it will be an enormous boost to our industrial development. We have the potential to achieve that status if the Government support us in our request to the United States—I hope that they do.
  As I said previously, I hope that we shall work together on common ground in relation to our economic future, both in Europe and in the United States, to bring the economic benefits to both sections of our community and to break down the barriers of prejudice and distrust that stand between us in the more difficult political arena.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: As one who was born and brought up in Belfast, I am proud that it is again defining fresh frontiers of industrial, economic and social achievement. Towards the close of the previous century, Belfast was the source and centre of a high-volume flow of new technologies and materials. It transferred goods to the furthest corners of the globe. Its first factories were the largest and most advanced spinning and weaving mills of the time, using the finest cloths and linens.
  Commodities and people were exported abroad on ships that were built in Harland and Wolff. The fastest and most luxurious ocean liners were first thought of, and subsequently designed and constructed here. The city became a location for entrepreneurs who managed, manufactured and marketed their ideas, their products and their talents to Europe, to the far east and to America. Many of them became part of the great wave of emigrants who left for the shores of the United States in the 19th century.
  Today is a new time, with new opportunities. Once again, Belfast is resuming its place as a driver of economic regeneration and growth. Ambitious projects for the transformation of established areas within the city—such as the Gasworks, Springvale and Laganside

  653
  developments—are providing imaginative investment opportunities. Schemes such as the development of Lagan weir and Clarendon dock are being undertaken by Laganside Corporation and are ensuring that the river's significance is not posthumous, but progressive; not former, but future.
  That physical development is another sign of the city's increase in capacity and of its confidence in itself. Laganbank is a superb example. It is an entirely new development, which will cost approximately £130 million and which will be completed, appropriately, in 2000. The main elements include a 2,250-seat conference and concert hall, signifying the close relations between commerce and culture in the city; a 1,350-space multi-storey car park; a 200-bedroom four-star hotel; 500,000 sq ft of office space; and 70,000 sq ft of speciality and festival shopping.
  Another example of Belfast engineering at its finest is the imposing £65 million cross-harbour bridge, named after William Dargan, who built the first rail bridge in Ireland. The Dargan bridge is a clear demonstration of the city's commitment to maintaining and developing the kind of up-to-the-minute transportation and communications network essential for companies seeking access to or seeking further to consolidate their position in the international fast lane of modern industrial economies.
  Belfast is a city that is constantly reinventing itself in terms of its workplaces and work forces. Companies such as Ford, whose commitment to Belfast spans many years, have been joined by investors from Britain, Europe, North America and the Pacific and Asian countries, who realise the benefits of a flexible, well-educated and motivated population of 300,000 people from which to recruit their personnel.
  Belfast is the nexus for a transport and communications infrastructure unrivalled by any European city of equivalent size. A major freight port with a brand new terminal and a roll-on/roll-off facilities, Belfast is also connected by an excellent motorway and trunk road system to every other port in Northern Ireland. The main railway station integrates the whole of Northern Ireland, and there are two major airports with links to Great Britain, Europe and America. Passengers and products can easily be transported to any of those areas.
  Belfast is a young city on an ancient site, and its local and global importance has always been linked to its position as a centre of communications and capital. Many of its past industries were linked to the transport of goods, of ideas and of technologies. Shipbuilding is the first and most obvious example, ropemaking a related second and the design and construction of light aircraft a more recent third. The manufacture of linen, which consolidated Belfast's significance as a major city in the 19th and 20th century, would have been unimaginable without the port and harbour that link it to world markets.
  Times have changed. The industrial revolution, which laid the foundation for Belfast's sphere of influence, shaped its architectural profile and created the wealth of many of its citizens, has been superseded by a new information age.
  Ironically, Belfast has figured once again as a centre of public communications networks, for the past 25 years have put it firmly in the spotlight of international media attention. Nevertheless, during much of that period there
  654
  has been a relentless, if understandable, decline in investment activity, industrial growth and stability of employment.
  Identifying problems is one way of helping to eradicate them. Although the legacy of problems confronting Belfast is by no means likely to disappear overnight, there is no reason to suppose that they are any more difficult than those of any other major European city.
  In its key document, "Opportunities for All", Belfast city council outlined an economic development strategy for the years 1995 to 2000, in which it pinpointed information as the lodestone of a new gateway to and prosperity for its citizens. It was felt that Belfast was in a position to promote itself once again as an urban and national business for a global network of public and business intelligence and information systems.
  Obviously, the term "information" is the site for many competing definitions and applications. What do we mean when we speak of Belfast as a city of information? To start with, Belfast has an established and worldwide reputation for the accuracy, low-cost production and high integrity of its software development industries. They have evolved so rapidly in the past decade that they provide employment for 10,000 people, and trends suggest that they have the potential to increase that figure substantially.
  One of the side effects of having access to the idioms and technology of software development is an increasing dispersal of expertise and energy into the associated fields of interest, with the result that Belfast has become a centre of excellence for the generation of information networks, which helps business concerns to compete and operate more cost-effectively.
  Telematics is another area of research and production in which Belfast has specialised recently. Defined as the integration of telecommunications and computers in a way that suits business requirements, telematics merges the practicalities of software development with the latest advances in computing intelligence, to facilitate the free exchange of information between computers on a local and wide area network. The development and production of the means of enabling extensive electronic links situates Belfast firmly on the frontiers of the new planetary map of information science and industry. We are building on the extensive computer training programmes put in place by the Government.
  Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best features of the telecommunications and computer industries is the fact that they employ many new graduates? For far too long, we have exported our best graduates and our best brains and now, for the first time in many years, many of them are able to find jobs at home. That can only be good for Northern Ireland in the long term.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right about graduates, but other training programmes are training people who are less well educated for work in the telecommunications industry. Those programmes are off the ground in Belfast and they are working well.
  Belfast city council, with support from BT, has lent its support to two major training initiatives—we call them EDITRAIN initiatives—in west and in east Belfast,

  655
  which are areas of very high unemployment. Anticipating an increased demand for skilled operators in that field—this is relevant to my hon. Friend's earlier remarks about training—the council has approved a procedure whereby individuals receive training up to national vocational qualification standard level 4. That enables them to install and to supervise the smooth running of network information systems as an integral part of a larger corporate team. There are several and substantial markets for such specialist graduates as most companies, large and small, require their services and expertise. Almost all the major banks and insurance companies are part of extensive network systems, which are usually headquartered in London.
  Belfast is an information city that has transformed its past into a strategy for the future. That strategy has given its citizens a clear sense of continuity, a coherent set of objectives and a growing confidence in the common goal of a better life for us all. For the business man and woman, the promotion and implementation of the strategy in the form of specialised training, consultative bodies and a climate of information literacy and technological competence, represents new frontiers of economic opportunity. There is already a talented and motivated work force. Low-cost accommodation and telecommunications, combined with the development of both satellite and terrestrial broad-band services, will assist the economy dramatically.
  One of Belfast's most striking features is the number and range of organisations that are active in the field of economic development. In the past 15 years, a complex network of agencies has developed across the statutory, community and private sectors. That reflects in part the changing economic climate and the change in Government policy that promoted enterprise as a means of tackling unemployment, while reflecting also the communities' desire to take some action to create work.
  Within the statutory sector, the Department of Economic Development family—the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the Industrial Development Board and the Training and Employment Agency—has invested heavily in infrastructure, training and business support in order to promote a positive environment and to encourage business information and growth. Parallel with that, the Department of the Environment and its agents, the Belfast Development Office and Making Belfast Work, have invested heavily—with MBW particularly prominent through the efforts of the Belfast action team. Complementing that, development at community level is evident through the establishment of local and enterprise agencies, community employment regeneration schemes and development organisations. The International Fund for Ireland was a prime mover in that. Further activity is generated by organisations that are more closely aligned to the voluntary and community sector, where youth, women's enterprise and community economic development initiatives can readily be found.
  A case in point was the recent conference held at the Balmoral conference centre and sponsored by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. More than 175 participants discussed economic and social regeneration involving local people. It was a positive, constructive and bridge-building exercise that was worthy
  656
  of support as it addressed specific employment problems, using the imaginative Donnison report, which will be published shortly, as an agenda for action.
  Belfast continues to be the centre of economic activity for much of Northern Ireland. Although it has only 18 per cent. of the total population of the Province, it has 30 per cent. of Northern Ireland's manufacturing companies and 21 per cent. of its retail activity.
  In the past decade, Belfast has enjoyed massive infrastructure investment that is estimated at approximately £800 million. Projects range from new housing to commercial offices and shopping arcades. Considerable capital has also gone into bolstering the internal and external transport infrastructure, which now ranks with the best in Europe. As I said, the road and rail networks in the Province meet the most advanced national and international standards, but the weak links are the west link junctions, which cause serious traffic and environmental pollution problems, particularly in respect of cross-border containers using Belfast harbour port.
  Unemployment continues to be a major problem, and in some wards half the work force is out of a job. The problem is far worse among men, and in some neighbourhoods as many as six out of 10 are unemployed. Although unemployment in Belfast is not as severe as in other parts of the Province, it fares worse than most comparable cities in the United Kingdom. Despite a fall in the population of the city between 1981 and 1991, current trends reveal that the rising youth population entering the labour market is imposing further pressure on jobs.
  Within the broad scheme of community economic development, the city council's emphasis clearly will be focused on promoting sustainable employment. At community level, that will be reflected in support for training, capacity building and the promotion of new models of economic activity and employment. In respect of priority groups, emphasis will be placed on programmes and initiatives that encourage and support enterprise and access to employment and improve employability.
  On that theme, the city council has set out the following aims: to encourage wealth creation by supporting economic development at community level; to identify and work with priority groups to promote and encourage greater access to employment and enterprise; to promote the spread of good practice and the sharing of experience at community level; and to promote the potential opportunities presented by information technology in providing sustainable jobs at community level. To achieve those aims, Belfast city council will seek to undertake and support programmes in partnership with interested parties, for which full support will be required from the Government and their respective agencies.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The subject of today's debate is the report on the background and implications for Northern Ireland of the 1995 United Kingdom Budget. It is important to draw the attention of the House to the broad conclusions of that report which have not been mentioned so far this afternoon. The conclusion of part I of the report states, at paragraph 3.28:
  "Incomes in Northern Ireland are lower than in the UK. Moreover benefits as a source of income are much more important in Northern Ireland. Consequently a budget which aims to finance tax reductions

  657
  through reductions in benefit expenditure will have a disproportionate impact on Northern Ireland, particularly if the targets for cuts are unemployment or sick and disabled benefits."
  The same theme is found in part II:
  "If Budget changes were assessed in terms of the Government of Northern Ireland public policy priority TSN"—
  tackling social need—
  "then serious concerns would have to be voiced. Those that gain the most are the better off, while households that are in the lower income deciles actually experience a fall in their income".
  The conclusions also indicate that, in Northern Ireland, the richest 10 per cent. of households will gain from the Budget, but that 50 per cent. of households will suffer losses. That may not have come across clearly this afternoon. I want to dwell, for a moment, on that deprivation.
  The report's conclusions hide reality and additional deprivation—the deep disparities in areas of extremely long-term unemployment that have existed for not just one, but two, decades. Those areas have also been deprived for more than two decades of the infrastructure necessary to enable them to take advantage of any industrial revival that may occur as a result of inward investment.
  Certain areas of Northern Ireland do exceptionally well; others continue to do exceptionally badly. If the Government have a genuine policy of targeting social need, they must address that problem. If there is a loss of 200 to 300 jobs in place A, an emergency team is sent there to see how the area can be revitalised and to attract new investment. In areas of endemic long-term unemployment, no such task force is contemplated. Perhaps it is thought, "They are used to it, so they will not gripe about it," or, "They do not deserve it."
  The report also hides the concept of a low-wage economy, which we should not accept. The Northern Ireland economy should be based on maximum efficiency in which the producers of wealth—capital and labour—share equally in the benefits. It should not be low wages that attract inward investment, but a quality work force, quality management and a quality product. Northern Ireland does not want a far east economy that attracts European and north American investment simply to exploit low wages. There is a tendency to sell Northern Ireland as a low-wage economy. We should sell its other attractions, and the wage earner should share in the prosperity that results from inward investment.
  The Minister spoke about the peace dividend. I am not qualified to follow the intricacies of the public accounts system, but there is some disappointment in the north of Ireland that the substantial savings made in respect of Northern Ireland's security requirements have not been funnelled into other areas of expenditure. If, as the Minister says, funds were channelled into other areas of expenditure—God help us! If there had been no peace dividend, our education and health systems would have collapsed around us. The Minister who is to reply to this debate knows that we are already running a £100 million deficit in what is called the educational estate—the fabric of the education system. If, as he suggests, money has gone into the system from the peace dividend, that implies that the deficit would have been much greater.
  The Minister responsible for health and social services issued his public expenditure statement on 24 February last, claiming an increase of £54 million in his budget;
  658
  but he failed to take it into account that £42 million of that was already tied up in required additional expenditure under new legislation—especially that to do with child support and certain renal health requirements. He correctly stated that a 3 per cent. cut was wanted, of which 1.5 per cent. would come from cash and 1.5 per cent. from services. I can tell Ministers that those cuts in services are already being made, and will get worse as time passes.
  The Economic Council report states that there is more ill health in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. If this 3 per cent. cut is to be implemented next year, and possibly the year after, there is no doubt in anyone's mind—from consultant to patient—that the system will collapse.
  The problem of perception remains: either the peace dividend was not used or, if it was, budgets have been much more severely cut than has hitherto been admitted publicly.
  Job creation and inward investment are essential factors in the equation. The Industrial Development Board and, to a lesser extent, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, have done a reasonable job. I have been one of their major critics in the past, not because they are not doing their job but because they do not distribute jobs fairly around Northern Ireland. We hear much in Northern Ireland about fair employment, but it would be better implemented if employment were also located more equitably. Between 1990 and 1995, 43 new enterprises were brought to Northern Ireland—according to the IDB. Sixteen district councils benefited from them, but the three district councils in my constituency received no benefit whatever as far as I can tell and, of the 315 inward investment first-time visitations during the fiscal year 1994–95, only eight came to the south-east, to South Down. That is not an equitable distribution of jobs in an area of deprivation, long-term unemployment and health difficulties. In addition, ours is a rural community that has to cope with the advent of BSE and the onslaught on our fishing industry.
  None of this, however, has prompted the IDB, LEDU or the Government to do anything special for my area. The Governments of other countries seem to manage successfully to apportion varying amounts of grant aid; it is even done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Why cannot the same be done in parts of Northern Ireland?
  As for the policy of decentralisation, there appears to be a steady tendency to draw jobs into central Belfast—it seems to act like a magnet—but such jobs are urgently required to sustain rural communities. Moreover, the agency externalisation process, now under way in all Government Departments, is slowly but surely drawing jobs into the centre and away from the periphery. That applies all over Northern Ireland, not just in my area. That, too, needs to be considered in the context of the targeting of areas of social need.
  It may be difficult to attract industrial inward development to an area such as mine, but there should be no difficulty about drawing in tourists to the rural areas of Northern Ireland, in the west and the south-east. I am puzzled by the fact that the Northern Ireland tourist board appears to lack the money to implement the policies that it would like to put into effect. Last year—1995–96—the board's budget went mainly on building big hotels. But the average tourist does not want a big hotel, or its prices. He wants a small family-run guest house or bed and breakfast; he cannot afford a posh five-star hotel.

  659
  I am talking about our bread-and-butter tourists, not about the flashy conference tourists who never come back. The kind to whom I am referring will return time and again, bringing their families with them. In the year to 31 March, no grant aid was available for small guest houses. Many in my constituency applied, but the door was slammed in their face. Something must urgently be done about the shortfall of accommodation for tourists in our area. Last summer, there was not a spare bed to be had, and we had to send people across the border. That is criminal.
  Industrial inward investment, tourism and indigenous expansion are the three pillars on which we hope to build a better future. As far as the first goes, we must do something about the cost of energy. The Northern Ireland Committee looked into the problem in some detail last year and issued a report, but we seem to be hidebound by rules and regulations and by contracts entered into up to 2010. The officer who controls prices must therefore take immediate action to make inward investment in Northern Ireland much more attractive.
  I shall end by renewing my plea not to turn Northern Ireland into a low-wage economy. We need an economy based on a standard quality of production and greater efficiency. That is the best way to attract inward investment.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed today that progress in the peace process in Northern Ireland will be greatly assisted by progress in economic development in the Province. Unemployment, although now falling, has been at high levels and long-term and youth unemployment need to be addressed as they are still problematic. Training for work is another area in which progress must be made. Post-16 academic achievement in Northern Ireland is among the highest in the United Kingdom, but a substantial number of 16-year-olds leave school without any qualifications whatever. Training and education are especially important to counter any drift into violence or into the black economy.
  As we have heard already, much progress has been made recently. Inward investment has brought new jobs to Northern Ireland, especially that by the companies Seagate and Daewoo, and in 1994–95 the Industrial Development Board successfully negotiated 10 inward investment projects, which promise to provide almost 2,000 jobs. The Local Enterprise Development Unit helped with about 13 new businesses and another 2,500 new jobs. I shall expand on some of the issues that I have just mentioned, especially training, education and unemployment, and suggest some of the Labour party's policy options to deal with them. I shall also refer to one or two other major problem areas, which have been touched on, including the beef industry and electricity prices in the Province.
  Some 97 per cent. of businesses in Northern Ireland have fewer than 50 employees, so the small business sector is extremely important. Encouraging small businesses to start up, to expand and to take on new employees is a key factor in generating growth in jobs and income. The Labour party has been examining ways
  660
  in which to assist small businesses, including the establishment of a network of commercially managed business development agencies for small businesses, which would raise private finance for long-term investment in small and medium-sized businesses, and a moratorium law, which would give small firms in financial difficulty the time to develop a rescue package and avoid unnecessary bankruptcy. We have also been examining ways in which small businesses can be saved from the dangers of late payment, together with measures to promote prompt payment and greater accountability on the part of public and private sector bodies. It is apparent that the Deputy Prime Minister does not share that attitude. Raising the VAT threshold for small businesses, if they take on a young, unemployed person, is another issue that the Labour party has been examining.
  The latest figures from the Department of Economic Development show that, although some 29,000 people currently attend training schemes run by the Training and Employment Agency, more than 8,000 places on training schemes have not been filled. Why are those places remaining unfilled? Are the Government providing the training courses that business and industry actually require? In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, people are the country's greatest asset. Labour believes that the skills and abilities of the work force—a well-motivated, well-trained and well-qualified work force—will determine the Northern Ireland economy's ability to compete in the modern world.
  It has been said in the past that nothing short of a skills revolution is required in Northern Ireland. That skills revolution requires that education and training move to the centre of economic policy. Northern Ireland needs an education and training system that enables all workers to retrain continually throughout their working lives. That will require a great expansion in education and training measures. The Government's approach—of leaving training to be developed by market forces—has, to a large extent, failed.
  Labour's proposals on training will include new opportunities for retraining for people in work by ensuring that companies invest in upgrading the skills of their work force. Companies that fail to train to a certain standard will face a training levy. That factor has been highlighted recently by the problems experienced by Shorts following the collapse of Fokker. The economy in Belfast and Northern Ireland is likely to lose a number of skilled workers unless those who are made redundant from Shorts are retrained and their skills saved.
  We propose a Northern Ireland skills audit that will be compared with information available for the whole island of Ireland to identify the skills that are in short supply so that training resources can be targeted on removing bottlenecks and providing the skills that are most likely to lead to employment. We propose to encourage public-private co-operation in training schemes, which would involve formulating methods to encourage high investment in training by private employers and ensuring that public bodies contract out to private companies that are willing to train employees.
  We would bring together research in economic development, education, further education, European funding and the skills of the work force in Northern Ireland to create a clear and extensive training policy. We would study potential and actual inward investment in

  661
  Northern Ireland to establish a clearer picture of the forms of training that are needed to continue to secure investment.
  As I have mentioned, we believe that the way to sustain economic success is through education, training, improved technology and investment. Through education and training, the Government can assist inward investors by providing the skilled and qualified work force they require. That also applies to other areas of the United Kingdom and, in particular, my area in Barnsley and south Yorkshire. We suffer from similarly high unemployment and we do not, as yet, have the skills necessary to attract inward investment to an area that has been decimated by colliery closures during the past few years. Both employers and Government have a shared responsibility to sustain an active and participatory work force, with adequate working conditions and a reasonable wage.
  Productivity is increased by a well-motivated and reasonably secure work force, whereas employees who are riddled with job insecurity, fearful of the future and low in morale will lack commitment and cling cautiously to the status quo and resist change, which is the high road to efficiency. Indeed, a recent study by the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux documents a rise in employee anxiety and insecurity in Northern Ireland.
  In 1994–95, the citizens advice bureaux in Northern Ireland dealt with almost 14,000 queries about employment. They found that employees were unaware of their rights and that many were not involved in trade unions. Employees claimed that employers were changing conditions suddenly and without warning. Many lived in fear of dismissal and, for that reason, felt obliged to accept deteriorating conditions of work.
  In addition, workers in Northern Ireland earn less than their British counterparts—they receive 89 per cent. of the average United Kingdom wage. They have some of the lowest wages in the country, second only to certain areas of the north of England. Some 1 per cent. of employees earn less than £2 an hour, and there are still female manual workers in Northern Ireland who earn less than £1.70 an hour.
  As well as providing the best possible work force, the Government have a role in securing adequate working conditions for employees. Low wage levels have been found to be counter-productive, as low earnings reduce employees' spending power, which has implications for the housing market and for the consumer confidence that is essential to building an economic recovery.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: What will Labour do about low wages?
  Mr. Illsley: Low wages and poor conditions can lead to higher employee turnover and more absenteeism. That has been a particular problem in the clothing industry in Northern Ireland. Employers who have constantly to recruit and retrain incur additional costs. Indeed, a report published this week draws attention to the fact that employee turnover in industry is leading many employers to employ older employees.
  Labour is committed to a minimum wage and will set up a low pay commission to set a rate that will not damage employment, prices or wage structures. Perhaps that answers the point that the hon. Member for Plymouth,
  662
  Sutton (Mr. Streeter) made from a sedentary position a moment ago. I shall repeat it for him. Labour is committed to a minimum wage. We believe that people are entitled to fair wage. Paid work, at a fair wage, is the most effective way in which to tackle poverty. By that means, people will be lifted out of benefit dependency and their dignity will be restored. Pay differences between men and women will be reduced. The differences remain noticeable in Northern Ireland in every area of work. For example, a man in clerical work earns an average of £225 a week; his female counterpart earns only £199. Workers will be better motivated and, therefore, more productive. Staff turnover will be lower, thus reducing employers' recruitment and training costs. Public resources will be freed from subsidising those on low pay and be available for other purposes, such as improving health and education and creating work for the unemployed.
  Labour will sign the social chapter. Northern Ireland will never be competitive on the back of a deregulated labour market with low wages and poor conditions. Those factors will not attract sustained long-term investment in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. James Cran: Keep a straight face.
  Mr. Illsley: I have a perfectly straight face when I say that Labour will sign the social chapter.
  It is clear that someone will always do the job for less; there will always be an employer who wants to pay less. In China, there are 1 billion people who will work for a few pence an hour. The way to achieve real competitiveness is not to cut costs by cutting pay, but by doing the job better than anyone else and concentrating on quality. If that is to be achieved, business will need a well-qualified, skilled and trained work force. That is what Labour will work to provide.
  The proposals that I have outlined are part of Labour's aim of abolishing youth unemployment in Northern Ireland, which still remains a problem. We know that one in four of the registered unemployed in Northern Ireland is under 25 years of age. Labour is considering specific proposals to tackle youth unemployment, including the development of an environmental task force. We are considering lifting the 16-hour rule, which prevents young people from claiming benefit—if they are studying for more than 16 hours a week to improve their skills.
  My attention was recently drawn to the problems faced by young people who are trying to improve their skills by studying at local colleges, but who are being targeted by the Department for Eduction and Employment, which is threatening to withdraw benefits unless they discontinue their courses. I have sought to raise the matter with the Secretary of State.
  Labour will encourage all young people to continue in mainstream education and training. There is a new deal for the under-25s, which involves employers, the voluntary sector, education and the environmental task force, all of which would combine work and help to develop talent. We are examining how our proposals will work with Northern Ireland's existing training schemes, business and industry, recognising the problems of the interface between education and training systems and the world of work.
  Achieving increased competitiveness and growth through investment, innovation and skills is economically necessary and socially responsible. Growth itself,

  663
  however, does not lead to the creation of jobs at a rate that will seriously tackle Northern Ireland's acute unemployment problem, especially long-term unemployment. Although Northern Ireland's level of unemployment is at its lowest for some years, it is worrying that the number of those who suffer long-term unemployment is still quite high. As I have said, 40 per cent. of those in that position are under 25 years of age.
  Long-term unemployment remains much higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is also higher than the levels that prevail in the rest of Europe. About half of Northern Ireland's unemployed have been out of a job for longer than three years. The comparable figure for the rest of the United Kingdom is about a third. About 53,000 people are unemployed in Northern Ireland.
  The United Kingdom opted out of the social chapter in 1992, at Maastricht. The Government claimed that the social chapter would ruin economic competitiveness and destroy jobs. It appears that that view is not backed by industry as a whole. The chair of Northern Foods, Christopher Haskins, has said that
  "the aspirations of the European Union's Social Chapter hold no fears for any responsible British company and the government should sign it."
  Increasingly, companies such as Coats Viyella and United Biscuits are implementing the terms of the social chapter voluntarily.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care and attention. He appears to have embarked on quoting distinguished industrialists and manufacturers. As we are debating the economy of Northern Ireland, will he quote a Northern Ireland industrialist who supports the social chapter?
  Mr. Illsley: I cannot produce the quotation that the Minister desires. I am sure, however, that, as with industrialists in the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be those in Northern Ireland, business men and industrialists, who support such a view of the social chapter.
  Labour believes that we have nothing to fear for work, and everything to gain for workers, in the social chapter. In the past, we have taken our lead on the improvement of conditions for working people from Europe. In 1981, we accepted the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. European directives gave us the following additional safeguards at work: protecting the terms and conditions of workers when businesses change hands, equal retirement ages for men and women, the extension of sex discrimination legislation to cover enterprises that employ fewer than six people, equalising the upper age limit for redundancy for men and women, and the provision of 14 weeks' statutory maternity leave for women.
  Those provisions, and those in the social chapter, are not inhibitors of productivity. On the contrary, productivity is increased by a well-motivated and reasonably secure work force. Employees who are riddled with job insecurity, fear of the future and low morale will lack commitment. A lack of commitment to employment standards brings with it the risk of turning Britain into the sweatshop of Europe.
  664
  The ACE programme—Action for Community Employment—was a desperately needed project that has been extremely successful. It gives the long-term unemployed up to a year's training in projects that will benefit the community. The scheme has become a unique part of local community infrastructure. It has served to support some of the most vulnerable people in society, such as the elderly, pre-school children and the unemployed, and about 40 per cent. of participants have gone on to full-time employment or further education. That percentage compares well with what has been achieved by training and enterprise councils by means of training-for-work programmes.
  Last year, in the light of ACE's success, the Government chose to reduce their funding of the project by about 25 per cent. As a result of the way in which cuts were administered, many groups faced a 40 per cent. reduction in funding and having to reduce the amount of vital work that they do.
  There was an extensive response from all the groups involved in the ACE programme, as well as from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. All opposed the 25 per cent. cut. Most were not warned or consulted. As a result of the protest, £2 million-worth of transitional help has been identified by the Government. We have not been told, however, where that money has come from. In any event, it will not go far enough when set against the ACE scheme. Many full-time employees who are funded through the scheme will still be made redundant after cuts have been implemented.
  The Government claim that the cuts are the result of a rapidly changing economic situation. They say that the community work programme will take the place of lost training provisions. They know, however, that the CWP is barely up and running. Far fewer people are being trained under it than was planned. The ACE cuts are economically and socially short sighted.
  I give the example of Dungannon, which takes fifth place in the list of unemployment black spots in Northern Ireland. Of the job vacancies in Northern Ireland at present, only 3 per cent. are in the Dungannon area, yet the Dungannon development association alone is losing 40 to 50 jobs as a result of cuts to the ACE programme.
  The pilot scheme of community work was launched in May 1995. The aim behind it is to target the long-term unemployed and provide them with meaningful paid work. The scheme, which is targeted in Fermanagh, Strabane and west Belfast, is designed to assist 1,000 people. I understand that, as yet, only 250 of the 1,000 places have been filled.
  I shall deal now with two issues that I mentioned earlier—the problems of Northern Ireland's beef industry and electricity prices. As has been well documented, electricity prices in Northern Ireland are still some 20 per cent. higher than the average in Great Britain, and that is affecting the Northern Ireland economy. It is obvious that those who are considering inward investment will look closely at electricity prices when comparing the advantages of relocation in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK. Many food processing concerns that are already in Northern Ireland have profit margins of about 2 to 3 per cent., which will be affected by any large increase in electricity prices.
  There have been a number of reports on Northern Ireland electricity prices. Perhaps the best known is that of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs,

  665
  which drew attention to the problems caused by privatisation. The basis of those problems is the awarding of long-term contracts to the generators that require Northern Ireland Electricity to take all the electricity produced by those generators. Some 60 per cent. of final electricity charges in Northern Ireland results from payments to the generators; the remaining 40 per cent. relates to transmission and other costs, and produces substantial profits for Northern Ireland Electricity. I urge the Government to look closely both at power purchase agreements and at NIE's profitability.
  The regulator of NIE, Douglas McIldoon, has issued a consultation document in which he makes suggestions and asks for ideas about how the problem might be addressed. It is clear, however, that the only way in which to address it is to examine the power purchase agreements—the contracts with the generators, some of which will last well into the next century. The lack of regulation of those contracts, and the lack of any requirement for the generators to pass efficiency gains to the transmission companies, have caused the high electricity prices. I hope that, as a result of the regulator's consultation document, the contracts can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, or can be renegotiated.
  Agriculture is one of the largest sectors of the Northern Ireland economy, if not the largest, and within that sector the beef industry is extremely important. A quick glance at some statistics shows just how important it is. The beef export trade is worth up to £500 million a year, and about 80 per cent. of beef from Northern Ireland is exported, much of it to Europe. More than 16,000 farms in Northern Ireland rely to some extent on cattle for the beef industry, and as many as 10,000 have herds of 10 or more. There are more than 3,000 jobs in beef processing in the Province.
  Despite all that, Northern Ireland has a very low incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy: about 1 per cent. of the incidence in the United Kingdom. The European ban on beef products, however, has had a devastating effect on the Northern Ireland economy. Because of the importance of agriculture to the economy, that effect has been far more marked in the small area of the Province than in the rest of the United Kingdom. As I have said, many Northern Ireland companies sell directly to Europe. There has also been a knock-on effect in the meat processing industry, in which jobs have been threatened. Those, too, are skilled jobs.
  The Labour party believes that the controls now in place in relation to specified offals are such that the European ban on British beef should be lifted. We urge the Government to redouble their efforts in the European Council to achieve the lifting of that ban. We cannot agree, however, that Northern Ireland should be treated as an entity separate from the United Kingdom in relation to beef products.
  I congratulate the Ulster Unionists on their choice of subject. It has allowed us to highlight the possibilities and opportunities that are available to Northern Ireland, particularly if the forthcoming elections and negotiations are successful.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: My response to the greater part of the thesis propounded by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is that he must
  666
  not be surprised if Conservative Members shudder with horror at the realisation that Labour economic policy would be as disastrous for the Province as it would be for the rest of the United Kingdom. The virtues that the hon. Gentleman sought to extol would have quite the opposite effect. We would witness job losses, increased costs for businesses, the stifling of economic growth through regulation and lower productivity and profitability; and, following the introduction of the social chapter—which would be wholly disadvantageous—we would discover that it was neither wanted nor needed.
  Originally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had no intention of trying to catch your eye. I believed that it would be best to leave Northern Ireland Members to speak in the debate. There is a little time to go, however, and I welcome this opportunity to make one or two selective observations. I believe that any accurate overview of the general state of the Northern Ireland economy must, on the whole, present an encouraging and satisfactory picture. The essential issue—the essential good news—is measured in the simple statistic that the Province enjoys greater economic growth than the rest of the United Kingdom. Growth last year amounted to some 3.5 per cent., compared with only 2.6 per cent. on the mainland.
  I note, however, that the report that forms the basis of today's debate includes a word of caution. The Northern Ireland Economic Council recognises that there is less slack in the local economy than in the national economy, and warns that a significant relaxation of fiscal or monetary policy could have undesirable effects. It postulates that firms might simply come up against shortages—especially in the short term—which could feed through into inflation. Obviously, that would not be in the interests of Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the Government accept the council's thesis, and whether they acknowledge that a significant relaxation of fiscal or monetary policy could have adverse impacts. If so, I hope that that potential danger will remain firmly in their sights.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the relevance, and the supreme importance, of a permanent ceasefire to economic prospects in Northern Ireland. That is self-evident, and I shall add little to what has already been said. It is obvious that Northern Ireland's economy would receive an immediate and permanent boost if there were a permanent ceasefire—a point that Sir George Quigley makes in his report:
  "The economy was beginning to reap significant benefits from the prospect of a permanent and durable peace and it is important for future economic growth that no effort is spared in the search for a solution which will consolidate and enhance the gains of the past seventeen months".
  Sir George was writing in February, shortly before the resumption of violence. It is equally clear that inward investment and business confidence were dealt a severe blow by that resumption of violence.
  There was a more direct implication. The paramilitary ceasefires had enabled the Government to plan for a reduction of nearly £300 million in expenditure on law and order in the years leading up to 1999. Given the uncertainty of the security position, that poses questions about the organising of priorities.
  Employment was the subject of the first inquiry and report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. During their deliberations, its members became

  667
  aware of the complexity and depth of the problems and that there are no simple, short-term solutions. During the Committee's work, I postulated a heresy: the argument that there might be mileage in considering turning the Northern Ireland economy into a tax haven to promote greater economic growth than in the rest of the United Kingdom. My arguments were not accepted. It was suggested that they were too inherently inflationary, but there is a point to make that lightening, wherever possible, the burden of direct and indirect taxation on businesses in the Province should be an objective.
  The unemployment statistics are encouraging. As we have heard, unemployment in Northern Ireland is at its lowest level since May 1981 and has fallen in nine of the past 12 months. It is pleasing to note that short-term unemployment in Northern Ireland is rapidly approaching the national average. There is less reason for satisfaction with regard to long-term unemployment, which is clearly a significant problem and, I fear, will continue to exist, it seems, for some time. It must remain firmly in the Government's sight that long-term unemployment problems should receive all possible attention.
  The Government rightly draw attention to the fact that, since September 1994, there have been 17 new cases of inward investment. Those are worth some £360 million and have the potential to create, over a short period, some 5,000 new jobs. I wonder, however, whether the various projects that are being established can be attributed to the investment conference in Belfast, which was held, if I recall correctly, in February last year—perhaps it was at the end of the previous year—and to the similar conference in the United States of America in March last year. Are those initiatives resulting in a return on investment and in an increase in inward investment in Northern Ireland?
  I note with interest the favourable increase in exports from the Province—some 25 per cent. from 1991 to 1994. That, one presumes, is an accurate reflection of, among other things, Northern Ireland businesses' increasing competitiveness. Do the Government have a view on the sustainability of that level of increase? If it can be sustained, it is encouraging news.
  On another more general point—the concept of targeting social needs—the Government have rightly made a priority of seeking to tackle disadvantage and of promoting equality of opportunity and treatment for everyone in Northern Ireland. The social needs programme is targeting resources on regions and individuals who are deemed to be in most need. I hope that it will result in a reduction in social and economic differences.
  When he replies to the debate, will my right hon. Friend the Minister find an opportunity to make an assessment of the effectiveness of the three major schemes of which I am aware: Making Belfast Work, the Londonderry initiative and the rural development programme? Does he believe that sufficient and acceptable progress is being made in those initiatives?
  With regard to the report, I shall be ultra-selective and, if I may, focus attention on paragraphs 2.19 to 2.24 on pages 15 to 18, which deal with public expenditure. Paragraph 2.19 caught my attention in particular. It states:
  "The control of public spending is crucial to the Government's ability to meet public finance objectives and allow room for tax reductions."
  668
  I received that favourably. It continues:
  "From Northern Ireland's viewpoint the Chancellor's decision on the future path of public spending is crucial. This reflects the fact that public expenditure is much more important for Northern Ireland than the UK".
  The remainder of the paragraph, however, contains an alarming statement. We are reminded:
  "In public spending matters, however, the reality of expenditure outturns can sometimes differ from the rhetoric. For example, the planned 1.3 per cent real cut for the Control Total…spending in 1994–95 turned into a 1.4 per cent rise in real spending."
  It is alarming and disturbing that what was intended to be a real terms reduction in public expenditure should result in a real terms increase. Has that point caught in particular the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister? What measures does he believe can be taken to ensure that, in future, expenditure is more in line with Government planning?
  Paragraph 2.20 on page 16 illustrates a dilemma facing the Government. It states:
  "The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has identified three public expenditure priorities—'defeating terrorism, strengthening the NI economy and targeting social need'".
  The paragraph continues:
  "Since the ceasefires in late 1994 these priorities have been reordered".
  Strengthening the Northern Ireland economy became the first priority, targeting social need the second and providing
  "whatever level of resources is necessary for the preservation of law and order in Northern Ireland"
  became the third. With the current uncertainty, where do we stand now in relation to Government priorities? With violence resumed on the mainland, what priorities can the Government select when the level of resources that may need to be devoted to security matters is unknown? Clearly, such circumstances make tight Government planning of economic matters difficult.
  Paragraph 2.21 refers to the so-called peace dividend and contains the attractive and appealing speculation that the value of the annual dividend
  "under conditions of peace and political stability varied between a maximum estimate of £601m and 12,277 positions to a minimum of £427m and 8,168 positions".
  Presumably, such reasoning must now be put into abeyance. At present, we simply cannot speak or plan in terms of an effective peace dividend.
  The following paragraph makes the vital and central point on the need to deliver public services in an efficient and effective manner:
  "the reallocation of these funds should not deflect attention from the need to deliver public services in an efficient and effective manner."
  It continues by focusing attention on the Department of Health and Social Services draft regional plan. Will my right hon. Friend give reassurances that the Government bear in mind the need for public funds to be spent in the most and efficient and effective manner possible, not least in the vital sector of health and social services spending?
  My last substantive, point on paragraph 2.24, is that we are again faced with the dilemma of setting public expenditure priorities in the present uncertainty about security. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will address that issue because the fundamental problem facing the Government is that when they do not know what

  669
  resources need to be allocated to security matters, it is difficult for them to plan public expenditure. Any overview of the Province's economy is favourable and encouraging, and it is good that economic recovery and growth are advancing. The report shows that we can have confidence in the Government's handling of the situation.
  5.30 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I compliment the members of the Ulster Unionist party for choosing this subject for debate. I say to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that I would be happy to argue the case for the social chapter and a minimum wage and for a Scottish Parliament and a tartan tax. However, that would take me outwith the framework of the debate. In my brief speech I wish to put several questions to the Minister about the Northern Ireland fishing industry, the Action for Community Employment—or ACE—programme, the community work programme and sea ferry and air services between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
  The Northern Ireland fishing industry employs more than 2,000 people and is important to small fishing communities, as is the case in and around the Firth of Clyde. In 1994, fish landings were worth £18 million. My questions are prompted by paragraph 5.42 on page 64 of the document called "Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities". The paragraph refers to the European Union's multi-action guidance programme, which states that by the end of this year the United Kingdom's fishing fleet will have to be reduced by about 19 per cent. The paragraph states:
  "A decommissioning scheme was introduced in 1993–94 and in 1995–96 a further 13 Northern Ireland applications were successful under the scheme at a cost of £1.5 million. This brings the total of successful applications in Northern Ireland to 55 at a total cost of £4.5 million and equates to a 20 per cent. reduction in the gross registered tonnage of the Northern Ireland fleet. The position is monitored so that action can be taken if effort by the remaining vessels should increase."
  As the son of a fisherman and a fishergirl or, as she would have been known in those days a fish house lass, throughout my adult life I have argued that there are too many fishermen pursuing too few fish around our coasts. The document seems to show that the Northern Ireland fishing fleet has met the obligation that was placed upon the United Kingdom by the European Union to reduce the gross registered tonnage, because it has reduced its fleet by 20 per cent. and the requirement is 19 per cent. Will the Government assist with modernising that reduced fleet?
  In Northern Ireland, as in the west of Scotland from Ullapool to Girvan and beyond, there is an aging fleet. That does not make sense for the safety of fishermen or for making life less difficult for the men who pursue the most hazardous occupation in the United Kingdom. How many vessels have been ordered by the owners of vessels in Northern Ireland? How many conversions to increase engine capacity have been encouraged by the Northern Ireland Office for EU funding? Does the Northern Ireland fleet, like those of the Western Isles and the Clyde Fishermen's Association, suffer because up to now the United Kingdom has failed to meet the requirements of the multi-action guidance programme?
  Does the Minister agree that there should be grants to replace aging vessels that may become less and less efficient and perhaps more and more hazardous in heavy
  670
  weather? I readily acknowledge that fishing power must be constrained by the need to maintain healthy stocks. If any fishermen are to be banned, they should be the Spanish. I hope that the Minister will forgive my ethnocentricity. [Interruption.] A common fisheries policy should be based upon regional preferences and management because in fragile fishing communities there are few options for other forms of employment. That holds just as strongly for Northern Ireland and, indeed, for some of the smaller fishing communities south of the border, as it does for Scotland.
  Bearing in mind the need to constrain fishing effort to the total allowable catches and the need to maintain viable stocks, a reduced fleet must be modern. I should welcome the Minister's response to the concerns that I have expressed—dare I say it—on behalf of the fishermen of Northern Ireland and Scotland. Fishing is important because, as I have said, more than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland are directly employed in it. Table 5.19 of the Government's report is entitled "Fisheries sector performance indicators". What is the employment ratio for the catching sector of the Northern Ireland fishing industry?
  I shall now deal with ACE and the community work programme. The last time that I was in Northern Ireland, some representatives of voluntary organisations, one of whom was Quintin Oliver, who I think is the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, expressed concern about the decision savagely to reduce the ACE programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that the reduction was about 25 per cent. Representatives from community and voluntary organisations expressed deep anger and serious concern about this ill-judged decision.
  In paragraph 5.16 of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's report, the authors state:
  "Within the overall Industry, Trade and Employment (ITE) programme an important announcement was the decision by the Training and Employment Agency (T&EA) to cut the Action for Community Employment (ACE) budget by 25 per cent., thereby reducing the number of placements by 1,800."
  The authors go on to state that the programme
  "was attractive for those receiving no or relatively low benefit and has attracted high levels of part-time jobs".
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that he was highly selective in his remarks about such documents. I should point out that this document goes on to state:
  "It is, of course, precisely in this area where much new job growth has taken place."
  However, the authors then comment:
  "As yet, with the Community Work Programme not fully operational there do not appear to be any alternatives in place to accommodate 'discouraged workers' most affected by the scheme."
  I should like to ask the Minister what will happen to the community work programme—which, two months ago, a ministerial colleague of his suggested would, by and large, take the place of much of the ACE programme.
  Paragraph 6.159 of "Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities" states that the community work programme
  "was introduced in April 1995 on a two year pilot basis and will provide up to 1,000 places. Its aim is to assist local communities to break the cycle of long-term unemployment in their areas by assessing and developing the skills of long-term unemployed adults as a resource to effect local improvements."

  671
  The three areas of Fermanagh, Strabane and west Belfast are then mentioned.
  What is to happen to that community work programme? Has the Northern Ireland Office now had a chance to assess the implications of the 25 per cent. cut in the ACE programme? Will that lead to job losses? Will those job losses be more than recompensed by the jobs created by the community work programme? Those are important questions for people living in badly deprived areas in many communities in Northern Ireland. Those people—particularly those associated with voluntary community organisations—have a right to know the answers to those questions.
  At the weekend there was mention in the Scottish press of a ferry service between Northern Ireland and Scotland. Some have argued that such a service between Ballycastle and Campbeltown could do much to revive the economy of the Mull of Kintyre, which has recently suffered severely from job losses. If such a service were to link Ballycastle, Campbeltown and, for example, Wemyss bay, rather than Greenock, and if it were to be extended to Moville in county Donegal, would that allow those concerned to obtain more easily funding from the European Union, as it would involve ferry links between two countries, as well as Northern Ireland and Scotland in the United Kingdom?
  The best case might be for the creation by Caledonian MacBrayne, for example, of a service between Ballycastle and Campeltown in the first instance, and we could then see how that service develops, particularly in the tourist season.
  I should like, finally, to ask a question about air services between Northern Ireland and Scotland, as it has been brought to my attention that there has been a reduction in such services. I find that the service between Glasgow airport—that superb airport, which is just a few minutes from my constituency—and Belfast, for example, is very useful. I should be most pleased if the Minister were able to refute the complaint that those services have been reduced. It would be a shame if such a reduction has taken place because of its effect on the development of air services and sea ferries.
  If the Minister cannot answer all my questions in his reply—especially those on the multi-action guidance programme—I shall be happy to await a letter from him.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who takes a serious interest in Northern Ireland affairs. Like me, he is an associate member of the British-Irish interparliamentary body—a body that we wish Ulster Unionists would pay attention to because it is able to discuss such matters as the economic development of the island of Ireland, and the very important role played by the Northern Ireland economy.
  I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on subjects related to fishing or to ferry services, partly because the constituency that I represent is entirely land-locked, and I tend not to have any knowledge on those topics.
  672
  I was interested in the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised about the cuts in the Action for Community Employment programme in Northern Ireland. In fact, the sections of the report that he quoted to us were the ones that I had marked in the report. I therefore do not need to develop those points, except to say that paragraph 5.16 goes on to state:
  "The withdrawal of ACE is likely to cause funding difficulties for a number of voluntary and community organisations."
  There is a plethora of voluntary and community organisations in Northern Ireland. The possibility of voluntary organisations being established in Northern Ireland is considerably aided because politics in Northern Ireland have their own peculiarities and because political parties there are not part of government. Many of those organisations operate on a cross-community basis, and little could be more important than developing that type of work and building such links and connections. Therefore, cuts in the ACE programme that affect those programmes is a very serious matter, and would be additional to equivalent action taken in Britain.
  Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman care to consider my thesis that one of the reasons why there are so many of those bodies is the powerlessness of local government? There are so many things that local government could and should be doing, but which it is not doing.
  Mr. Barnes: It is certainly an encouragement to voluntary organisations when local government is not active or achieving what it should be achieving, or when it is prevented from operating in the manner it is in Northern Ireland. I am a great advocate of establishing the equivalent of parish councils in urban areas—what are called neighbourhood councils. I think that such councils should act as pressure groups on behalf of their communities. Like voluntary organisations, they should get together and enact plans in their areas to pressurise those with administrative responsibility in wider local government, in the Province and in Westminster.
  I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) was excellent. Anyone from Northern Ireland who listens to his contribution—as they will do—will be very impressed with the relevance of Labour's policies to Northern Ireland in such matters as training, education, jobs, provision for small business, the minimum wage, the social chapter, electricity prices in Northern Ireland, beef, specific provisions on Northern Ireland and Labour's promise on the Northern Ireland skills audit. All these are of tremendous relevance to the people of Northern Ireland.
  The great pity is that, however much attention is paid in Northern Ireland to my Front-Bench colleague's views, Labour does not run candidates in Northern Ireland so the people of Northern Ireland cannot take up his valuable ideas. Labour organisation in Northern Ireland, tying in with our policies, needs to be taken on board to make those views a reality. Unless other political parties in Northern Ireland are willing to pick up some of our ideas, offer them to the electorate and do so in a way that cuts across community divisions, Labour is in a very good position to do it. I am afraid that that is a bit of a back-handed compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central but it is sincere.

  673
  It is great that we are debating the Northern Ireland economy, which is important not only in general terms but in developing the peace process. An improved economy and growing prosperity are good in themselves but can also be very important in tackling the problems of violence and intimidation.
  Michael Barratt-Brown wrote an excellent pamphlet on the tragedy in Yugoslavia. It points out that some of the major problems that caused its conflict arose because economic factors divided the people. On a smaller scale, Northern Ireland has been behind Britain in terms of economics—for example, it has had higher unemployment rates. This has meant that it has been possible for extremists to develop sectarian policies and get paramilitary support—they find it easier to do so in adverse economic circumstances. We should all be very aware of the links between economics, divisions and violence.
  There is a problem in talking about growth in Northern Ireland. There is a sense in which growth and improved prosperity undermine violence, but an agreement to end violence would allow economic growth to develop. Economic growth and the end of violence are not in separate compartments. We cannot say that the start of one will lead to the other—they are interlinked.
  We have opportunities to debate Northern Ireland economic matters but we sometimes fail to make full use of them. Twice a year we have appropriation debates. I have always said that they are the nearest thing to Budget debates for Northern Ireland. We should take care to develop them into serious discussions such as that which we are having today. It is often the case—again, this might be natural given the position of local government in Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland Members attend appropriation debates and use them as opportunities to stress constituency problems and their case loads because no other avenues are available to them. Sometimes, however, it would be good to change that and have a debate like today's so that we can determine the different political stances.
  I congratulate the Ulster Unionist party on providing this opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland Economic Council's report and on producing its own document entitled "Economic Prosperity for All". It is dated May 1996 so I presume that it is linked with this debate. I am not saying that I go along with all the ideas expressed in it, but it is important that the party has produced it. I would encourage other political parties in Northern Ireland to develop their own approaches and strategies.
  The leader of the Social and Democratic Labour party said that there were common interests between his party and what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) said, but if we look back to the previous election, it is clear that there were some differences in the two parties' manifestos. In a sense, the SDLP manifesto contains economic values that I would warm to more readily than I could warm to the contents of the other manifestos. It said things such as:
  "We believe that efficient and effective public services are essential to our well-being and development as a community",
  and that it is concerned that
  "moves from direct to indirect taxation are at the expense of those on lower incomes".
  It states that a shift to a more general indirect taxation
  "should not proceed unless accompanied by relevant compensation measures for people in lower income groups".
  674
  It also mentions reform of the common agricultural policy and the refocusing of investment strategies and appeals for inward investment. That is also part of the UUP's position, although it is given a different flavour.
  Given the indications of agreement from the leader of the SDLP, I wonder whether what we had in 1992 was a traditional Social Democratic and Labour party agenda and that what is now developing is new Social Democratic and Labour party provisions which, as long as they are in line with what was said by members of our Front Bench, might be entirely acceptable but might not have developed as clearly in some areas as they had in the past.
  One problem with the economic structure of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is that Northern Ireland has only about 3 per cent. of the UK population and is therefore not seen as being a major influence in determining policy. The Northern Ireland Office often seems to run up against the general stance adopted by the Conservative party and is sometimes obliged to pick up some nonsense such as the privatisation of electricity, the hands-off state and agency provisions, which operate elsewhere. It is felt that such agendas can be plonked on Northern Ireland, but the Government should pay attention to the economic and social circumstances of Northern Ireland. Even if the Government do not believe that policies of a more collective nature are appropriate for Britain, they should consider their relevance to Northern Ireland.
  As the council's report shows, dependence on benefits is considerably greater in Northern Ireland than in Britain, so cuts in benefits have a disproportionately greater effect in Northern Ireland unless they are made good by improved job opportunities. In addition, because of the poverty trap, disincentives to take work will be even greater in Northern Ireland than in Britain. The minimum wage, which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central, is therefore of great relevance to Northern Ireland. Employment opportunities would lead not to the same degree of poverty trap provision, but would allow improved earnings to enter the family budget.
  It has been pointed out that Northern Ireland's housing market has experienced some buoyancy. Growth in the Northern Ireland economy might therefore be hindered in ways that it is not elsewhere. Economic growth and development, especially the sort in which I believe, has often been associated with house building. The emergence from the problems of the 1930s, at the end of the depression before the war started, was very much associated with council house building. All sorts of benefits accrue as a result of house building because people in new houses want new furniture, new curtains and new wallpaper, which gives a Keynesian-type boost to the economy. There might be less scope for that to occur in Northern Ireland due to the slightly more buoyant housing market of recent years and some of the roles played by the Housing Executive, although the Government have been trying to interfere with it.
  Economic performance was relatively good in Northern Ireland in 1995. As in housing, that means that there is less slack to pull in. The Government should consider that seriously when they work out which policies they feel are relevant to Northern Ireland. We should examine reports of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and consider the work of the British-Irish interparliamentary body, which often discusses economic relationships in the European Union.

  675
  Such matters are the stuff of politics. Hon. Members rush into the Chamber to discuss Northern Ireland concerns about bombs, the constitution and high politics, but, as is obvious from today's debate, they do not do that for the bread-and-butter concerns of the people of Northern Ireland. Yet the Northern Ireland people want us to address exactly those matters. Indeed, in doing so, we sometimes discover different combinations of alliances. Perhaps we should have more solid argument and some good ding-dongs in the House about Northern Ireland's economic direction among all its politicians rather than ding-dongs about constitutional developments and community divisions. That is the direction that the House needs to take.
  The Northern Ireland Economic Council's report contains much of considerable interest. It certainly does not just peddle Government prejudices for certain policies. It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who has now left the Chamber, suggested that there should be cut after cut to facilitate income tax reductions. That might be a big debate affecting British politics, but in Northern Ireland, it could have a serious effect on the possibilities of achieving improvement and growth.
  The report makes a number of suggestions on page 68. It calls for greater partnership between the public and private sectors, which is certainly the language of new Labour, and should therefore be carefully considered. It also says that there is
  "the need to ensure that economic opportunities provided by the paramilitary ceasefires are built upon".
  At the moment, the ending of the paramilitary ceasefires is directed more towards London than Northern Ireland. In the near future, there might be a restoration of a ceasefire and opportunities might begin to flow from it. I hope that when that occurs, we do not consider it a great chance to take various financial resources away from Northern Ireland. Such a ceasefire should be an opportunity to encourage developments in Northern Ireland and take action on an economic and social front that will take the ground away from the paramilitaries. I have always been insistent that we should do that.
  I greatly support the bipartisan policy in Northern Ireland which allows debates such as these. But I differed from the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central, the Front-Bench spokesman, on the prevention of terrorism Act because I thought that precisely such a line could give ground to the paramilitaries that they could use and argue to recruit people. We need to stop the recruitment of paramilitaries, and nothing would stop it more effectively than people having more money in their pockets, being able to travel, mix with people, build a life for the future and have security. We should be working together to establish the exact formula by which such economic change can be achieved, regardless of how difficult ding-dong debates on economic ideas may be.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. William Ross: A number of hon. Members have begun their speeches by expressing thanks to members of the Ulster Unionist party for tabling the motion on this half Supply day that falls to us
  676
  each year. I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for covering the fishing industry. It certainly saves me any trouble in that direction. He referred to some very important issues to which I hope we shall return before we are very much older. The industry is of concern to many people in Northern Ireland as well as far further afield. The number of fish in the sea, what harvests we can reap, and the number of people who can make a living from the industry are problems that will not be easily resolved or simply go away.
  I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who has left the Chamber, for raising the ceasefire, or the possible re-ceasefire of the IRA. I must confess that anyone who watched Jonathan Dimbleby interview one of Sinn Fein-IRA's leading members yesterday will not have been terribly encouraged by the responses that Mr. Dimbleby received. One of my friends said that they wished that the pair were put on again, which was an interesting departure from the point of view one normally hears whenever such spokesmen appear on our screens.
  I say to those who will be speaking to the hon. Member for Foyle that I hope that he and the IRA-Sinn Fein understand that the sort of ceasefire that we had is not good enough to attract anyone. It must go far beyond that; there must be a real ceasefire and a real cessation of violence against those who oppose the gunman in any shape or form. We have seen what has happened over the past 20 months or more and it is just not acceptable that such behaviour continued—even after a ceasefire was announced. It must be for real.
  I should like to turn to the Northern Ireland meat industry, which is of course bound up in the destiny of the United Kingdom beef industry at the moment. As has already been pointed out, the situation is comparatively more serious in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom because Northern Ireland exports a much greater proportion of its beef production than England or Wales. I shall leave Scotland out of this discussion for the moment—it also exports a large amount of beef and it has its own peculiar problems.
  I shall illustrate the importance of the beef industry to Northern Ireland by pointing out that the United Kingdom exported some 246,000 tonnes of beef in 1994. It is difficult to quantify the number of cattle that were exported because some of it was on the bone and some was boned beef. Of that 246,000 tonnes, 57,400 tonnes came from Northern Ireland alone—that is approximately 28 per cent. of the United Kingdom's beef exports. That puts the importance of Northern Ireland's beef industry into perspective. When one combines Scotland's beef exports with Northern Ireland's beef exports, one sees that about half the exports come from those two areas of the United Kingdom.
  A few days after the beef export ban was imposed, I attended a meeting of farmers at the Balmoral centre in Belfast. A spokesman for the transport organisations informed the meeting that 104 specialised lorries have nothing to do. That is a critical situation: the lorries are important economic assets that are doing nothing and that is costing a lot of money. Jobs will be lost if the lorries sit idle. This is only one tiny facet of the problems of the beef industry with which the Government have to grapple.

  677
  The lack of confidence in that sector was exposed by a report of the PA Consulting Group dated 7 May. The report pointed out that investment in the beef industry has reduced by exactly 100 per cent. compared with one year ago. In other words, people have decided not to invest in the beef industry in Northern Ireland. This is a serious situation and there are all sorts of nuances. We shall have ample opportunity to discuss and explore this entire issue in Committee this week and on the Floor of the House.
  I recognise that the whole of the United Kingdom's beef industry sinks or swims together, but I contend that with the traceability capacity that we have in Northern Ireland, with the quality assurance that we have in Northern Ireland and with the improving situation in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom regarding traceability, we can guarantee the beef. We should supply this beef and use it as a crowbar to reopen the overseas market and to break the ban. We could begin this process with the Northern Ireland product.
  I understand all the arguments about treating everyone the same, but the situation is not the same everywhere. We could use this key to unlock the door to Europe once more.
  There is a problem in relation to bull beef and what we will do about it. We cannot open the door and put those animals out to grass—and everyone knows that. That is part and parcel of the economic difficulty facing the whole farming industry. It is like a row of dominoes—when one is pushed, they all fall. The key is the European market; the key is opening up the world market for our beef. We need to get our population-20 million to 30 million people—to have their Sunday roast again, which would be a great help.
  The report of the PA Consulting Group showed that, compared with a year ago, orders are down, output is expected to rise slightly over the next 12 months and investment overall is up by 13 per cent. Given that there was no investment in meat processing, other sectors in Northern Ireland have had an increased level of investment, which is to be welcomed. The figures should be viewed in a positive light in the medium to long term so far as the Northern Ireland economy is concerned. However, there are some worries in the manufacturing sector.
  I am sure that over the weekend hon. Members listened, with a fair degree of jealousy, to the possibility of a large investment going to south Wales—we all hoped that it would come to our areas. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is smiling—no doubt he would have been happy to have had that investment in Port Glasgow. Any part of the United Kingdom would be happy to have that sort of investment. We welcome the fact that investment is coming into the United Kingdom, and we hope that similar investments will be made in the future.
  We hope that when investors come here they will be encouraged to increase their uptake of local graduates and that they will to do more research and development in the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) agreed with me when I pointed out that electronics firms are employing a large number of graduates—and we want to see more of that. We want our young people to stay at home, and we want to see research and development structures at home. That is how we will get more home-grown firms. They will provide a lot of employment
  678
  in the future and we need to grab a piece of the action. We have to get our best trained young people to work at home, rather than export them to America and elsewhere.
  I refer to factories in my constituency—Benelux, which appears to be experiencing some job losses; and AVX in Coleraine which laid off 78 people last weekend. In relation to AVX, I hope that there will be further reinvestment, that there will be retooling, that it will get back its market share, and that the jobs will be restored. These are areas of high unemployment and we need to keep all the jobs that currently exist.
  Interesting figures are starting to emerge about the general unemployment rate in Northern Ireland, in that there is a big difference between the level of male and female unemployment. The female unemployment rate is currently 6 per cent. or less and the male unemployment rate is three times that figure. This is worrying. We would like the male unemployment rate to drop. One firm that is engaged in textiles had to put its factory in Newry rather than Strabane because it could not get workers in Strabane—which has more than 30 per cent. unemployment, so there is something wrong somewhere. Perhaps it is the wrong sort of work; perhaps there are not enough people unemployed as opposed to the high percentage. It is worrying that factories are saying that they cannot get enough workers in areas of high unemployment. There were 800 jobs involved in that case.
  If the Government have not done research as to why this is so, it is long overdue. We need to find out why female unemployment is down to a reasonable level when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom—and could become lower with a bit of hard work—and why male unemployment is at an atrociously high level. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the reasons for that and target the problem of male unemployment, as opposed to that of female unemployment, which is largely resolved.
  The Minister will recall that Baroness Denton visited the Coleraine area on Friday 3 May. I accompanied her on visits that I had arranged to three manufacturing firms.
  The first firm was a very small, high-precision engineering concern, operating from a farmyard. The second manufactured heavy truck bodies, fitted them into trucks and exported them. Interestingly, we had some Danish visitors with us, and when we went into that works the first truck body that they saw was labelled "Denmark", so the exports had got that far. The Danish visitors were even more pleased to discover that the brochures were printed in their own language—a detail that so many people never seem to think about. The third firm was a very small organisation in one of our enterprise parks in Coleraine, which manufactured a range of medical equipment, now being exported far and wide.
  The interesting thing about all those small, healthy organisations was that each was home grown. All were started by local people. One of those people had started the business more than 60 years ago and built up a fairly large organisation by Northern Ireland standards. The other two firms are much more recent, and tiny, and do high-quality work very well.
  What more do the Government propose to do to encourage such enterprises? They are home grown. These folks will not uproot and leave at the first chill wind of economic change. There may be a fluctuation in the number of employees if things get really difficult, but they

  679
  will remain there and will not go away. Those small firms need more encouragement, and more overseas investment, because many of them operate by supplying larger organisations, some of which are created by overseas investment and some of which are home grown.
  What positive results have emerged from the visit of our American friends to Belfast and the visit of so many people from Northern Ireland to Washington? It was a great jamboree. We all enjoyed it, but we did not go for the beer; we went for jobs. I should like to think that some good investment had begun to appear as a result. I have not been told of very much yet. It is time that we saw some results.
  As has been said, inward investment will not be encouraged by energy prices in Northern Ireland. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Ulster Unionist Members were not at all happy about the way in which Northern Ireland Electricity was privatised. It was sold off with long-term high profits built into the scheme. There is little hope of an early review of that long-term payment system, which will force prices up and up.
  The fuel used for generation—oil and so on—is cheaper than it was at the start of the privatisation period, yet the people of Northern Ireland find the cost of electricity still increasing. They are not happy, we are not happy, and the large industrial users, who find that about 80 per cent. of the final cost of electricity consumed is taken up by generation, are very unhappy, to put it mildly.
  Those generation costs will increase considerably as a result of the long-term agreements entered into when Northern Ireland Electricity was privatised. I wonder whether the Government support package of about £60 million will solve the problem. Perhaps we should seek a way to revamp those agreements, for conditions have changed so much in even the short time since our electricity was privatised. Whatever money there is must be used to control generating costs. Will the Government give a commitment in that regard?
  Several other measures could and should be considered in that regard. We still have the problem of the cost of heavy oil and the VAT charged on it. We still have the problem of the gas pipeline, which is tied to British Gas purchasing the Ballylumford station. I understand that the price of that gas is likely to be roughly double the current price of gas in Great Britain. We also want to know how much of that gas will go for domestic consumption and for consumption by industry other than electricity generation.
  The subject is all the more topical because we all woke up this morning to hear on the radio that the gas industry over here was being lambasted right, left and centre for unconscionably high profits, and that massive reductions—I believe up to 20 per cent.—are demanded.
  If the gas price charged to people in Great Britain steadily decreases, will the gas price charged to people in Northern Ireland remain at its existing unrealistically, scandalously high level for the generation of electricity? If so, British Gas would add to its profits, not only from the gas, but from the electricity that it produces and sells from that gas. That would not be tenable.
  I understand that British Gas is involved in explorations for gas in the Irish sea. If it finds gas there, what will be the price regime in relation to that, and what will the
  680
  Government do about it? If the cost of electricity and gas for all industrial, commercial and household purposes in Northern Ireland is twice that in Great Britain, not many users of energy or gas will build factories in Northern Ireland. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent constituencies in south and west Scotland may be happy about that, because if those people want to remain close to the island of Ireland, that is where they will build a factory.
  We must do something on a large scale and for the longer term about energy generation in Northern Ireland. That must be reflected, not only in this first contract period for gas and electricity prices, but in all succeeding contracts in succeeding years.
  The Conservative party is always willing to push competition, and I am all in favour of competition, but we must get away from the present position. We seem to have replaced a public monopoly in energy with private ownership that is concentrated in so few hands that there is no real competition. We still have a managed market, in that the only person who is able to put pressure on companies to force down prices, to make them appear more realistic, is the regulator.
  We must go beyond that. We must open up the market if we are to receive the benefits that we expect to flow from privatisation—greater efficiency and lower prices. That includes, in the medium term, moves toward generation in Northern Ireland from our native lignite sources. I know that there are all sorts of connected problems, but the lignite is there—a home-grown source of electricity—and we should push on with it, not hang back.
  If we are building a conductor across the north channel to import electricity, we can use it to export electricity. We should be in the happy position where we could import and export electricity from and to the British and the European grid, and eventually from and to the Irish Republic. That should bring down the cost of the spinning reserve in electricity—I put the same arguments in the early 1970s—and, in turn, reduce electricity overheads. If those points had been considered when Northern Ireland Electricity was being sold off, we would not be in such a mess today. I hope that the Government will address them now.
  Reference was made to transportation to and from Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has always been very supportive of Northern Ireland in that regard. I hope not only that there will be an extra link to Campbeltown from Ballycastle but that something will be done about the roads in Scotland. Northern Ireland's economic problems do not begin and end at Larne—some extend far beyond that. I urge the Minister to speak to his right hon. Friend in the Scottish Office about improving those roads. Another problem is the fact that grant aid to ports differs according to whether they are in private or public ownership. I hope that the Minister recognises that anomaly and will ensure that the grants are equalised so that all ports are on a level playing field.
  Hon. Members referred briefly to the tourist industry. As the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) pointed out, much of the investment has been in luxury hotels and we face real difficulties with the provision of other accommodation. One constituent who lives on the north coast told me that in one afternoon last year she received 70 calls from people seeking accommodation.

  681
  However, she had accepted the first caller and her accommodation was full. Heaven only knows where the other people stayed—I suspect that many did not stay in Northern Ireland as accommodation is scarce. We have reached a situation where Northern Ireland has nearly as many tourists as residents. We need a lot of accommodation—particularly medium-quality accommodation which ordinary men and women can afford—and a high-speed link to Scotland and elsewhere.
  The speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and of the hon. Member for Foyle, the leader of the SDLP, underlined yet again the fact that the people of Northern Ireland can work together for the common economic good. I hope that that belief will be reflected in political and constitutional measures before too many weeks have passed.
  6.32 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): This has been a very useful debate, which was launched in an admirable manner by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out, it is interesting that hon. Members talked, by and large, about the economy and did not drift into an appropriation order debate—although the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) echoed a debate of that sort as he listed the points that he would like answered. Nevertheless, we have had a constructive debate to which I hope to respond positively.
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire—who unfortunately has had to leave the Chamber—gave his Front Bench a little grief about whether Labour should organise itself in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to interfere in that argument. However, he surprised me by suddenly heaping praise upon the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), whose speech took the rest of us by surprise. I think that he was trying to enunciate Labour's new policy for Northern Ireland and, in fairness to him, I shall study his remarks carefully.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to issues such as training and education and the like, but he did not offer anything tangible. That may have been a deliberate strategy, because the last time that he spoke in such a debate, he told us what Labour intended to do in office. When I asked him what its policies would cost, he said that that was an unfair question. I then asked what services would be sacrificed in order to pay for them and he said that that question was even more unfair. Therefore, I suspect that he deliberately avoided giving any details today—but one day, the people of Northern Ireland will want to know what part of the Northern Ireland budget will pay for new Labour's policies.
  The hon. Gentleman called for the unqualified application of the social chapter in Northern Ireland. I may be wrong, but I thought that—although it intends to get rid of qualified majority voting—new Labour intended to pick and choose what it wanted from the social chapter. However, the truth came out today, when the hon. Gentleman foreshadowed that the Labour party would implement the social chapter in full. I admire the hon. Gentleman for almost managing—but not quite—to keep a straight face. I am reminded of the remark of a Labour Member who said that in the Labour party one must learn to defend the indefensible. I think that the hon. Gentleman did that pretty well tonight.
  682
  We have had an instructive and wide-ranging debate. Obviously, I do not agree with all that has been said, but we have identified a number of important points regarding the Northern Ireland economy. Several hon. Members referred to employment and unemployment in Northern Ireland—issues that are central to any economic debate about any part of the United Kingdom. In a perspicacious speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) made several good points. For example, he pointed to the fact that unemployment in Northern Ireland is now at its lowest level since May 1981.
  It is worth registering that unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen by 20,000 since 1993. It is encouraging to note that some of the biggest falls in unemployment were recorded in areas that were badly affected by violence in the past. For example, in the past year the Belfast, West parliamentary constituency has seen a fall of 14 per cent., which is almost three times the Northern Ireland average. Those figures are particularly relevant in the light of what has been said about the importance of peace to the Northern Ireland economy.
  A similar case can be made in terms of employment. The latest available employment figures for December 1995 are 8,550 more than for December 1995 and, encouragingly, they are 6,260 more than for September 1995. The main increase in employment was in the services sector, but employment in manufacturing increased also. Employment in Northern Ireland has risen faster than in the United Kingdom throughout the 1990s. We often identify what is wrong with Northern Ireland, but tonight hon. Members on both sides sounded the trumpet for Northern Ireland. It is right that we should show the world how well Northern Ireland is doing.
  Hon. Members referred also to inward investment projects. I have no doubt that the conferences held by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in November 1994 and by President Clinton in Washington in May last year contributed to the momentum for investment. It is important to note that, since September 1994, shortly after the IRA ceasefire, there have been 17 new Industrial Development Board-backed inward investment projects involving £360 million in investment and promoting almost 5,000 new jobs. The hon. Member for East Londonderry inquired about inward investment and about what action had flowed from the conferences. It is worth pointing out that there have been significant successes in that period.
  The position with regard to output remains encouraging. Since 1991, Northern Ireland manufacturing output has risen by 15 per cent., which is almost twice the United Kingdom average. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned exports, and I can give him some later and better figures. Since 1991–92, Northern Ireland's exports have risen by 48 per cent., compared with 30 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is a welcome sign that Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly competitive and outward looking.
  The hon. Members for East Londonderry and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned the tourist sector. Visitor numbers in 1995 broke all records, with the total number of visitors topping 1.5 million. The number of holiday visitors increased by 67 per cent. to 460,000. Tourism is obviously sensitive to the security situation, but it is encouraging to note that major hotel chains have made two investments worth £26 million since Canary wharf on 9 February. Clearly, the confidence remains to

  683
  invest, and I urge hon. Members not to mock investments simply because they are large. Any investment in tourism that demonstrates confidence in Northern Ireland at this time should be widely welcomed.
  A vast number of points were raised and I shall try to deal with some of them. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others, including the hon. Member for East Londonderry, raised the issue of beef and BSE. He spoke eloquently about a serious problem and I agree with much of what he said.
  We are all concerned about the effect of the BSE crisis on Northern Ireland, not least because of the importance of the beef industry to the Northern Ireland economy and the number of jobs that depend on it. We see the European Union export ban impacting more severely on Northern Ireland than on Great Britain because of its greater reliance on exports. The Government's priority is to get the ban lifted and to restore confidence in British beef.
  As the hon. Member for East Londonderry pointed out, there will be several opportunities to debate the matter over the next few days, so I shall not spend too much time on it this evening. However, I should refer to the fact that the hon. Member for Foyle argued for separate BSE status from the rest of Great Britain because Northern Ireland has a substantially lower incidence of BSE. He also mentioned the unique computer system that enables its movements to be traced.
  There is considerable force in the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but to pursue a separate status for Northern Ireland at this time would be counter-productive to the United Kingdom's principal objective of having the unjustified and illegal ban on the entire United Kingdom beef industry removed. I can assure the House that the Government are committed to continuing and renewing our efforts towards that crucial objective. I was grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry for accepting that it has to be achieved on an United Kingdom-wide basis.
  The hon. Member for Foyle also asked whether Northern Ireland and the border counties could become a duty-free zone for goods from Northern Ireland to the United States. That is an interesting and somewhat novel concept, but it would involve considerable difficulties that I am sure he would wish to consider. Trade agreements for members of the European Union are made by the European Union on behalf of all member states. Single states cannot make arrangements on their own behalf, still less for parts of member states, as the project would suggest. Therefore, I do not believe that legal powers exist to negotiate separate agreements of that kind.
  There would be severe practical problems even if the legal issues could be overcome, which in my view would be highly improbable. The European Union is a customs union with free movement of goods within its borders. Therefore, it would be impossible to distinguish between goods originating in Northern Ireland and the border counties and goods moving through those areas, but originating in other parts of the European Union. In other words, the free trade zone could not be policed and goods from elsewhere would be drawn through Northern Ireland and the border counties and could cause great distortions of trade. It is an interesting concept, but in practical terms it would fail on the basis of a number of those tests.
  684
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) made an important speech promoting the city of Belfast. During my three years as a Northern Ireland Minister, I have sometimes thought that Belfast was sitting there waiting to be promoted, but it does not happen often. Tonight the hon. Gentleman made a powerful speech, in which he drew attention to the important developments that have taken place in Belfast and why it is a good place in which to live and invest. I congratulate him on his remarks.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of significant points, including the importance of concentrating on new technology. As Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, I know of the immensely good work within the two universities, which are producing high-quality graduates and, as was also pointed out, are doing so at a lower level of education through the NVQ system. We are now moving towards producing skilled people with a good qualification, who can take up the challenge of new technologies.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to Belfast as the city of information, and I am sure that it will not let him down in that respect. Belfast will very much welcome his speech, which I hope will be heard by a wider audience than just the hon. Members present in the Chamber tonight.
  The hon. Member for South Down also raised several points. He was worried that he had not seen the peace dividend. That concerns me. When we announced certain adjustments to budgets last year as a result of the onset of relative peace, we made it clear that they were the peace dividend and that if peace were to fail, those programmes would be at risk. We said that deliberately, because it is important to establish that a peace dividend depends on communities underpinning the peace that enables those resources to be made available.
  In education, I concentrated on two specific projects. One was the initiative aimed at raising schools' standards, an important initiative that was well targeted towards schools that had faced problems in the past. The second provided assistance for primary 1 classes. Those two clear, distinct policies were made possible by the peace dividend and would not have been possible otherwise. My colleagues did the same in respect of other budgets, and about £286 million was reallocated in that way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate not only that those resources were allocated in a specific way, but that he and the rest of the community on all sides in Northern Ireland must be fully aware that, if violence is resumed, those programmes will certainly be placed at severe risk.
  Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his additional information. Is he saying categorically that the peace funds were additional to those that would have been required and provided in the budget had peace not broken out?
  Mr. Ancram: In respect of those that I control—and I understand that it was the same for my colleagues—it was made clear to us that they were additional funds and that we should find projects on which they could be spent with that in mind. If they were put into mainstream projects, those mainstream projects could be at severe risk if the security position changed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass the message back to the community that peace has a dividend and that the ending of peace has a down side.

  685
  Several hon. Members mentioned electricity, including the hon. Member for South Down. We share electricity consumers' disappointment that at present, for a variety of reasons, tariffs are higher in Northern Ireland than in other regions of the United Kingdom. The Government no longer have a role in determining or approving electricity tariffs. The regulation of the privately owned industry is now the responsibility of the independent Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.
  Action is being taken on a number of fronts to address the problem of higher Northern Ireland electricity prices. In particular, I remind the House—as I have spoken about it in a previous debate—of the announcement on 12 March of £15 million in Government support for electricity consumers. That has enabled the average increase in electricity prices for the current year to be reduced by 3 per cent., to what, in effect, is below the rate of inflation. I hope that hon. Members will realise that that demonstrates the Government's concern.
  The hon. Member for South Down made another assertion that requires a brief comment from me. He thought that the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit were not providing equity in the distribution of employment-creating projects throughout Northern Ireland. I have heard that before. The IDB now has a target of locating 75 per cent. of all new inward investment in areas of social need. It can give higher rates of grant to companies that go to those areas. The same is true of LEDU, which is making special efforts to concentrate resources and the effort and time of officials in those areas. Those are important signs of our determination to ensure that people in all parts of Northern Ireland benefit from the opportunities that we hope will continue to develop in an atmosphere of peace.
  I should point out that, of 17 inward investment announcements made by the IDB since September 1994, three have been in Londonderry, two in Enniskillen, two in west Belfast and one in Newry. Those are all areas of special need. That demonstrates the importance that we place on meeting those particular needs.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned the thorny question of Action for Community Employment. I understand the concerns expressed about the reductions in that programme, which was introduced when unemployment was rising rapidly. Although I do not deny for a moment that unemployment remains a major problem, there are signs of improvement—I gave the House the figures. Unfilled vacancies are at record levels, with more than 7,000 on the books of the Employment Service. Our response was to refocus the use of resources, and that is the reason for the decisions that were taken. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, my noble Friend Lady Denton announced a £2 million package of transitional measures, to allow the schemes to manage the reduction in their activities.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) went slightly beyond the terms of the motion in mentioning a number of matters, including UK fishing vessel decommissioning schemes. Detailed answers can be made available to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall make sure that that is done. My noble Friend recently welcomed the continuation of the decommissioning scheme, which will operate this year in
  686
  the same way as last year, although the eligibility criteria have been widened by comparison with the scheme in the United Kingdom in 1995. Among the changes are that nephrops are now eligible, and the scheme will be open to more vessels by the lowering of the number of eligible days fished from 100 to 75 and the removal of the current restriction on licence type.
  The hon. Gentleman made a special plea on ferries. I believe that his concern was directed more at Campbeltown and that part of Argyll than at Northern Ireland, but I shall draw that matter to the attention of my noble Friend Lady Denton and of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads. I shall not reply in this debate.
  Mr. Hume: May I reiterate, in support of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), that a ferry between Scotland and Northern Ireland is the subject of widespread interest in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Ancram: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow was speaking, but he was honest to say that a ferry would be of great assistance to that part of Argyll.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry raised the question of Benelux in his constituency. I appreciate the concern that exists as a result of what has happened to that company. The IDB has been maintaining close contact with Benelux here and in Hong Kong, and the board has also made contact with a number of potential purchasers. Some have expressed interest, but none has yet entered substantive discussions. The IDB will continue to maintain those contacts.
  I hope that I have dealt with most of the points that were raised. If not, I shall as usual write to hon. Members with full answers.
  I shall finish with a point that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in replying to the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, when he spoke about the importance of peace and political stability to the future well-being of Northern Ireland. We all understand that, whatever else we talk about in terms of the quality of life, prosperity and opportunity, at the end of the day those will be underpinned only by political stability and peace. There is not simply the risk that peace dividend reallocations will have to be recovered from the economic and social programmes and restored to the law and order budget. Peace and political progress are critical to the confidence that is the key to industrial and commercial investment and to the growth of industries in Northern Ireland—not least tourism. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of their achievement.
  Anyone who claims to have any regard for the economic and social well-being of the people in Northern Ireland, particularly those who have suffered far too long from unemployment, is under the most compelling obligation to bring violence to an end, and for good. Anything else is hypocrisy and a cynical and cruel disservice to the community. Now is the time for dialogue to displace violence and threats of violence. No one can credibly claim that the opportunity for dialogue is being unreasonably withheld. There is a challenge to all

  687
  politicians in Northern Ireland and to the Government. We are willing to undertake that challenge on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I look to the politicians of Northern Ireland to follow us in that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's Report No. 118, February 1996.

  Cattle Disposal Scheme
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its concern at the continuing delay and confusion arising from the Government's cattle disposal scheme.
  On Wednesday, it will be eight weeks since a bombshell was dropped in the House by two Ministers. During that period, a great industry has been devastated and that has already cost thousands of jobs, brought businesses to the brink of bankruptcy and driven many innocent people to despair. The long-term implications for the rural economy have still to be assessed.
  My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have consistently refused to indulge in recriminations about the original bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak. It will take time to investigate the full saga—why the outbreak happened in the UK on the scale that it did, why it has continued so long and who may have been responsible for the way in which the disease spread. Time is not on our side. Every day that goes by, with the beef sector still virtually paralysed, not only costs large sums of money but makes full recovery even less likely.
  Before I deal with the scheme in detail, I shall dispose of one illusion. No doubt, Euro-sceptic Members will use the debate on Wednesday and Thursday to rail against other EU member states—especially the German and French Governments, now Conservative, with whom the Prime Minister claims to have a special relationship. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use that relationship to good effect when President Chirac visits Britain.
  The cattle disposal scheme is not a product of the export ban. True, the sabre rattling of some Conservative Back Benchers has not helped Ministers to make rapid progress with solutions. While that was done by the usual suspects on the Tory right wing, perhaps it did not matter much, but, a few days ago, in the middle of sensitive talks, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, no less, started demanding that the Government's allies should be "bludgeoned" into submission. Ministers clearly found that less easy to dismiss. No doubt they had to explain that the organisation in question is just an anachronistic club, that its chairman is of minimal importance, and that the word "bludgeon" is just an old Yorkshire expression for inviting somebody to take a more responsible view.
  Tonight's debate is about a home-grown crisis facing the entire British beef industry. Of course the export ban is irrational. We must have it lifted and get rid of it, because no scientific basis for it remains. However, that ban is not responsible for the devastation that concerns us in this debate.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. He referred in his opening sentence to a bombshell being dropped on the industry in the House. He will recall the Minister's response to the statement by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in the House last Thursday, when he said that the Secretary of State for

  689
  Health had precipitated the crisis. In the Western Morning News of 27 March, Mr. Graham Watson, the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for Somerset and North Devon, said:
  "If the Government had set out to cause mass panic they could not have gone about it in a more destructive fashion."
  Are the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Huddersfield and the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament suggesting that our colleagues should have kept silent about the research which regrettably gave rise to this problem?
  Mr. Tyler: Of course not. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make an equally long speech if he catches the Chair's eye later, but as my speech develops he will get his answer.
  The Government have accepted that the cattle disposal scheme is in their hands—it is their responsibility. In response to my private notice question last Tuesday, the Minister of State—he is in his place now—said:
  "I am driving the scheme and I accept full responsibility for it."—[Official Report, 7 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 20.]
  So the buck stops with the Minister, not with Brussels. Indeed, he slapped down the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who suggested later that the problem was the fault of "the Europeans". The Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the Prime Minister all made similar statements later last week about the Government's responsibility—and they were right.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the exchange to which the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to refer, I made the point that the beef ban was completely illegal and in defiance of all scientific opinion. How, therefore, can the hon. Gentleman have the effrontery to stand up and say what he has said when his party—the self-confessed federast party—would give away our remaining veto?
  Mr. Tyler: I am sorry that I gave way; that was a ludicrous waste of the House's time. My point was simply the same as the Minister's: the cattle disposal scheme does not depend on the export ban being removed or vice versa. It is a separate issue that must be dealt with properly by Ministers. I know that they will attempt to do that during this evening's debate.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I met the Minister on Thursday. The best that he could offer Wales was marrying up some renderers with one abattoir in north Wales and one in south Wales—for the whole country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scheme just is not a starter in Wales at this stage?
  Mr. Tyler: I do agree—I shall come to that very issue. I return to my point that Ministers have frankly accepted responsibility for the scheme. Indeed, they can do no other because everyone knows that they are responsible for what has gone wrong. A poll in The Guardian on Friday showed that only 18 per cent. of the public blame the European Union for the beef crisis, while 45 per cent. blame the Government.
  The scheme was dreamt up, designed and built in Whitehall. Anyone who suggests that it has been imported from the continent is trying to distract attention, to pass the buck, or to fight private battles.
  Mr. Paul Marland rose—
  Mr. Tyler: I shall give way later to the hon. Gentleman if he will be patient.
  The House will know—I expect the hon. Gentleman knows—that there is now a shrewd suspicion among some of the victims of this calamity that some Conservative Members—only a minority, I am glad to say—are engaged in a fierce civil war over Europe in their party and want the ban to continue for as long as possible so that they can say that it is the fault of the Europeans. The Minister gave vent to frustration at their antics after the talks in Italy last week, and he was quite right. The president of the National Farmers Union was similarly scathing, warning that extra delays might occur as a result of their antics.
  After nearly eight weeks, the disposal scheme is still characterised by dither and delay. If any hon. Member has not been briefed by his or her constituents over the weekend, let me read a brief extract from the editorial in this week's Farmers Weekly. Under the headline
  "Chaos Reigns as MAFF Makes a Hash of its BSE Slaughter Scheme",
  the editorial reads:
  "Producers with cattle over 30 months old must be wondering what on earth the Government is playing at. Only a scriptwriter for a Whitehall farce could derive any satisfaction from its handling of the scheme to remove older cattle from the food chain."
  [Interruption.] It continues:
  "According to the NFU, it could take a year before the back-log is cleared. Many of the 100,000 cattle stuck on farms will be prime animals in late-maturing, grass-fed herds, caught up in this fiasco because, like cull cows, they are deemed unfit for human consumption…Beef producers are left waiting for compensation. So far, almost two months into this crisis, they have received nothing."
  [Interruption.] It says:
  "The calf slaughter scheme does not apply to them and intervention has proved almost worthless. Those with cattle on farms are left wondering how to minimise their losses. They must know soon whether top-up compensation is to be paid after the first four weeks and at what rate. Their state of confusion is inexcusable".
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Given some of the sedentary interventions suggesting that my hon. Friend is out of date, would he agree with Mr. John Jones of Welshpool Livestock Auctioneers who has commented from today's livestock mart that the situation remains utterly chaotic because MAFF and the Welsh Office have licensed so few abattoirs?
  Is my hon. Friend further aware that marts such as the huge and important Welshpool mart cannot place the beasts which they need to place in abattoirs? Mr. John Jones tells me that he has managed to find space for 35 of 2,000 candidates for slaughter from his mart alone. Will my hon. Friend join me in begging Ministers to increase the number of abattoirs licensed for the cull?
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making that point, to which I shall come directly. If any Conservative Member has not been listening to abattoir managers and farmers during the past few days, he should get on the telephone this evening and find out what they are saying. I have talked to farmers as far apart as Lewes in Sussex, Dartmouth in Devon, Boston in Lincolnshire and Widnes in Cheshire. They describe the

  691
  situation as a shambles—precisely what the Welsh Farmers Union said. The renderers are saying that the scheme will grind to a halt almost immediately; and the Scots are so desperate that they have turned to the Prime Minister and asked him to intervene—as if that were going to help.
  With the help of the NFU and discussions with many others, I have been able to identify six principal concerns. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) rightly said, the reduction in the number of collection centres is a disaster. Last Tuesday, the Minister told me:
  "Some 104 livestock markets and some 72 abattoirs have been approved as collection centres."
  He wanted, he said,
  "to ensure a proper geographical coverage of collection centres—both slaughterhouses and livestock markets."—[Official Report, 7 May 1996; Vol. 277, c.20.]
  He said that about 200 had applied to join the scheme. There followed pressure from both sides of the House to the effect that that was not enough. I recall the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) making that very point.
  Later in the week, we heard that the Minister was prepared to be flexible. More centres would be added—perhaps as many as 100. At the weekend, however, the renderers appeared to have the Government over a barrel, despite the Minister's promises last week that he had them under control. As a result, only 21 in the whole of England and Wales are to be licensed for the foreseeable future. Although MAFF has approved 96 abattoirs and 186 livestock markets to operate the scheme, the renderers are refusing to play ball. As the NFU said:
  "The Government have consistently refused to establish a proper administrative framework for the scheme in England and Wales. In the absence of such a framework, renderers have indicated that, in England and Wales, they will deal with 21 abattoirs. These will meet their current maximum throughput of 18,000 carcases a week. This figure will rise to some 25,000 carcases a week only after several weeks. If these were the only cattle to be entered into the scheme, it would take up to a year to eliminate the backlog on farms which, across the United Kingdom as a whole, is estimated to be over 300,000. Each week a further 12,000 cull cows will join this backlog."
  In the meantime, businesses are being ruined. I want to quote one specific case from one of the many letters that I have received. This one comes from Skegness and District Meat Traders Ltd. The group was on the Minister's schedule, sent to every Member of the House on 2 May—a designated and approved collection centre. The traders write:
  "We applied and were passed and accepted by the Intervention Board as suitable to take part in the scheme. All arrangements with the Meat Hygiene Service, the Meat and Livestock Commission, local rendering plant, local hide collection had been confirmed. 100 cattle from local farms were booked in to come to us from 7 am on Saturday.
  We had agreed to slaughter on 3 days per week to try and take the pressure off local farmers in our area, many with severe cash flow problems due to delays in the whole situation…We understand from information given to us in the last hour that the nearest abattoir is at Shrewsbury, only two in the whole Midlands area &We at this moment are destroyed, we don't know what to do, please, please help us!"
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Other marts on the list approved by the Government were unable to
  692
  start the scheme because they were under the impression that they had to have a registration number after being inspected by the state veterinary service. When one of the marts in my constituency telephoned the intervention board, it spoke to a 15-year-old schoolchild on work experience who was unable to say whether it could start the scheme without state veterinary inspections.
  Mr. Tyler: Such experiences have taken place all over the country in the past few days. I have had abattoirs ringing me today in desperation because they cannot get clear advice from the Ministry, the intervention board, or any other authority.
  Mr. Marland: The hon. Gentleman is being very selective and he is out of date. He is not the only one who has been making telephone calls to find out what has been going on, because I have done exactly the same. I spoke to Gloucester market this morning and I was told that the situation is now working very smoothly. Of course, there have been a few hiccups along the way, but that is why I said that the hon. Gentleman is out of date. I stand by that. He quoted from a Farmers Weekly which is a week old and the article he read out must have been written at least 10 days ago. The situation is now moving ahead smoothly and the scheme is working.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. He clearly does not read Farmers Weekly. I quoted Friday's edition—10 May—and I checked today about the information given. It is absolutely accurate. It may be that there is one place where the scheme is now in operation. If that is in Gloucester, good luck to Gloucester, but all over the country that is not the case.
  Another of the statements that I have received today from a vet says:
  "animals will have to travel much greater distances into large, factory abattoirs—remember these include some of the weakest and infirm of all cattle, the cow at the end of her working life."
  I will come to the issue of casualty stock in a minute, because the animal welfare implications are causing considerable concern.
  Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman cares to pick up the phone and to talk to the National Farmers Union, he will find that his information is incorrect. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) waving his hands and interfering in the debate from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Tyler: I am sure that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the frustration and anger that many of us feel that our constituents have been put into an impossible situation. Mishandling of the crisis is causing real human misery, as well as animal misery.
  The issue of the distortion between live weight and dead weight caused concern to many hon. Members from both sides of the House last week and is certainly not resolved. The regulation authorising the scheme, approved by the Beef Management Committee on 12 April,

  693
  envisaged that animals would be brought into the scheme only at live weight centres, that is, at auction markets. That would have distorted the normal patterns of trade in older cattle, because some 50 per cent. are normally sold dead weight and it would have caused especial difficulty to those farmers who normally sell dead weight.
  It was not until 26 April that the committee allowed dead weight purchase. It rejected the proposal, made by the slaughterers and by the NFU on behalf of farmers, to use an accurate conversion coefficient. Accordingly, the scheme encourages farmers to enter their steers and heifers into the scheme at the abattoirs instead of the normal marketing channels. Naturally, that is making the present blockage in the abattoirs even worse because everyone is trying to clamber in there as fast as possible. Last week, hon. Members warned the Government that that would happen, and nothing has been done to correct the distortion.
  On the issue of valuation for compensation, beef farmers are facing huge losses. This morning, one south Devon specialist producer told me that he anticipates that his total loss will be in the region of £100,000 as a result of the crisis and the way that it has been handled.
  Steers and heifers are, of course, considerably more valuable than cull cows. The EU-approved compensation rate is adequate to cover most of the losses sustained by the holders of cull cows, but it is far below the costs of production of steers and heifers. Hon. Members from both sides know that and they have been pressing the Government as we have.
  The Government attempted to resolve the problem by agreeing to pay a 26p a kilogram live weight top-up. That supplement was first to be paid for the first four weeks, then during May, then until 10 June and finally on all steers and heifers on farms on 20 March whenever they are taken into the scheme. That is slow progress but, as the House will recognise, very confusing.
  Meanwhile, a group of producers from the south-west has taken the initiative. The producers went to Brussels, they met the Commission and they sought a more flexible, realistic and fair compensation package. In brief, they wanted a full-price support scheme for suckler cows, with compensation for all cattle known to come from herds that have been hit by BSE, which they said would be essential to solve the problem. The reaction of the Commission is important. It said that the producers' ideas were well worth examining, but it told the farmers that they had to discuss the matter with MAFF. The matter is entirely in the hands of the United Kingdom's Ministers and not in the hands of the Commission. As one of the farmers who helped to put together the submission said to me today,
  "I solely blame the Minister of Agriculture for his lack of understanding and speed to solve this crisis."
  I will gladly provide details of that statement to the Minister.
  The 30-month deadline caused consternation, not only in the House but in all parts of the industry. Who first floated the idea of the 30-month deadline? Strictly speaking, it was not the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which merely referred to it as a handy threshold, with some scientific basis, for deciding when deboning and destruction of offal should become compulsory. The idea that 30 months should be an indiscriminate deadline for any meat to prevent it from
  694
  entering the human or animal feed chain seems to have come from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself.
  I refer the House to an important article in The Daily Telegraph by Christopher Booker and Richard North, who pointed the finger of blame in the Minister's direction. In interviews in the immediate aftermath of the first statement, the Minister referred to the possibility of a 30-month deadline, and to the possibility of culling "millions of cattle". Nobody had raised that issue until the Minister himself did. That overreaction, or overkill, did not start in Brussels, Bonn or Paris. It started in Whitehall, and hon. Members will agree with that.
  At long last, after weeks of pressure, from us and from many others, the Government are examining the practicalities of what is called a "mature beef assurance scheme". Good. Exemptions are clearly essential for herds and breeds that can be demonstrated to be at low risk—Dexters is an obvious example, but there are many others. Otherwise, not only will perfectly healthy cattle be slaughtered—that raises legal as well as moral issues—but the scientific rationale for the whole of the Government's scheme will be killed off too.
  Why are we still waiting? Why was the issue not addressed six weeks ago, in informal discussions with the Commission and the industry? When I visited Brussels and met Commissioner Fischler's team exactly three weeks ago, I was staggered to find that it had received no proposals, ideas or details at all from MAFF on that vital aspect of the problem. Even though such a scheme might not have achieved a partial relaxation of the export ban immediately, would it not have been wise to consult on exemptions? The Commission seems very receptive to the case for the later-maturing, naturally reared and fed prime beef, including those on organic farms. Why did our Ministers not push open that door and get the Commission's support early on? To come back now with the mature assurance scheme will be much more difficult.
  In the meantime, the many delays in progressing the scheme have caused especial difficulty for those farmers who would normally have marketed their 30-month-old cattle in late March, April or early May. Those farmers are facing not only shortfalls in cash flow, but the cost of feeding their animals. I know that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has made that point in the House before.
  Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a serious welfare issue for the cattle that should have been slaughtered in the last week of March. There is no market for them. They are over 30 months of age and the market has gone because of the European Union's ban. May I help the hon. Gentleman with where the 30-month ban came from? If he reads today's National Farmers Union briefing, he will find that it came from the farming community.
  Mr. Tyler: That is not true. I met the president of the National Farmers Union after the scheme had already been floated by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—he did so on television—in the previous three days. The hon. Gentleman is not correct on that point. I accept his support, however, and I am grateful to him. It is—
  Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No.

  695
  As the delays lengthened and the prospects of a rapid reduction in the backlog of cattle receded, the NFU became more and more determined to secure urgent priority for entry of animals into the scheme.
  Delays in starting the scheme have led to huge problems in dealing with casualty stock. All scheme abattoirs must be required to take such stock to minimise animal welfare difficulties. In some major livestock areas of Britain—the highlands of Scotland, mid-Wales and the west country, for example—the combination of large numbers of cattle and small numbers of approved slaughter facilities is causing consternation. The south-west region of the NFU briefed me today. It told me that only three abattoirs are operating within the whole of its area. It commented:
  "Although all abattoirs in the scheme will be required to make arrangements to deal with casualty stock, the lack of abattoirs in the scheme at the current time will mean excessively long journeys for some casualty animals and we will continue to lobby the renderers to take these animals from the local abattoirs which currently specialise in casualties."
  Good for the NFU, but what is the Ministry doing? How can it mitigate the extra costs and avoid the risk of do-it-yourself slaughter, when farmers who are already in dire straits are faced with extra burdens?
  In endorsing many of the issues to which I have referred, the Sussex farmers, whom I met near Lewes on Thursday, are especially frustrated with the calf slaughter scheme. Other farmers from Somerset to Sunderland have raised the same anxieties. The time scale is impossible. The intervention board is asking for precise notice of numbers three days in advance. The farmer can give notice only three days after birth. Delivery must take place within seven to 10 days. The window of opportunity is just too narrow. Real difficulties are arising in what is already a fraught situation. There appears to be no logical reason not to introduce an extension to at least 14 days. Surely that would be more reasonable.
  In supporting that view, Messrs Snells, the wholesale butchers at Chard, Somerset, say that
  "most abattoirs are killing calves at specific times on two days a week. This makes the ten day rule even harder."
  The company comments that the two-hour limit for calves to arrive at the abattoir to be inspected is very tight, especially when a large consignment arrives.
  The net sum that the farmer receives can be as little as £50, once all the others in the chain have taken their cut. Many producers are simply holding on to their Holstein calves. Where will they end up?
  I have had time only to touch on the catalogue of problems from which the beef industry is reeling on the 55th day after the original BSE announcement. I could have provided more detail about the fate of the cattle head deboners. Their business was abolished overnight by the Minister's new regulations. No compensation was payable. It is difficult to think of any other industry that could be driven out of business by the failure of Government policy and have no redress. It is surely scant comfort for the deboners to be told, as Messrs Touchmead of Amesbury was advised by its Member of Parliament, that it should diversify.
  There is the absurd fiasco that stems from proving the age of young heifers. Calling in the dentist proved to be a ludicrously inefficient option. A proper registration
  696
  scheme seems to be a long way off. Vets are naturally reluctant to act as the Government's policemen, especially without even being consulted. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the vets have now been consulted.
  Another factor is the power of supermarkets. They seem to be dictating what happens. Their activities deserve careful scrutiny. I understand that they threatened to undermine the best laid plans of Ministers by insisting that abattoirs do not process both cull cattle and beef for human consumption. That may be reasonable in some areas, but in other more remote areas there will be great difficulties. I see one or two Conservative Members nodding in agreement. The Minister failed completely to respond when my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) put the matter to him on Thursday.
  The chairman of the south-west region of the NFU wrote during the weekend to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). He stated:
  "We are drifting daily into a very serious situation. Apart from the financial problems being experienced by our members there are the practical problems of feed and welfare. The uncertainties of it all are causing immense despair and there is of course huge long term damage being caused, not only to farming businesses, but to all allied trades as well."
  There is not a farmer, a market manager, an abattoir owner or anyone else in the beef industry who will share the complacency that is set out in the Government's amendment. If Conservative Members had listened to their constituents during the past seven horrendous weeks, they, too, would find it impossible to hail the "progress" to which the amendment refers. Far from the Ministry driving the scheme, it seems to have been hijacked by the renderers and the supermarkets.
  The purpose of the Minister's scheme is to hasten the eradication of BSE from the national herd, and by so doing to re-establish consumer confidence at home and abroad. My colleagues and I fully share that objective. Indeed, the objective is not in dispute. So far, however, it has been a dismal failure. No doubt the Ministry had a contingency plan, even if it did not have one before November 1995. Surely such a scheme must then have been initiated. Any responsible Government would surely have put a contingency plan in place immediately. If the Government did that, what was the plan? Was it what we now see? If so, why have things taken so long? Those whose livelihoods hang in the balance because of the debacle, given the dither and delay that have taken place over 55 days, are losing their patience.
  I shall end with a quotation from a statement drafted by two Cornish farmers' wives. It was signed by 450 others from throughout the west country. They describe themselves as the
  "farming community who are made to bear the brunt of political blunders."
  They refer to
  "the irreparable damage to our industry"—
  that is the livestock industry, as the
  "innocent victim of misdemeanours."
  They ask whether the cattle feed producers will be prosecuted. They comment:
  "After all, according to the scientists, this is where BSE originated, unknown to the farmer. These producers added the likes of sheep remains and offal etc. to cattle feed after the Government lifted regulations regarding the contents."

  697
  After 55 days of chaos and confusion, all those questions cannot remain unanswered any longer.
  7.27 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's commitment to restoring consumer confidence in the UK beef industry by introducing a slaughter scheme for cattle over the age of 30 months; notes the progress made in the 30-month scheme; recognises the dependence of the scheme on co-operation between farmers, auctioneers, slaughterers and renderers and welcomes the steps taken to foster such co-operation to ensure that the maximum slaughter rates are achieved."
  I welcome the opportunity to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who has come to the House to debate the 30-month cull without knowing who proposed it. It is clear that he has not even had the courtesy to read the briefing sent to every hon. Member by the National Farmers Union.
  The announcement on 20 March by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee that the most likely explanation of some recent cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy before 1989 had an immediate and devastating impact on many people, including thousands of farmers throughout the country. I fully appreciate what a painful and frustrating time they, their friends and their family have had recently. None of us can be insensitive to the difficulties that so many farmers have experienced.
  I welcome the debate because it provides an opportunity for me to set out clearly the issues that I have had to confront. The House is made up of reasonable people, and I believe that, having heard what I have to say, it will conclude that all has been, and is being, done at all possible speed to ensure that the 30-month cull scheme works efficiently and effectively and that farmers will be able to move relevant stock from their fields as speedily as possible. They rightly and understandably want to be paid compensation as soon as possible, and I want them to receive it as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall spent the first five minutes of his speech trying to ascribe responsibility for the scheme. I could have saved him that five minutes. I accept full responsibility for ensuring the success of the scheme, which is why, each day, I convene and chair a meeting of all the relevant interests—farmers, those who work in abattoirs, renderers, members of the retail industry, vets and others. Many people are involved, and we must appreciate the number of complexities involved in this unprecedented scheme.
  It is worth briefly recalling the time scale. In statements issued on 20 and 24 March, SEAC recommended—among other things—that the carcases of cattle aged over 30 months be deboned in licensed plants under the supervision of the Meat Hygiene Service. That is where the reference to 30 months first appeared. That recommendation gave a particular and immediate significance to the 30-month limit.
  At once, retailers, keen to help restore confidence in British beef, wanted to be able to confirm to customers that they were selling only young beef, and that there was
  698
  no possibility of older beef being on their shelves. Almost immediately, retailers told meat merchants and farmers that they were no longer willing to accept beef from animals aged 30 months and over. At a meeting on 25 March, retailer and farmer representatives decided to ask the Government to buy cattle aged 30 months and over to ensure that their meat and offal were removed from the human and animal food chain. That day, they came to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and me, and we readily agreed to seek to implement the measure, in co-operation with retailers, farmers and others, as part of the moves to help restore confidence in British beef here and overseas.
  If the hon. Member for North Cornwall feels at all confused about the origin of the scheme, he need only read the brief sent by the NFU to all Members of Parliament. It states:
  "Taken together … a substantial proportion of our market had disappeared"
  because the retailers, processors and caterers had informed the NFU that they were no longer willing to accept beef from carcases of cattle aged 30 months and over.
  "The NFU reacted to these … events by requesting the UK Government to purchase cattle aged 30 months and older and to ensure that their meat and offals were removed from the human and animal food chain."
  That request was made to us on 25 March. We had obtained all the necessary clearances and agreed to it by 28 March, and by 3 April we had secured the Council of Ministers' agreement to Community funding of the costs of buying cattle into the scheme. I hope that no one will believe that any of the negotiations with Community colleagues have been particularly easy. At that meeting on 3 April, compensation payments were set at 1 ecu per kg for cattle purchased live—approximately 86p per kg—and double that rate for dead weight. That decision was to prove significant later.
  In its briefing, the NFU rightly described our response to it and the retailers as "rapid and welcome" but, obviously, it took a little time to negotiate the details of such a complex scheme—its complexity was unprecedented, here and elsewhere in Europe—with Community colleagues. The basic regulation, however, was adopted on 12 April—again, very rapidly.
  I note that the Opposition Benches seem to be emptying. No Labour Back Benchers have been present throughout the debate, and the Liberal Democrats now seem to be filing out of the Chamber. I hope, however, that Conservative Members who are concerned about these matters will pay attention to the chronology. It was necessary to seek amendments to the basic regulations twice, on both occasions to meet concerns expressed by the NFU, the Country Landowners Association and other farming interests. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) intervened from a sedentary position earlier to say that we had not listened. We have listened carefully. We have sought to meet the legitimate concerns of farming and other interests, and throughout the process I have tried to respond to those understandable concerns.
  The first issue on which we sought, and succeeded in obtaining, the Community's agreement was the provision of a nationally funded supplement to be payable on steers and heifers. Steers and heifers aged over 30 months are

  699
  considerably more valuable than cull cows that have reached the end of their milking lives. While the original compensation rates agreed by the Community were adequate to cover losses being sustained by owners of cull cows, it was felt that they did not fairly meet the costs of rearing steers and heifers. That is why we agreed, and made clear, that there would be a top-up payment of not less than 25p per kg live weight for the first four weeks of the scheme, after which a review would take place.
  I have decided that the review should take place on 15 June. Because it is possible—indeed probable—that not all steers and heifers aged more than 30 months on 30 March will have been slaughtered by then, I have agreed that those animals will attract, and continue to attract, the top-up payment of 25p whenever they come to be slaughtered. In other words, any farmer who has heifers and steers on his farm that were there and more than 30 months old on 20 March will receive a 25p top-up payment whenever his cattle are slaughtered. I hope that that goes some way towards allaying the concerns of farmers who, understandably, were particularly anxious to get their cattle through the scheme while they thought the 25p top-up rate was available.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned that other NFU members wanted another scheme. If that is the case, they certainly have not put it to me through the union. If they had, I would have considered it. I think that there is a general recognition by the NFU, the CLA and other farming interests that the 25p top-up is very fair, especially if it applies to every heifer and steer that was on farms on the relevant date of 20 March and it is available whenever such a beast is slaughtered.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: If the scheme that the Minister has described is to work, the cull must not merely be announced, but take place. Why will he not announce today a substantial increase in the number of available abattoirs—including those in Wales—so that it can take place? Will the industry receive a response to the legitimate concerns that it has raised repeatedly with the Minister in meetings, including a meeting involving John Jones of Welshpool Livestock Auctioneers, to whom I referred earlier?
  Mr. Baldry: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman—and, indeed, every Member of Parliament from an English or Welsh constituency—received a letter from me today explaining the position. The letters were sent first class on Friday, and I made certain that every hon. Member would receive a copy. I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman read in the letter about the logistical difficulties caused by the finite nature of rendering capacity—which I shall explain in a moment—and about the position in Wales, which I set out in terms.
  There are no renderers in Wales, and I cannot create any by means of some divine intervention. Because, under the scheme, every beast must be rendered in its entirety, it must be matched with rendering capacity in England. That is why I made it clear in the letter that I sent the hon. and learned Gentleman and every other colleague that, under the scheme, I had designated three abattoirs specifically to take cattle from Wales: Anglesey, Abergavenny and Shrewsbury. If the hon. and learned Gentleman adds up the take—on the back of the
  700
  "Dear Colleague" letter, the abattoirs and their throughput are set out—he will find that, together, those three abattoirs will take 25 per cent. of the initial kill. The Welsh herd is 16.5 per cent. of the national total so, rather than doing less well, the Welsh community is doing slightly better than average in the first few weeks.
  The second amendment of the scheme that was necessary was not achieved until 5 pm on 26 April—again at the request of the NFU and the CLA—when the European Community agreed that there should be a dead weight option on the scheme.
  Sir Hector Monro: We are now having a good deal of success in Scotland. A significant number of beasts have gone to the slaughterhouse—the number is now in the thousands rather than in the hundreds—but may I take my hon. Friend back a short while to heifers, which are at a full stop? No one is taking heifers at the moment. May we have a simpler method of arriving at the heifer age than the four teeth, because they must be got away soon? No one, however, seems to know quite how we are to do it.
  Mr. Baldry: There are two points there. First, we hope and intend to have an identification scheme for all heifers by next month. Secondly, the CLA, the NFU and all farming interests that have made representations to me—I think that this has been agreed by everyone—have said that, given the problems of people who have heifers and steers, under the scheme, priority in the first instance should be given to clean beef.
  Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend is right in all that he has said to the House and I am most grateful for his work in trying to resolve the extremely difficult problem of matching rendering capacity to the requirement for slaughter through abattoirs, but the fact is that there is just not enough rendering capacity. The need, however, to bring forward more cattle for early slaughter is extremely great. Will he consider using all available cold storage facilities so that we can have cattle in a large number of abattoirs and so that we can target a bigger number than the 25,000 per week that he is talking about slaughtering?
  Mr. Baldry: Absolutely. Again, as I hope every colleague will have read, in the letter that I sent them on Friday I set that out in terms. Of course we have a finite rendering capacity. I cannot do anything to change that. What I can do is increase the rate of slaughter by bringing on more cold storage and, having rendered only those parts of each animal that need immediately to be rendered, store the rest for it to be rendered later. At present, I estimate that, under the scheme, the throughput in England and Wales is some 18,000 beasts a week. I hope that, in the next few weeks—I enclosed a bar chart showing every hon. Member how I saw the progress of the scheme—we will increase that figure to 22,000 beasts a week and start to make some real dent in the backlog, as well as keep up to date with the immediate scheme.
  Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is astonishing that, not even an hour into this debate in Liberal party time, two senior Liberal party spokesmen, not having read the NFU brief and not knowing whether there are any renderers in Wales, have been shown to have

  701
  done so little homework? It is a disgraceful performance by the Liberal party. Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of homework undermines everything that they have been saying?
  Mr. Baldry: What is disappointing is this. Everyone recognises that these are unprecedented circumstances that have been created by no one in the House and by no one in particular in the farming community or elsewhere. SEAC made proper recommendations, which we have sought to act on and to which, as I have described, the market has responded. Since then, we have all been seeking to work co-operatively. If the NFU and the CLA came to hon. Members and said, "We believe that the Minister of State has grossly failed"—or, indeed, failed at all—"in his duties," it would be right to have such a debate in the House, but in my meetings with the NFU, the CLA and other interest groups, I have persistently said, "Is there any issue that you wish me to consider that you feel I have not fully considered and taken action on?" I am confident that there is no issue that I have been asked to take forward by the various interests that I have not taken forward.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I should like to make some progress.
  Farmers and, I think, everyone else involved in the beef industry were anxious that, so far as possible, the 30-month cull programme should not disrupt existing patterns of business. Although many farmers continue to take their cattle to their livestock markets to sell, in recent years, there has been an increasing trend towards selling cattle dead weight—selling them direct to the abattoir. The NFU and the CLA were anxious that those traditional marketing patterns should be continued and we recognise that many producers prefer cattle to be marketed direct from farm to abattoir.
  That is why, at the request of farming unions and of abattoir owners, we pressed the European Commission for changes in the regulations to enable such direct sales to continue. Again, those were not easy negotiations. I think that it is fair to say that there was a fair deal of suspicion, and considerable reticence, on the part of some Community colleagues about allowing the scheme to continue with a dead weight option, as they believed that it would become even more flexible and potentially more expensive.
  Ideally, it would have been possible to secure agreement to a set of conversion coefficients from dead weight to live weight which would vary according to the type of beast—for example, one coefficient for cows, another for steers and another for heifers. There were two constraints. Importantly, the conclusions that have already been reached, and which I have mentioned, by the Council of Agriculture Ministers at their meeting on 3 April, in which a conversion coefficient from dead weight to live weight of two is clearly implied, combined with the reluctance of officials elsewhere in Europe to make the scheme even more flexible, meant that, within the politics of the possible, a coefficient of 2:1 was the best achievable in all the circumstances.
  I do not think that there is any disagreement that that coefficient is slightly ungenerous for cull cows, but it has the advantage that it offers a better return than would
  702
  otherwise be available on steers and heifers. It therefore serves to boost the returns of the specialist beef farmers. As that group was especially concerned that it had been disadvantaged by the earlier compensation measures, that potentially extra money has been welcomed by farmers unions.
  I appreciate that concerns have been expressed, especially by people representing the livestock marts, that the coefficient will tend to encourage producers of steers and heifers to make use of the dead weight option rather than sell their cattle through live auction marts, but as I said, a significant number of clean cattle have been going dead weight recently. For cull cows, the coefficient is likely to favour sale through auction marts. When I have discussed this issue, at some length, with the leaders of the NFU and the CLA, that has certainly been their collective view.
  Once the backlog of cattle on farms is reduced, the majority of cattle slaughtered under the scheme will be cull cows, so the coefficients that we have are to the advantage of specialist beef producers, who will receive more for their cattle, and the owners of cull cows. I am sure that, under the scheme, live markets will continue to play an important role, and I say that as the hon. Member for Banbury—the centre of my constituency has the largest cattle market in Europe.
  Incidentally, I am glad that the people who represent the abattoirs nationally have agreed to protocols with the livestock markets to ensure the full participation of designated licensed markets as collection points under the scheme. Under the agreed protocol, abattoirs will give an allocation to livestock marts of 30-month scheme animals on the basis of the proportion of business that they were taking from livestock marts before 20 March. In that way, both the livestock marts and the abattoirs hope that the livestock marts will be able to play a valuable role in acting as collection centres and to be confident that they will then have abattoir and rendering facilities available to them. I congratulate both the livestock marts and the abattoirs on their constructive approach on the matter.
  Mr. Beith: The Minister seems to be aware of the problem, but is perhaps underestimating its seriousness. If on a 700 kg animal there is a £200 premium for treating it as dead weight, specialist beef farmers will be drawn into using the abattoir directly, thereby putting the local mart, upon which they depend in good times, out of business. Other beef farmers will find it impractical to take that option, and will be at a financial loss.
  Mr. Baldry: I know that none of the farm interests would wish to have the dead weight option or the dead weight coefficients taken away. If Liberal Democrat Members went out into the highways and byways saying that they would take this money away from farmers, they would receive a dusty response. It is recognised that there are swings and roundabouts. I suspect that more business will go live weight through cull cows to the livestock marts because the coefficients make it to farmers' advantage to do it that way. There will be considerable benefits to clean beef producers of going to abattoirs and to the owners of cull cows of going to the livestock mart. The fact that abattoirs and livestock marts have agreed a

  703
  basis on which cattle can be called forward from livestock marts that are collection centres to be dealt with by the abattoirs is good news.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has said a number of times that he cannot be expected to conjure rendering facilities out of thin air. Perhaps he can speak about a particular problem that has been put to me by the NFU. It concerns casualty animals. Does he feel able to say to the United Kingdom Renderers Association that it is artificially restricting its activity to 20 abattoirs and that one of the consequences is that it is virtually impossible to dispose of casualty animals humanely? That is a well-founded point and, although it is not the Minister's fault, he may be able to do something about it.
  Mr. Baldry: I certainly intend to speak about casualty stock. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned six points, and I intend to deal with all of them. One concerned casualty animals. I hope to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that we have in place proper provision for casualty stock. I shall continue to tell every abattoir in the scheme—not just the 21 that are in it at the moment, but the larger number which I hope will come into it—that a precondition of being in the scheme is that they must take a commonsense approach to casualty animals that are in need of emergency slaughter. I shall deal with that in greater detail.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Member for North Cornwall is brave if he thinks that he can come between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my hon. Friend and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for having the good sense to choose Lancaster as one of the centres. It has a popular auction and many live weight cattle are brought to it. We are delighted about that, but there is a slight problem in that, like others, we are rather short of abattoir space. Would it be possible to open in the near future the abattoirs at Clitheroe and Oldham, which we have at the top of the list? That would give our market an enormous boost.
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) wrote to me today making a similar point. I want to get more abattoirs on stream as soon as possible, but to do that I have to be able to bring on stream more cold storage capacity. I hope to do that in the next two or three weeks. There is a finite number of renderers, and more abattoirs without cold storage facilities would force the renderers to use their limited amount of transport to visit more abattoirs. That would be less efficient and lead to a smaller throughput.
  I hope that all hon. Members appreciate that the scheme will be in place for some months and that we must get it right. It is important to proceed in good order. As we introduce more cold storage facilities, we can use more
  704
  abattoirs. There are some excellent facilities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has an excellent abattoir in his constituency, and I hope to bring it on stream in the near future. Cold storage will enable us to store parts of beasts that do not need to be rendered immediately. I want to clear the backlog as speedily as possible.
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are many interventions because this is a complicated scheme. He is to be congratulated because what he is trying to do is unprecedented. I should like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said. In the north-east, there are five slaughterers on the list of 21, and in the north-west there are two. I do not want to engage in beggar-my-neighbour tactics, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that his reasoning, which I am sure is well thought out, should be explained either now or in the winding-up speech so that no one in the north-west feels that he is being disadvantaged. The figures need clarification, and I am sure that my hon. Friend can give it.
  Mr. Baldry: I certainly do not intend any part of the country to become disadvantaged. As the scheme develops, in parts of the country where there is a need for greater slaughter capacity more speedily, we shall bring on more abattoirs. I want to ensure that the scheme gives confidence to consumers and retailers that only young beef is entering the UK market. I also want to ensure that farmers are confident that they will be paid speedily and that all hon. Members are confident that the scheme is running efficiently.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I shall make some more progress and then give way to my hon. Friend.
  We sought amendments to the original regulations at the behest of farming interests to get a top-up premium for heifers and steers and a dead weight option. It was not until late on 26 April that it was possible to obtain final agreement to the various provisions of the scheme that had been requested on behalf of farmers. Our success in getting agreement for a top-up payment for steers and heifers and a dead weight option has been greatly appreciated by the industry. The following weekend, immediately after the Friday when we secured agreement to the dead weight option, officials in MAFF and the intervention board worked throughout the weekend to ensure that abattoirs and livestock marts that might tentatively have become collection centres had all the necessary information as speedily as possible. That was got to them on 30 April, and the first animals under the scheme were slaughtered on 3 May.
  As some of my hon. Friends have said, this is an unprecedented scheme—the largest and most complicated slaughter programme that has ever been introduced in this country. After all the regulations had been agreed, a number of legitimate sectoral and industry concerns had to be met. It is important for everyone to recognise that every animal slaughtered under the scheme has to be rendered prior to disposal. It is not possible simply to

  705
  slaughter and store a whole carcase. Waste material amounting to 30 to 40 per cent. of every animal has to be immediately rendered.
  The UK has a finite rendering capacity. Prior to 20 March, huge amounts of animals that are now having to be rendered would have gone into the human food chain. It is impossible simply to introduce further rendering capacity overnight. I cannot suddenly find that capacity: it would take several months. In addition to rendering for the 30-month cull scheme, renderers continue to have to render offal from animals under the age of 30 months for the retail industry. I do not think there is any dispute about the accuracy of the renderers' estimation. There was a suggestion earlier that, in some way, the renderers were holding people to ransom. That was an unworthy suggestion. Judging by the groups that I have met, there is no doubt that the maximum rendering capacity that is available for the scheme is some 18,000 animals a week in England and Wales, and approximately 25,000 a week throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall reach the target of 18,000 animals this week and in subsequent weeks until we start to introduce cold storage. As I said in my letter to hon. Members, I hope to increase that capacity in the coming weeks.
  Mr. Bruce: I intervene because I know that, every time I have been to see my hon. Friend about matters concerning my farmers, he has been extremely adept at finding a way through for them. Needless to say, South Dorset farmers are very concerned. They have had their dead weight scheme and a local abattoir has been designated—S. J. Norman and Sons at Bridport. Unfortunately, now that the abattoir is telling them that they can send in their cattle, they have been told that the renderers will not come and service them, so they cannot take their cattle in. I raise that point only because I know that my hon. Friend will have an instant answer. If he does not, I am perfectly happy to start up the barbecue in my garden. If no one wants to come and eat, it will of course get burnt, but if they do, we will give it away.
  Mr. Baldry: I fully understand that. The abattoir at Bridport is excellent and, as I said, I hope to be able to bring it into the scheme in the very near future. What happened was that the abattoirs, the renderers and the trade associations representing the abattoirs and renderers had discussions to seek to ensure that the maximum rendering capacity would be used now and in the foreseeable future.
  Renderers have only finite transport facilities; there is a huge logistical issue. It made much more sense if a limited number of renderers were connected to the finite number of abattoirs in the first instance, and that is what has happened. I sent out details of that to hon. Members, in letters which I hope they received today. As I have told the House—I keep on about it because I think that it is fair that everyone should understand it—I am very keen to bring on extra abattoir capacity, including Bridport, just as soon as humanly possible, and just as soon as I can get cold storage facilities, which I reckon will be in the next two or three weeks.
  I believe that it is very important that we increase the kill rate under the scheme as quickly as possible so that we can clear the backlog and farmers can be paid.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I draw the Minister's attention to the situation in
  706
  south-west Wales—the county of Dyfed—where we have a very large dairy herd with many cull cows waiting to be processed. Two abattoirs have been designated for this purpose—Dewi James Cardigan and Oriel Jones Llanybydder—yet no animals have been processed through them. Can the Minister give me any good news about when he feels animals can begin to move from that very important region through those slaughterhouses?
  Mr. Baldry: I had hoped that I had dealt with that point, but let me deal with it again. I have given directions that one of the abattoirs—ABP Shrewsbury, which is teamed up with the renderers at Widnes and is slaughtering five days, at 580 cattle a day, or 2,900 a week—should be dedicated to taking cattle from Wales. I made that clear in the letter that I sent every hon. Member on Friday. At Abergavenny, there will be five days' slaughtering, at 150 cattle a day, which is 750 a week. In addition, Welsh Country Foods, at Anglesea, is slaughtering cattle for north Wales. If we take the total of those three, it comes to 25 per cent. of the immediate kill in England and Wales for the next two or three weeks.
  I am told that the Welsh herd makes up about 16.5 per cent. of the English and Welsh herd. I think and I hope, therefore, that colleagues in Wales will feel that, in the context of the initial stages of this programme, Wales is not being treated unfairly. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, I very much hope that it will be possible to bring on extra slaughter capacity in Wales in the very near future—in the next two to three weeks, and as soon as we can get more cold storage facilities.
  None of us can increase that rendering capacity simply by wishing or willing it. The capacity is finite. It is important that everyone appreciates that. I think that everyone—farmers, those involved in the beef industry, hon. Members and our constituents—is anxious that the scheme should start to run at its maximum capacity as speedily as possible.
  Given the limitations of the transport facilities immediately available to renderers, it was agreed that it was sensible to link up individual renderers with individual abattoirs to ensure maximum throughput to the renderers in the scheme. That has happened, and I hope that, this week, slaughtering and rendering will take place at the maximum capacity.
  This is a new scheme, and I do not doubt that, on day one or two, there may well be one or two places where slaughtering does not take place as speedily as it might. A couple of abattoirs have told me that their throughput today was slower than it might have been because they had to do a large number of television interviews. As the scheme gets up and going, however, I hope that the maximum rendering capacity will be met.
  I want to do more, of course, which is why I am recommissioning cold storage facilities, but they will take two to three weeks to be recommissioned and to come back on line. It must also be remembered that, even when we have further cold storage facilities, it is not possible just to slaughter and store. Part of every animal that is slaughtered has to be rendered, so I am working closely with the intervention board, abattoirs and renderers to sort out the logistical issues associated with bringing into the scheme a further large number of abattoirs, but ensuring that the animals are taken away as soon as possible after they are slaughtered and with the appropriate parts taken away to a scheme renderer.

  707
  I have circulated to every hon. Member in England and Wales a chart that demonstrates how I believe the throughput might look, with the processing in England and Wales reaching about 22,000 by the beginning of July. That will involve our storing a considerable volume of stock, which will have to be rendered at some time in the future.
  I know that some concern has been expressed by some abattoirs that feel they have been struck off the list of approved abattoirs. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that that is not the case. Everyone recognises—I recognise—that it would be sensible to involve more abattoirs, but there is no point in more abattoirs becoming involved until we can, in the next two to three weeks, increase substantially the flexibility of the renderers by using cold storage facilities for a product that does not need to be rendered immediately. That will enable us to increase the throughput under the scheme substantially.
  My best estimate, once we have cleared the backlog, is that the scheme will involve about 15,000 animals being processed a week, including cull cows and clean beef in England and Wales, although I anticipate that the impact of the 30-month scheme will change the husbandry of many beef producers. It is likely that, as farmers find that they can get a better price for any stock under 30 months, less clean beef will come into the scheme. I hope that the House will recognise that, in England and Wales—where weekly throughput needs to be 15,000, and 22,000 will be achieved in the not-too-distant future—it should be possible to clear the backlog in a reasonable time. I hope that it will be possible to go beyond 22,000. If it is, we shall certainly seek to do so.
  It is clear that it will not be possible to cull every animal tomorrow or this week, and I know that farmers appreciate that fact. The NFU, the CLA and everyone else involved has indicated that they think it would be sensible, at the outset, to give priority to clean beef, although proper regard has to be had for casualty stock, of which I shall say a little more in a moment.
  There had been requests for MAFF to work out some prioritisation scheme. I am sure that the House will appreciate that, once the backlog is cleared, the available rendering and slaughter capacity will be greater than the throughput needed under the scheme, so once the backlog is cleared, farmers should have no difficulty getting their cattle culled almost immediately, provided that they give the collection centres proper notice. We are considering a comparatively short-term issue of sorting out whose cattle will be slaughtered when the cattle in the immediate backlog are dealt with.
  My instinct, and I suspect the instincts of a large number of hon. Members, is that any scheme of prioritisation devised by officials is, with the very best will in the world, likely to be more bureaucratic, more inflexible and to involve greater delays. When I asked the NFU what sort of system of prioritisation it would recommend, it said that it would have to have regard to the number of animals on the farm, the viability of the farm, the profitability of the farm and many other criteria.
  I do not think that it takes much imagination to recognise that such an approach will be incredibly time consuming and that it will involve every farmer with substantial extra paperwork at a time when they could do
  708
  without any more intrusions into their businesses. Such paperwork would then have to be processed, decisions would have to be taken and farmers would have to be informed. It does not take long to recognise that it would be far better for livestock marts, abattoirs and farmers to work out together how to get the maximum sensible throughput. Although some forbearance on the part of a number of farmers will be required during the first few weeks, I am sure that co-operation at local level is far better than some centrally planned bureaucracy seeking to ascertain when every cow is killed at every abattoir.
  Let me make it clear that I am chairing a committee that involves the chairmen, chief executives and equivalent of all the interests involved in the scheme—the NFU, the CLA, livestock marts, renderers, abattoir owners, vets, the retail industry and so on. At present, we meet daily, and we will continue to meet regularly. If there appear to be any problems in particular parts of the country, or if any particular abattoirs or other players in the scheme appear not to be complying with the spirit of the scheme, they will find me on their doorstep, wanting an explanation. Let me also make it clear that there are considerable controls throughout the process to ensure that there can be no scintilla of a risk that any meat from the 30-month cull scheme can ever re-enter the food chain.
  The House will know that animals will have to be slaughtered on separate days and that the meat is immediately stained and taken away—which means that it is rendered immediately or stored prior to subsequent rendering. If there is any suggestion or suspicion that any collection centre and/or abattoir is not complying fully and strictly with the controls, I have made it clear that it will be suspended immediately.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister consider a problem that was raised with me today? He keeps talking about the rendering problem and the need to deal with 21,000 animals but, as so many animals will be kept longer on the farm, they will be of above average weight. The Minister should therefore be thinking in terms of tonnes for processing rather than the number of beasts. He is likely to find that the situation is worse than he is describing.
  Mr. Baldry: There is no doubt that, in the first few weeks of the scheme, we shall be taking a large number of heifers and steers, or clean beef. There is no mystery, and I do not think that anyone involved in the scheme failed to recognise that fact. It is for that reason that the NFU, the CLA and everyone else involved indicated that they hoped that collection centres and livestock marts, and abattoirs in their slaughter programmes, would give priority in the early stages to clean beef.
  I was asked what was being done about animals in need of special emergency slaughter. I take very seriously the need to maintain animal welfare and consumer confidence. Animal welfare is very important. As I said, I have made it clear to all abattoirs in the scheme that they must take a commonsense approach to dealing with animals in need of special emergency slaughter, or slaughter that would take place on the farm. If I find that any abattoir is not participating in the scheme on that basis, it will be suspended from the scheme.
  In addition, it also seems sensible to commission a network of incinerators across the country to deal with casualty animals, those which need special emergency

  709
  slaughter and those which have been killed on the farm. I shall ensure that, tomorrow, all the regional veterinary officers have a list of 10 incinerators which we estimate are capable of taking casualty fallen animals in that way.
  Some people may ask why we are not using the incinerators to deal with more of the cull at the outset. The answer is simply that the incineration capacity is finite, but it will help to deal with casualty animals. Another question, which I have considered with the NFU, the CLA and other interested bodies, is why we do not use small specialist abattoirs to deal just with casualty stock. The answer is that it is important to have efficient and effective controls under the scheme. None of us wants there to be any suggestion that the wrong meat is going back into the food chain. The scheme has to be policed rigorously.
  Everyone I met agreed that the best way forward was to ensure that the abattoirs, of which an increasing number will be involved in the scheme, are prepared to take casualty stock and that, in addition, the animals that cannot be taken to abattoirs, but which have to be killed on the farm, can be taken to an incinerator which is designated as a collection point and able to pay the farmers involved. This scheme is regarded by all those involved as the best that could be devised in the circumstances.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the Minister clarify the compensation arrangements for animals that die or are killed on the farm? Will the compensation arrangements be the same? We would not want injured animals being dragged alive to collection centres in order to meet the compensation criteria.
  Mr. Baldry: I had hoped that I had made that clear. The compensation arrangements will be exactly the same, which is why I shall be designating incinerators as collection centres. Incinerators will be paid, and we estimate that it is perfectly possible, to within exactly the same tolerances as might be found at livestock marts, to weigh the lorries. I am sure that the scheme will have the full co-operation of the veterinary profession which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and others, expressed understandable concern. I met representatives of the profession today and they believe that the scheme can work.
  Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend has concentrated mainly on the needs of the farming community, which I quite understand, but he and I know that we are dealing with tens of thousands of live animals. As a result of the illegal actions of the European Union and the hysterical response of some major traders such as McDonald's, we are facing what my hon. Friend has described as the largest slaughter programme this country has ever known. What specific measures will be implemented throughout this enormous but wholly unnecessary slaughter to ensure that the welfare of the animals is not disregarded?
  Mr. Baldry: As I said, the welfare of the animals is paramount. The same very strict safeguards apply in this process as elsewhere. The slaughter of every animal will take place in licensed, designated abattoirs in the presence of the state veterinary service, which has the highest professional standards. The service is committed to maintaining the highest standards of animal welfare in the country, and—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The world.
  Mr. Baldry: Indeed, in the world. If I find a scintilla of a suggestion that any abattoir is failing to meet animal welfare standards, or any other standards, it will be suspended from the scheme.
  I shall conclude by making two detailed points so that I am confident that I have replied to every criticism that has been made. The first relates to exemption for specialist herds. We are working on that. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), issued a consultation paper on specialist herds on 3 May. It was issued after she had had extensive meetings with farmers and others involved in the industry to ensure that it commanded their support. After the consultation period, we shall negotiate with Community colleagues to ensure that there are exemptions for that beef of more than 30 months.
  We must not forget, however, that the genesis of the scheme rests not with us or with Brussels, but with market forces, retailers and others saying that, in the light of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's recommendations, they no longer felt confident about taking meat from animals of more than 30 months. However, we hope that the exemption scheme will succeed in protecting Dexter cattle and others.
  Secondly, the calf processing aid scheme is a Community scheme which has never been used before. It is being taken off the shelf, never having been practised before. It is important that we have got it up and running, but changes need to be made to it. We shall have to negotiate those changes with Community colleagues. For example, it seems sensible to try to increase the 10-day limit to a 21-day limit.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to explain what the Government have been doing. I very much hope that, having heard my explanation of the way in which we are approaching various policy issues, the House will feel confident that the scheme is being taken forward with all due diligence and speed. We are always conscious of the many farmers who wish to receive compensation as speedily as possible, and I am determined that they shall do so.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. David Harris: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for introducing the debate. Undoubtedly, as he said, and as I am sure all my hon. Friends who speak in the debate will agree, very real hardship is being inflicted on the farming community. Like every other hon. Member who has the privilege to represent a farming community constituency, I have received many representations and letters from desperately worried farmers.
  I am also genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for dealing fully and at great length with the points of criticism. If I have a criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall—I should like to call him that—in this debate, it is that he gave the impression, or was in danger of doing so, that, somehow, matters could be dealt with swiftly, easily and without difficulty. Indeed, the impression was that all the means of solving the problem were in the hands of my hon. Friend the Minister. Oh, that that were the case. It was not.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall was so right to stress that the scheme was at the behest particularly of the National Farmers Union, as my hon. Friend the Minister

  711
  stated very clearly in his letter. We all knew at the outset of the operation that there would be horrendous complications. Wherever one looked, one could see yet more ramifications of and difficulties arising from the process. Of course, not all the problems could have been foreseen. Some of them were foreseen—we knew at the outset that there would be problems with disposal.
  I suppose that most hon. Members—I certainly speak for myself—had no idea of the state of the rendering industry. Frankly, one has always taken it for granted. It just happened that not many of us in the House were experts on the rendering industry. Clearly, as my hon. Friend the Minister rightly stressed, the difficulty and cause of frustration in the past few weeks has been the limitations on the rendering industry and the way in which it has chosen to go about handling the situation.
  I pay tribute to the NFU, which has been in the front line of the crisis in handling all the calls from individual farmers. Like other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the south-west, I have received a briefing paper from the NFU in the south-west. It says unfairly that the Government
  "must take charge of the situation",
  as if my hon. Friend the Minister had absolute powers. It calls on my hon. Friend to
  "Ensure that every farmer has an equal opportunity of submitting animals to the scheme; and
  Ensure that priority is given to clean beef and infirm cows."
  It says:
  "The Government must either take responsibilities themselves or appoint an outside body to allocate animals from farms to the abattoir/auctioneers and from the abattoirs to the renderers".
  I am sure that my hon. Friend just does not have those powers. I suspect that those powers would be available only in time of war, and I doubt even then.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that—I have received this information only in the past 24 hours—there is a bit of a cartel forming between the big abattoirs and the renderers? The big abattoirs are saying to the renderers that if the renderers take cattle from any other abattoir, they will not do business with the renderer again when the scheme is over.
  Mr. Harris: Being a man of diplomacy, I might not put that quite as bluntly as my hon. Friend, but I have heard that suggestion. I have also heard another worrying suggestion, on which my hon. Friend the Minister might comment. An auctioneer in my constituency told me at the weekend that people were being assured at market by representatives of certain firms, "Yes, we will ensure that your animals are taken. We can get rid of them; we can dispose of them, but you will have to pay over the odds because we have links with the renderers." If that is true, it is terrible.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—indeed, I raised the point in the House on Tuesday—that because of the way in which the scheme operates, there is a danger, if we are not careful, that small and medium-sized abattoirs will be forced out of business altogether and slaughtering capacity will be concentrated in the hands of the large abattoirs—the big boys. That is to be guarded against.
  712
  If I can have the attention of the hon. Member for North Cornwall for a second, I think that he would agree that it is unfair to put all the blame, as some have tried to do, on the Government or my hon. Friend the Minister. Many of the difficulties are outside my hon. Friend's control.
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Harris: Before I give way, I must say that I could not help but notice that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) laughed at what I just said. I find it serious and absolutely disgraceful that not a single Back-Bench Labour Member has attended this debate.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for some of the points that I have made. Are not his constituents, as are mine, concerned that the Government appeared to be not in any way prepared? Of course we do not blame the Minister for everything, but we are entitled to expect that a responsible Government should have foreseen some of the difficulties, particularly in relation to the renderers. There was no contingency plan in place, even after the dress rehearsal of the problem in November. I am sure that he would agree—he put the question to the Minister last week—that we were given no indication that the problem had arisen until 50 days into the crisis.
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has a marvellous crystal ball into which he can look, which tells him all the difficulties. I repeat what I said earlier. I think that it was very difficult to foresee all the difficulties. Perhaps one could have foreseen some. My hon. Friend the Minister responded to my pleas to have, for example, Helston in Penzance added to the list of markets, and I was delighted about that. Then, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall fairly acknowledged, the renderers said that they would deal only with certain abattoirs. I want Madron Meat added to the list of abattoirs. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Minister has the powers to take control in the way in which some people seem to suggest he should. So many of the matters are outside his control, which is at the root of much of the problem.
  I return to the effect that the crisis is having on all the constituents of those of us who represent farming communities, especially farmers who are virtually dependent on beef production. Others are probably being cushioned. We know that lamb and pork prices in the market have increased. Indeed, the deal for dairy farmers is pretty good because they can probably keep a cow a little longer than otherwise would have been the case.
  The crux of the problem is beef producers who have to feed their animals. So many farmers have told me that they will be using up silage to feed the animals because, even though they are out to grass, the grass is coming on slowly due to the dry weather. Those farmers will be dependent on compensation, which is why it is absolutely essential that the backlog is dealt with and the cheques are sent out.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point about the problem and the cost of feeding. Does he agree that it would be helpful—some farmers have made such representation—if we could get agreement from the European Commission for earlier

  713
  access to set-aside grazing than September, especially since we have had such a long winter and the grass has not grown?
  Mr. Harris: I would support any move that lessens the impact on farmers—there is no doubt that they are in a serious situation. The Government are doing the right thing. Clearly, we must get the cold stores signed up as quickly as possible and we must try to deal with the backlog.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will not give credence to the widespread myth that this crisis came about because the Government lifted regulations. He knows that that is not true, but in his closing remarks he said that someone else had said it. It behoves all of us to be responsible in this situation. It is up to all of us to kick the Minister and to kick the Government to do more to resolve the serious crisis for agriculture and for the rural economy.
  The Government have to do more to keep farmers informed of what is happening. I believe that frustration and anger have built up because farmers believe that they are not being kept in the picture about all the difficulties that have arisen. I hope that the debate will go some way to telling people the true position. The farming industry has been remarkably patient about this, but patience is running out—people are desperate, frustrated and angry. It is up to all of us not to inflame the situation and not to play party politics, but to do what we can to help.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The debate has given my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to lay out the way that Government believe the scheme should work—and he did so skilfully and clearly. The contributions of Liberal Members showed how ignorant they are of the problems that the Government have had to face in setting up the scheme. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will forgive me, his speech was half an hour of whines and complaints. He did not make one constructive comment nor did he offer a single proposal.
  Mr. Tyler: If the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to precisely the same concerns over the last weekend and the past seven weeks, he is not fulfilling his duty to his constituents.
  Mr. Atkinson: I have listened to my constituents at great length, as I represent one of the largest beef farming constituencies in the country. Tonight, we have heard half an hour of whines and complaints from the Liberal party, but not one positive suggestion as to how the scheme could be improved. As usual, when it comes to rural matters, Labour Members have been absent during the debate.
  Mr. Morley: I have listened to a number of jibes against the Labour party in this regard. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a Liberal Democrat Opposition day. There will be a two-day debate on this and related issues this week. There will be a major vote on Thursday night and the Labour party will be out in force. If the hon. Gentleman shares our concerns about this and other issues, he is more than welcome to join us in that vote on Thursday night.
  Mr. Atkinson: I shall certainly be present for the debate, but I doubt that I will find myself in the same Lobby as the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party claims that it represents rural interests. I hope farmers get the Message as to the exact amount of interest Labour members are showing in this matter tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will note that many Government Members are present in the House—they were here at the beginning of the debate and they are still here. They have found the debate to be worth while and they have shown an interest in being here. No doubt, they will also be here on Wednesday and Thursday.
  Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the role of the Labour party throughout the entire proceedings has been nothing but to stoke up concern and to throw fat on a small fire to cause as much confusion as possible in the country? In a perverse way, the Labour party is trying to attract attention to itself.
  Mr. Atkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend—that is exactly how the Labour party operates. The hon. Member for North Cornwall tried to make villains of two groups.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should make his speech.
  Mr. Atkinson: Liberal Members wasted half an hour with their endless complaints. The hon. Member for North Cornwall sought to make villains of two groups: the renderers and the supermarkets. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has explained the position of renderers—they are there, they have a limited capacity and they cannot conjure more rendering facilities out of the air. Does the hon. Member for North Cornwall want moth balled rendering factories? He said that the Government should have seen this coming. What was my hon. Friend the Minister supposed to do? Was he meant to construct rendering establishments around the country on the basis that they might be needed one day? That is stupid.
  The supermarkets are not the villains in this situation either. They are there to serve beef to their customers. If they can sell beef—they are increasingly selling beef to their customers because they say that all their beef is less than 30 months old—that is sensible. The supermarkets are a vital segment of the industry. It is right that my hon. Friend the Minister takes full regard of their views when he sets up the scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Minister was right in choosing an industry scheme rather than a scheme laid down by the Government. Those who are aware of the agriculture and meat industry in this country know that every farmer is unique, that every livestock auction mart is unique and that every abattoir is unique, and that they all have ideas as to how the scheme should work. It is right that my hon. Friend sits down with them on a daily basis and gets them to set up the scheme and for the Government to put in the orders to make it work. I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing that.
  I congratulate the National Farmers Union, which has been a great help, and the Country Landowners Association. I thank other organisations, such as the Meat and Livestock Commission, for their contributions. An unsung hero in the debate tonight is the intervention board. It has copped an awful lot of flak. It was trying to

  715
  put into the detailed scheme something that it had never attempted to do before. I appreciate that it must have had a difficult time setting up the scheme. The board deserves our thanks and the thanks of the farming industry for all that it has done.
  I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister has added auction marts in my constituency to the list. In particular, I refer to Hexham mart, which is excellent. The important thing about livestock marts is that they are very much a friend and adviser to the farmer, particularly to hill farmers. A lot of farmers live isolated and lonely existences and they find it difficult to keep on top of issues and complications such as we have seen over the BSE issue. The mart is essential to help farmers in remote areas to understand the problems that they face.
  Difficulties will arise, and I am sure that they will be drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned abattoirs making threats to individuals. Another problem is the appearance of dealers emerging around the north of England. They say to farmers, "We will take your beasts off you at the live weight price." Apparently, they are reaching an agreement with the abattoirs to sell the beasts at the dead weight price and they are splitting the difference. I do not know whether these rumours are true. If they are true, my hon. Friend should investigate them.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has mentioned the important role of cattle marts in this country, particularly in his constituency. Does he believe that there is a discrimination against cattle marts in respect of the live weight and dead weight criteria? Does he believe that some abattoirs are inviting farmers to deal directly with them rather than go through the collection points and cattle marts?
  Mr. Atkinson: This is the market ruling, and I believe that in this case my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to achieve a balance between the interests of the livestock mart, of the abattoir and of the farmer. Abattoirs have traditionally and increasingly dealt directly with farmers, so it would be wrong to tell all those farmers that they must go via a livestock mart. However, those farmers with cull cows will obviously be encouraged to go through livestock marts and I suspect that many others will want to, because they will want the livestock mart to organise the transport of their cattle to the abattoir. Those with very few beasts will find it easier to deal with an auction mart—because the beasts can be collected into sensibly sized loads and taken to the abattoir on time—than to deal directly with the abattoir. The scheme will give the abattoir and the livestock mart something, and I hope that it will work.
  It is early days yet, but my hon. Friend the Minister will need to start looking to the future. At the moment he has his head down, concentrating on today's problems, but, as we overcome those problems, new problems will arise. There is the prospect of a substantial fall in demand for beef throughout Europe. That will need to be tackled, because otherwise there will be surplus capacity of beef in Europe in the next few years.
  Interestingly, the British have been almost the most robust about the beef issue. Our beef consumption fell initially to 60 per cent., but it is now back to 80 to
  716
  85 per cent. The Germans, whom some of my hon. Friends like to demonise in this regard, have suffered extremely badly in the sense that, after the first scare of BSE, only 30 per cent. of German beef eaters were still eating beef, and the percentage has only just crawled up to 50 per cent. The Danes, however, are also robust, and scarcely gave up eating any beef throughout the crisis.
  Throughout Europe, beef production is scheduled to increase in the next few years, and if beef consumption fell by 20 per cent. and did not recover because of BSE—I fear it is on the cards—we are likely to produce a surplus of about 2 million tonnes of beef in the next few years, which will have to be dealt with by Europe.
  Once the immediate crisis is under control, British farmers must carefully consider the future of the beef industry—and, dare I say it, the dairy industry, which will be the next problem on my hon. Friend's agenda.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I pay a warm tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his team. Since this crisis hit the country about seven weeks ago, they have worked tirelessly, night and day, to try to resolve the problem in Europe and in this country. No one could have worked harder.
  I wish to place that on the record. I do so especially because, during my few remarks, I shall suggest that one or two things might have been done better. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has gone a long way toward resolving the uncertainty, difficulties and anxieties that our constituents have felt and that we, representing them, have felt for them.
  We must accept that, as has been said, we cannot find rendering capacity if it is not there. Yet there has been deep uncertainty in the farming community about how the cattle disposal scheme will work for farmers as individuals.
  The crisis has been with us for seven weeks. I had a meeting with senior representatives of the farming industry in my constituency on Friday, and they were still uncertain about how the cattle disposal scheme would work out for them in our county. The letter sent on Friday by my hon. Friend the Minister to them and to us should help, but it would be wrong if we gave the impression that the problems were over and farmers need have no further worries.
  From the outset of the proposals, it has been the National Farmers Union's position, which I tend to share, that a better administrative framework or organisation is needed. Farmers need somewhere from which to obtain information and advice. Without accepting the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the 15-year-old child at the end of the telephone—
  Mr. Beith: I made the point.
  Mr. Alexander: I am sorry. Without accepting that point, made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-uponTweed (Mr. Beith), I do say that the fact that it happened, although it may not be typical of what is happening throughout the country, shows that the system has not worked as well as it might have done, had someone taken on the organisation of the whole scheme. Farmers tell me that there is no one whom they can go to or ring up with reliability to find out what their position is.

  717
  I make that suggestion to my hon. Friend the Minister. He said that he did not want a dirigiste scheme, but something better needed to be done in the past few days.
  We should shed a tear for some of the abattoirs that learnt last week that they would no longer be among those listed to be involved in the culling scheme. Two owners of abattoirs visited me on Friday. They had filled in all the forms; they had been inspected. They were told, as of last Friday, that they would be slaughtering 900 cattle a week.
  I should say, in parentheses, that one of the problems that farmers in north Nottinghamshire have had—and especially the two abattoir owners, who are also farmers—has been that the letter that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House on 1 May was being sent to all farmers did not reach them until Friday 10 May. That was the same day on which those two abattoir owners learnt by fax from one of their suppliers that they would no longer be in the scheme. They had had 10 days of uncertainty, and as soon as they received the information, they were told, by an outside source, that they were no longer on the list. I express concern on their behalf at how that happened.
  I also express concern at the fact that the list has been reduced to 21. Every abattoir in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire has been removed from the list. There never was one in Leicestershire. There is no abattoir in the entire east midlands—nothing from Harrogate to Shrewsbury.
  Mr. Baldry: This is important language. It is not a question of anyone being removed from the list. Those abattoirs are still designated collection centres, and I have no doubt that, in the very near future, they will be slaughtering under the scheme. As I hope I have explained to the House, to maximise the slaughtering and rendering capacity, it has been possible to use only 21 slaughterhouses at present, but the number will be increased, and I have no doubt that the abattoirs that my hon. Friend mentions will be involved in the scheme as it develops in the next two or three weeks.
  Mr. Alexander: That will be very reassuring; I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, distances are a problem to the people in north Nottinghamshire and the east midlands.
  There are other unacceptable consequences of the list being shortened. First, farmers now have to transport their beast much further, at their own expense, than, until Friday, they had believed that they would have to. Secondly, the beast must endure significantly longer journeys, and no farmer or welfarist likes to think that that is being done unnecessarily.
  There seems to have been no strategic geographic consideration of where the chosen abattoirs are to be. The entire east midlands does not have one, yet elsewhere there are clusters of several within an approximately 50-mile radius. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider more closely, if he can, where the abattoirs that have been chosen are situated.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support my hon. Friend in his remarks. The very large abattoir at Crewe has failed to make the appropriate arrangements with the Ministry
  718
  of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It offered to slaughter:200 cattle a day and its employees were prepared to work seven days a week. The Ministry reduced the number initially to 100 and then to 50, at which stage it was pointless for the abattoir to become involved as it was doing that sort of business already with casualty cattle. My hon. Friend makes a very good point: it is important that those abattoirs come on stream if the scheme is to go ahead as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Alexander: I shall comment on the way in which the situation has changed unacceptably for farmers, abattoirs and others who received other information initially. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  I return to a point with which my hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt, but about which I remain uncertain. The system is unfair to producers who have always sold their stock live weight. Producers cannot support the live weight system. For example, a Charollais steer at 650 kg live weight is worth £718.90 and the same steer is worth £862.68 dead weight. That £143.78 shortfall is grossly unfair to the producer and to the auctioneer, who may be having a difficult time, with considerably reduced throughput and much reduced margins of profitability.
  The slaughter scheme should not force live weight producers into the hands of the dead weight sector. Live weight markets provide an excellent service, with guaranteed payments on the day of sale. The slaughter sector is not as reliable, with eight or more abattoirs going bankrupt in recent years, owing millions of pounds to producers and to auctioneers. The auctioneers tell me that they do not want to be in the driving seat, but they want a fair system: their clients and their farmer customers should have a real choice in these difficult times. Without that choice, many more markets will shut, causing a dead weight monopoly in many areas. I am sure that no one wants that. Markets are the life-blood of many rural communities; people come to the towns to attend the markets. The market in Newark has the second largest livestock cattle throughput in the country—I make that point to my hon. Friend, because he told us about the cattle market in Banbury. I urge the Government to re-examine the unfairness of the present proposals regarding live weight and dead weight compensation rates, and I urge the Minister to make a change.
  The system has changed for the farmer and for the producer in recent weeks, as instanced by the National Farmers Union in its briefing. Initially, the 25p per kilogram live weight top-up was to be paid for the first four weeks of the scheme. That is fair enough—if it had begun. Then it was to be paid during May, but it changed again and was to be paid until 10 June. The top-up will now be paid on all steers and heifers on farms aged more than 30 months as at 20 March. There may be grounds for making those changes, but they have caused great uncertainty within communities that have already suffered badly.
  I shall not speak for too long as my colleagues want to contribute to the debate. However, I must refer to another issue in the NFU brief: the financial consequences for farmers. The delays in getting the scheme off the ground—that is what we are debating tonight: not whether Europe is at fault or whether my right hon. and learned Friend could have done things differently—have cost the farmers dear in feeding their animals and servicing their

  719
  bank loans. Some farmers who deal only in beef have received no income for the past seven weeks. I have referred in the House to a farmer constituent who has a throughput of 5,000 beef cattle a year: he has not sold one animal in seven weeks. Unless the sequence begins to move, the delays will lengthen.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State's comments in the House today and in the letter that was sent to our farming constituents last week will lead to a reduction in the backlog. Some 300,000 animals are awaiting disposal, and that number increases by 12,000 per week. Added to that are the 12,000 cows that would usually be culled every week. They are logjammed as well. I do not blame anyone for that situation: I simply seek to illustrate the extent of the problem that our constituents and the country face.
  In conclusion, on behalf of the farming community—particularly beef producers—I ask that any future plans and dates be firm and well thought out. They should not be abandoned arbitrarily in any circumstances. Someone must take the scheme by the scruff of the neck and administer it; someone must organise the co-ordinated withdrawal of cattle from the farms. Farmers are sensible people: many of them elect Conservative Members.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Very sensible.
  Mr. Alexander: Yes, they are very sensible to do so. They must know where they stand. In responding to the debate this evening, my hon. Friend has done much to give them the reassurance that they seek.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: There could have been no more cogent explanation than that by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) of the fact that there is concern, delay, difficulty and confusion arising from the administration of the scheme. That is precisely the motion that we have put before the House. It is nothing extreme—merely a statement that there is a great deal of concern and anxiety in the farming world, which has been hit so badly by the crisis, about the difficulties attendant on the scheme. The hon. Gentleman illustrated them in a practical and sensible way, and the Minister will need to take note of what he said.
  The experience has been similar in my constituency. Two weeks ago, the impression was given that only Darlington and Carlisle would serve as mart centres for collection for the county of Northumberland. They are both a great distance from that county, which produces 8.5 per cent. of the national beef herd. That is not bad for one county. Representations have been made by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), about the marts in our constituencies. I made representations about Acklington, Wooler and Belford and marts were then added to the list.
  It was the beginning of a series of difficulties in a scheme for which farmers had already been waiting for some time. When the new marts were added, further confusion arose as to whether they could begin operation as collection centres before they had been registered through the state veterinary inspection scheme and given a registration number. Two of the marts in
  720
  my constituency—those at Wooler and Belford—were firmly of the impression that they could not begin operation until they had received a registration number. They and the local vets contacted the intervention board seeking clarification. On Friday, one of the marts found that the only person whom they could contact in the intervention board was a gallant 15-year-old trying to fill the breach—resembling the little Dutch boy putting his finger in the dyke—such was the chaos in the intervention board.
  Today, my office spent the entire afternoon trying to get the intervention board to clear up the matter. Eventually, it became clear that registration was not required and the marts could start operating as collection centres immediately. However, somebody with authority should have made that clear to them and they should have obtained that information at the crucial stage. The fact that they were not able to do so further added to the delays and the problems.
  We have also faced difficulties resulting from the reduction in supposedly available abattoir capacity, because the renderers are not prepared or able to service anything like the number of abattoirs that were supposed to be available.
  The Minister of State said little tonight about the use of cold storage. We want clear assurances that there will be no delay in bringing that cold storage into use and in taking practical steps to ensure that the necessary rendering can take place of carcases that are left in cold storage for a period. Action must be taken and the process set in train without delay.
  The hon. Members for Newark and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), among others, referred to the concern and anxiety about live versus dead weight disposal. I quoted an example showing that the premium on a 700 kg clean beast could be about £200.
  Hon. Members have quoted the National Farmers Union brief, but they have been anxious to quote one part of it, and not the rest. The NFU makes it clear that at the
  "Beef Management Committee meeting on 26 April … the Management Committee rejected the proposals made by the slaughterers and ourselves of using an accurate conversion coefficient for steers and heifers (0.6 as opposed to 0.5 for cows). Accordingly, the scheme encourages farmers to enter all their steers and heifers into the scheme at abattoirs instead of using their normal marketing channels."
  That is potentially extremely disruptive, not so much to the large marts at Banbury, in the Minister's constituency, but to the smaller rural marts, which are a key feature of agricultural life in the beef-producing areas, as many of them operate at a much tighter margin than the very large marts to which reference has been made.
  It also affects the hauliers profoundly if their regular business is conducted into and out of a particular mart. They may not get business from a farmer who takes his own animals directly to the abattoir. There are also animal welfare problems. If animals are not moved in reasonable quantities, as they would be from the mart to the abattoir, vehicles will be carrying relatively few animals. It is much more difficult to give animals a safe and comfortable journey if there are not many of them in the vehicle than if the vehicle is fully loaded, because there is movement of animals as the vehicle travels along.
  What one would hope to achieve in getting the process right is that the normal balance of business between live weight and dead weight is not disrupted in such a way

  721
  that, when something like normal conditions return, we shall no longer have the facilities that are so important to the rural areas. Nobody is trying to push the balance between live and dead weight in one direction or the other, but the arrangements will do precisely that. It could be extremely damaging and detrimental to beef-producing areas. Hauliers are already going out of business. Marts could go out of business and they will not be replaced.
  The NFU brief fully bears out the concerns that have been expressed. It continues:
  "The NFU is dismayed that a combination of delays in decision-making and an underestimate by the Government, in the face of repeated warnings from the NFU, of the practical difficulties involved in establishing fair arrangements for the collection, slaughter and disposal of tens of thousands of cattle a week has caused such a significant delay to the opening of the scheme."
  It goes on to refer to the large and growing backlog of cattle on farms and the particular problems resulting from the fact that only 21 abattoirs are currently operating the scheme.
  It will not do just to say that the crisis is unprecedented and nobody knows how to handle such schemes. In the old days, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was well accustomed to handling crises of one variety or another. That went right through the war and the post-war years, but in those days the Ministry had an infrastructure of offices designed to administer fairly complex systems. MAFF coped in the past with foot-and-mouth disease and all sorts of other crises. The Ministry is no stranger to putting together arrangements in a hurry, to deal with a crisis that could cause severe damage to the farming industry. It is reasonable to assess performance, even in circumstances as difficult as the present circumstances.
  There has been more delay and less information available than there ought to have been, and decisions that are likely to have a disruptive effect have been taken—all that, when the scheme is intended to help the farming industry out of a desperate situation. Ministers must take account of the representations made by hon. Members in all parts of the House tonight, to ensure that the running of the scheme is radically and rapidly improved, so that it brings genuine assistance to a difficult situation in the farming industry.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: Gloucestershire has a problem with debates such as this, in respect of the participation of hon. Members representing Gloucestershire constituencies. Two of my hon. Friends are ineligible to speak. I put this on record, for the interest of the local press. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is a Whip, so is unable to speak in these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, so is not allowed to speak in these matters either. However, I had a brief conversation with my two hon. Friends beforehand and—although they have not heard what I am going to say—they join with some of the remarks that I shall make. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is leaving the Chamber, because he was to feature in my remarks later.
  I want to mention the Labour party's role in the matter, because it has been absolutely shocking. I said earlier in an intervention that there has been much fanning of the
  722
  flames, to create concern and anxiety among the citizens of this country. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), for example, asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he acknowledged
  "that public confidence on this issue is hanging by a thread",
  and to confirm
  "that SEAC members who are parents or grandparents are not giving beef to their children or grandchildren".—[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 376–77.]
  The hon. Lady had no idea whether or not SEAC members were doing so. That was simply a way of seeking to cause confusion and anxiety among people who had been perfectly happy eating beef beforehand.
  There have been no speeches from the Labour Benches.
  Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Marland: Not until now. Perhaps I have provoked Labour's Front-Bench spokesman to say a few words, but there have been no speeches or interruptions from Labour Members. That is a disgraceful performance.
  I realise that I am walking on eggshells, but I believe that the press owe all of us something. The press are keen enough to write the bad news about the difficulties faced by the citizens of this country but when the Government are going diligently about their business, seeking to reassure the farmers of this country that something is being done to right a dreadful situation, where are the press? I do not know whether we are allowed to acknowledge the Press Gallery—I know that we are not allowed to acknowledge the Strangers Gallery. The Press Gallery is bereft of reporters.
  Mr. Harris: On the day on which I had the honour to sponsor an exhibition Upstairs to mark the 128th anniversary of the coverage of the House by the Press Association, will my hon. Friend take it from me that the Press Association, as always, is represented in the Press Gallery?
  Mr. Marland: I realised that I was walking on eggshells, but I did not expect my hon. Friend to put me down in the way that he has.
  I was astonished that the hon. Member for North Cornwall had not read the National Farmers Union brief, but obviously the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party did so. On 26 March, the right hon. Gentleman said in Prime Minister's Question Time:
  "This morning, the National Farmers Union, which is presumably not hysterical, backed by the entire food industry, which is presumably not hysterical either, has called for older cows to be taken out of the human food chain."—[Official Report, 26 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 832.]
  So it is utter nonsense to suggest that the scheme was dreamt up by the Conservative Government. I am very sorry, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman came to the debate so ill prepared. What is more, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) did not even know that there were no renderers in Wales. Is theirs a serious political party, or is it some kind of joke? We really do expect better.
  Wrestling with BSE takes place in a changing scene. I congratulate Ministers on the actions that they have taken thus far in an extremely difficult situation. They have kept Members of Parliament well informed, and they

  723
  have had to respond quickly as matters have progressed from day to day. It does the Liberal Democrat party no good to quote a week-old article in Farmers Weekly. Things have changed a great deal in the past week.
  I, too, have made telephone calls to Gloucester market and other interested parties in Gloucestershire. I have been assured by the market this afternoon that the business of gathering cattle is now going smoothly. The slaughterhouse in my constituency commenced slaughtering last week. Of course these operations take a while to get going, but when I spoke to the slaughterer today I was told that the work is going well. The slaughterhouse is experiencing little difficulty sorting out the wretched problem of removing these cows from the herd.
  If delays have occurred, that is perfectly understandable; 70 per cent. of the funding for the scheme is coming from Europe, so obviously approaches had to be made to our European partners for their backing.
  I also learned today that the supermarkets are not sure whether cattle that are to be rendered can be slaughtered on the same premises as cattle going into the food chain. Discussions on that are therefore taking place; they too will take time to sort out.
  In Gloucestershire, clean beef is being given priority because there is a premium on it. My first constructive point for the Minister this evening is to ask whether there is a chance of extending the premium for clean beef over a longer period, so that other cattle can be slaughtered before the clean cattle. As hon. Members have pointed out, many cattle need to be taken out on welfare grounds.
  I am delighted also that cold storage is to be used to speed up the slaughter. It is costing farmers thousands of pounds to feed these cattle and they want to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Another affected group, of course, are those who were carrying large stocks of beef before the crisis broke, when the Labour party did so much to scare everyone off eating meat. Many exporters have millions of pounds' worth of stock floating on the high seas and are wondering what to do about it. Will there be any compensation for them?
  I am sorry that I do not have time to speak at length this evening, but I believe that we should start to take reprisals against Europe if nothing happens later this week. We should also lay down certain conditions for imports. All meat imported to this country must have specified offal removed, as happens here. All imported meat must be tested for drugs and other illegal substances. And all such meat must have been subjected to the same veterinary inspections at the place of slaughter as we conduct. Lastly, we cannot accept imported meat from animals fed on mammalian compound.
  As I say, I am sorry not to be able to speak for longer, but as the Whip is telling me to sit down, I will.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The Labour party, and myself on occasions, have been accused of many things, but to be accused by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) of being responsible for the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis so that we could attract attention to ourselves is going a bit far. I can tell
  724
  the hon. Member and others that the Labour party, in 1989, called for ingredients to appear on feed bags; the Labour party, in 1989, called for a proper system of cattle registration so that cattle could be traced back to their holdings; and the Labour party queried the standards of feed renderers and raised the problems of cross-contamination, which—as we have now seen—has been happening for some years and, at least, since 1988 when the ban came in. We in the Labour party do not need anyone to lecture us about the role that we have played in rural areas. We have defended the interests of the farming community and the beef sector since the problem first started. As we know from surveys and opinion polls, the public clearly hold the Government responsible for the crisis. The Labour party does not feature at all in the list of people whom the public hold responsible for the problem, and nor should it.
  As I pointed out to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who was not here earlier, there will be a two-day debate on the subject on Wednesday and Thursday. The Labour party will be out in force on that occasion. It is a great shame that the Government are not prepared to accept an amendment so that we could have a genuine debate and we could see from the vote who stands up for the farmers. On the issues of the common agricultural policy and BSE, there will be a vote and we will see who will stand up for the farmers by voting against the motion on Thursday. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to stand up for the farming community, and we will see what happens.
  To say that the implementation of the scheme has been in some difficulties is an understatement. The implementation has been described in words such as "shambles" and even the kindest organisations have expressed their dismay about the way in which the scheme has been implemented. In the Labour party, we recognise that the scheme is huge and that there will be problems in implementation. We do not deny or underestimate that, but the Government must recognise the widespread concern about the operation of the scheme and the six weeks it has taken to introduce. Perhaps the Minister might be able to tell us whether any contingency plans were ever drawn up to deal with the problem, which we now face, of potential links, and the implications for human health, between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or whether everything has been put in place since the original statement six weeks ago.
  The time scale is the key issue. I must disagree with some Conservative Members who said that the problems happened a week ago. That is not the case. Today's Eastern Daily Press quotes a farmer as saying:
  "There is no longer a single approved outlet to handle these cull cattle in Norfolk, Suffolk or Cambridgeshire".
  That farmer, Mr. Brigham, who farms near Dereham, is also quoted, interestingly, as saying:
  "It really does not inspire confidence. It is no wonder that the rest of Europe is looking at this shambles and that our partners question our ability to handle the crisis".
  I shall return to the issue of credibility, but those quotations demonstrate the problems in the east of the country.

  725
  There are also problems in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has written to us today to express concern at what is happening in his part of the world.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Where is he?
  Mr. Morley: He was not able to come here tonight, so I am taking his point up. I hope that the hon. Lady is not trying to trivialise or make a point out of a very serious problem for farmers in Cumbria. My hon. Friend told us that his local slaughterhouse appeared to be on the approved list and it was told to take animals. However, on Saturday 11 May, it was told that the animals it had in store would be removed for rendering by arrangement with the intervention board. The slaughterhouse had come to an arrangement with a renderer in Lancaster and it was also told to continue the work until Tuesday 14 May, when the matter would be reviewed.
  The problem is that there is now no collection centre for animals more than 30 months old in Cumbria, even though that slaughterhouse had a casualty animal licence. The collection centre in Ulverston is also concerned that animals collected will have to be transported considerable distances due to the lack of an abattoir in that area. Indeed, the number of slaughterhouses has been reduced because of what appears to be the influence of the rendering industry. The Government must tackle the issue. Concern has been expressed by the farming press, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the British Veterinary Association.
  The BVA puts its finger on the issue in the title above its comments, which is "Practice versus Theory". It reports that confusion is rife, with farmers, hauliers, markets and abattoirs all complaining that they do not know what is supposed to be happening. It adds that reports of animals being transported incredibly long distances before slaughter, although anecdotal, must be taken seriously. Indeed, they must, given the problems that have not yet been successfully resolved.
  The option of live weight and dead weight concerns many auctioneers. The Opposition believe that the option should be available to farmers. The issue rests with the calculation of compensation, and it is one to which the Government should return to re-examine it. Instead of saying that dead weight should not be an option, the problem of compensation, if there is one, should be reviewed.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the advice that the National Farmers Union has issued by fax today to all its members with fax machines? It has been issued also to cattle markets. The representatives of two cattle markets have expressed considerable sadness to me today that the NFU should encourage traditional farmers who go to a cattle market to take their cattle direct to an abattoir, thus cutting out the cattle market which, in many areas, is a vital part of the rural economy.
  Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's genuine concerns. I think that he will accept, however, that many producers have always had a direct relationship with slaughterhouses. The dead weight option was rightly reintroduced by the Government, although at a late stage.
  726
  There were welfare implications for many animals. The dead weight option means that it is possible to get more animals straight to the slaughterhouses, thus reducing delay. I think that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is more concerned about compensation arrangements, which I am sure the Government could reconsider.
  The Government should give some thought to beef animals that are generally not marketed until they are over 30 months of age. The Government have said that these animals are under consideration against the background of the European Union. Has any progress been made on exemptions, which would reduce the great pressure that now exists?
  Can anything be done to increase rendering capacity? I understand that a business cannot suddenly switch on extra capacity. It will not be able to find the necessary capital, especially if demand will decline or is in decline. It has been made clear, however, that the scheme will run for a considerable time. Renderers, because of the gearing of the scheme, receive much financial advantage. Have the Government discussed with the renderers whether it would be possible to introduce extra capacity within their businesses?
  There could be a problem with incineration capacity in dealing with rendered products. Does that mean that some rendered products will go into landfill sites? Is the Minister able to give a categorical assurance that all rendered products will be incinerated?
  Beef has been exported and, because of the worldwide ban, it will have to be imported back into the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the Minister knows—I am sure that she has had representations from beef exporters—that South Africa currently has 27,000 tonnes of British beef. That 27,000 tonnes will have to be brought back to the United Kingdom, at the insistence of the South African Government, because of storage problems. How will all that beef—and, indeed, other consignments that are coming back from abroad—be disposed of? Will it be rendered, incinerated or put on the market? The Minister must be aware that some of it will be from animals aged over 30 months, and that putting it on the market would cause difficulties: it would be in breach of the Minister's own rule.
  The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I should like clarification of how that beef will be dealt with. It is a real problem for the sector of the beef industry that we are discussing. I appreciate that the problem is caused by a worldwide ban, and I am keen for beef exporters to receive some support. British beef exporters deserve all the support that they can get, and the sector will receive no compensation from the package.
  Will the Minister also give some consideration to bull beef producers, whose animals tend to be ready for market at 24 months? It is almost exclusively an export market, and is particularly important in Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland. Will the Minister consider including that category in the 30-month compensation scheme, at the very least until the export ban is lifted? Because there is no market for such beef in the United Kingdom, the producers are likely simply to retain the cattle until they

  727
  reach the age of 30 months and then put them into the 30-month scheme; but they will have to find six months' worth of feed, which they would not have to find in normal circumstances.
  It is a pity that some of the suggestions that we made some years ago, which I mentioned in my introductory remarks, were not accepted at the time. I know that action is now being taken, and I believe that the Government are trying to rectify the position by introducing measures to help the consumer and restore consumer confidence, but I must disagree with the hon. Member for St. Ives—who generally speaks thoughtfully about issues such as this—on the question of the Government's responsibility.
  The Government introduced the scheme, and they are responsible for it. We have heard tonight that some of the problems are being caused by the rendering sector, but surely the Minister and the Government must have some influence on the operation of that sector, which is insisting on working with only 21 slaughterhouses. Ultimately, they control the purse strings. Ministers cannot escape their responsibility; I suspect that the hon. Member for St. Ives would not disagree with that.
  Mr. Brigham said that it would be difficult to persuade the European Union to lift the ban if it appeared that the Government could not implement their own scheme. The Labour party, certainly, feels that credibility is involved here. The Government's credibility has been severely damaged, and it is important to the beef sector—and, indeed, to our economy and exports—for it to be restored as quickly as possible. I hope that Ministers will take account of what has been said today, and ensure that it is acted on—that compensation is paid to farmers as soon as possible, that the problems of delay are resolved as soon as possible and that more capacity is provided as soon as possible, particularly cold-store capacity. That would restore the Government's credibility, and would certainly restore faith in the British beef industry.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We have had an extremely good debate. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) should recognise that we are discussing a substantive motion with a substantive amendment, and that a substantive vote can take place at the end of the debate.
  The Minister of State, who spoke for 51 minutes, made a good fist of a difficult situation. He gave many detailed answers and explained a number of issues in response to questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I commend him for that, but he must still accept that outstanding concerns, some of which were expressed by Conservative Members, remain. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) wasted a certain amount of his speech with gratuitous attacks, but identified one or two important problems.
  In replying to the debate, will the Parliamentary Secretary, to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food answer the question that one or two people have raised about whether supermarkets are discriminating against abattoirs? Numerous abattoirs do not wish to be included in the scheme for fear of being tainted with the idea that they are not acceptable for prime beef slaughtering. If that is the case, it is important that we know that it is the case and that the Government take a grip on the position.
  728
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised a number of points. He stressed in particular the difficulties that farmers are facing with the high cost of additional feed and the delay in waiting to get their cattle to market, which, for some of them, could be considerably longer yet. In an intervention on the hon. Gentleman—again, I would appreciate it if the Minister dealt with this—I asked whether representations could be made to allow, on a one-off only basis, early access to set-aside land in mid-July instead of in September to take account of the fact not only that we have a problem, but that we have it after a long winter, when there was even less grass than usual for the time of year.
  The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) was his usual frank and disarming self in dealing with the position in an honest way. He identified the concern about the delay, the continuing shortage of abattoirs in his constituency and the problem of the lack of rendering capacity or of some other means of enabling the process to continue.
  The hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland) again could not resist a few gratuitous attacks, but his comment about the 30-month rule missed the point and his comments quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) did not prove the hon. Gentleman's point. It does not matter, because we are stuck with the position, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was suggesting one weekend that the entire British cattle herd might have to be slaughtered. Faced with that or a cull of 30-month-old cattle, which would you choose, Mr. Deputy Speaker? There was also a recognition—numerous people told my colleagues and me this when we visited Brussels—that, if urgent action had been taken at the beginning to put a scheme in place, progress towards a lifting of the ban might already have been made.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe made the only speech from the Labour Benches. It was odd that he had to refer to a letter from one of his hon. Friends when there was plenty of opportunity for a Labour Back-Bench Member to make a speech, but, throughout the debate, not one Labour Back-Bench Member was present. That reflects the arrogance of the Labour party, which is interested in who is moving the motion rather than the substantive issues that it deals with. I give credit to Conservative Members, who have made speeches on behalf of their constituents and whose questions were answered by the Minister. That seems to be the right and constructive response.
  I was unable to attend a large part of my Scottish party's conference a few weeks ago in Aberdeen, a week after the ban was imposed, because I was accompanying the noble Lord Lindsay, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for agriculture, in my constituency in Aberdeenshire. We were seeing for ourselves the scale of the problem. Both of us were shocked by what we saw and by its implications. We visited one farmer who said, "I have 120 head of cattle, which will be going to market in the next two weeks and for which I have already run out of feed. What is going to happen?" That farmer is still facing that problem and still feeding those cattle. No progress has been made towards resolving the problem.

  729
  The noble Lord Lindsay and I then visited Donald Russell, a meat company in my constituency. Literally 10 minutes before we arrived, it paid off its entire work force of 34 people because it had no market. That company has developed the top end of the British export market for prime Scottish beef. It had a £10 million turnover and 98 per cent. of its products—80 per cent. of which were beef—were exported. Now that company has no market and no business. It is desperate, and, so far, no measure has come near to giving it any chance of surviving and getting back into the market when the ban is lifted.
  Any suggestion that the lifting of the ban is not the most urgent priority is simply unacceptable. We need to get measures agreed, in place and working so that we can persuade our partners to lift the ban as early as possible. That is what we must deliver and it is why people are so concerned about the delay.
  I shall give the basic statistics for Scotland. Last year, £120 million-worth of Scottish beef was exported and the industry sustained 21,500 jobs. It is unacceptable, when 21 per cent. of Scotland's beef production is exported, to be told that, in the long run, the export ban might be lifted. It is vital that it is lifted at the earliest opportunity.
  I had a letter from a farmer from outside my constituency who has specialised in the export of young bulls, especially to Italy. As he says, it was his choice to concentrate on that market, but now he has been excluded from it and from all compensation measures because he was selling cattle to the Italian market for slaughter at 12 months—a sector for which no assistance is given. He estimates that he will lose between £100,000 and £125,000 this year. There is no help in sight and that is a desperate plight for any farmer.
  We must deal with the problem of BSE, and those who pretend that it has come from somewhere else should consider the basic facts. There have been more than 162,500 cases of BSE in the United Kingdom compared with 324 cases in the rest of the world.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about non-declaration?
  Mr. Bruce: The Minister would not support the hon. Lady's contention. She cannot possibly claim that the difference is somehow due to non-declaration and she would be unwise to suggest that there have been no undeclared cases in the United Kingdom. We all know the reality. In the context of Britain and Germany, there may have been some undeclared cases, but there have been 162,500 cases in the United Kingdom and four in Germany. It is not surprising, after a 55 per cent. drop in the home market for German beef, a 40 per cent. drop in France and a 30 per cent. drop in Italy, that there is some concern in those countries. If hon. Members represented constituencies in those countries, they would certainly be calling for action to protect their farmers.
  We must deal with the problem and we must persuade people that our measures will lead to the ultimate eradication of BSE in the beef herd. That is the way to get back our own confidence and international confidence and to return to the market with what has been recognised as the best quality beef that people can buy. We can produce it, but we must eradicate this problem, and anybody who diverts his attention from that is not helping British agriculture or British beef production.
  730
  I am surprised that, throughout the debate, no hon. Member mentioned the additional, selective slaughter programme. There is no doubt that that must be agreed also if we are to get a final agreement package. Perhaps it might have been better if that had been agreed before we embarked on the major 30-month slaughter programme which is creating such enormous capacity problems. However, we need to get that in place.
  A couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friends and I visited the Commission in Brussels to try to establish its view of the situation. The opening position was quite clear: we want to get this ban lifted as early as possible; but for that to be done, we have to have clear proposals on the table that we can recommend to the Council of Ministers; and we have not had them. That was two weeks ago.
  On the morning we arrived, the officials received what was described as a "non-paper" from the British Government, with a few "suggestions and ideas". That turned out to be the document that was presented at the Council of Ministers and almost immediately rejected as an apparent British offer on selective culling. When I subsequently saw the document, it did not convince me that it presented a detailed, realistic and thought-through policy. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how it would have convinced our partners.
  I can confirm that the Commission officials to whom we spoke said that they believed that it would be possible to agree a slaughter policy that was effectively targeting the most at-risk cattle, and that the numbers would not be dramatically different from those that we were talking about. An agreement could be struck. We desperately need that agreement to get the ban lifted. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us in her reply what stage we are at with that agreed policy.
  The prime concern in this debate, which has been mentioned in the speeches of hon. Members from both sides of the House, is the situation relating to the 30-month cull and the removal of the older cattle from the food chain. The simple nub of the problem has clearly been acknowledged: blockage and obstruction in the rendering capacity is causing the main problem. Today, I spoke to my contacts in the Scottish industry, and they said that they could slaughter the required amount, but they cannot get them in for rendering.
  One small mart in my constituency, Huntley mart, was hoping to get 150 cattle away tomorrow for slaughter, but it has had to cut back that number to 60 and is not sure whether it can manage even those. The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that we are making progress in Scotland. We are, but it is still a long way short of getting rid of the backlog.
  It was pointed out to me that the capacity that was being considered was such that we were still not even building up to a slaughter rate that would achieve a net reduction in the backlog on farms, and that capacity would continue to build up for several weeks before we started to make any real reduction or inroads.
  I intervened on the Minister's speech to make a specific point, which I do not think he fully appreciated—I do not blame him for that. The point, which was made to me, is that, because cattle have been kept and fed on farms for extra weeks and months, they have put on extra fat. It is therefore more appropriate to talk not about how many beasts can be processed through the rendering but about the tonnage. The problem is that the Minister may be

  731
  miscalculating on those figures to his disadvantage. I say that as a constructive issue that must be dealt with so that we can find the capacity.
  If we cannot conduct the rendering process, it seems to be clear that we shall need to increase incineration capacity and storage capacity. Until we can get up to a full slaughtering level that is clearly reducing the backlog on farms, we shall satisfy neither our home producers nor those in Europe who need to be persuaded that we have this issue under control. I think that that is fundamentally why there is so much concern in the country.
  The Minister made it clear that his view was that this is a very difficult situation, that it is much more complicated than anything that Ministries have had to deal with before and that we really should understand that he is working extraordinarily well with his officials to get this far. I am sure that the situation is difficult—I am not suggesting that it is not nor belittling it. It is very difficult being a farmer out there, or a meat producer who is trying to sell processed meat without any cash flow, outlook or movement in the market. Most people are saying that seven weeks is too long.
  How much longer before we can see a real shift in the market? Effectively, farmers are being told that they have to put their cattle in a raffle. If they are lucky and their number comes up in it, the cattle be designated to go to slaughter. Some of them are now being told that their raffle will not be drawn for six and a half weeks from today. They will not even enter the raffle for another six and a half weeks because all the allocated space has already been taken up by what went in in the first week.
  The Minister must understand that farmers are saying such things. When market managers and abattoir managers are having to cope with such comments, it is no wonder that people feel extremely stressed and distressed and inevitably see that there is a need for firm action.
  It was interesting that one or two Conservative Members said that what was needed was someone to take control of the situation. It was not quite clear what they had in mind but, to judge from the Conservatives' record, I suppose that it would be a firm of management consultants or something similar. Ultimately, however, the Government must take control—they are in the hot seat. If they need to bring in extra help from outside they should do so, from whatever source is necessary.
  It is not unreasonable for farmers, meat producers, abattoir owners, haulage contractors and everyone in the beef trade to say that, whether or not it is the Government's fault, they ultimately require the Government to deliver the goods that will get them out of this mess. People in the industry want the scheme to be working so that they can see the backlog being reduced, and they want it agreed with our European colleagues that what we are doing is enough to persuade them that the ban should be lifted at the earliest opportunity. That being the case, I draw the Minister's attention to two comments.
  First, the Minister of State mentioned the Country Landowners Association, which has given the Government credit for measures that have been put in place but still expresses frustration about the situation. In particular, it says:
  "The CLA has supported the Government in seeking the removal of the EU ban but not at any price. The UK's effort to persuade other member state Governments, apart from the legal challenge in
  732
  the European Court of Justice, must be based on explanation of the comprehensive and effective range of measures adopted within the UK."
  That is now urgent.
  Secondly, this is not simply special constituency pleading although, as I represent Gordon in Aberdeenshire, I probably represent the biggest concentration of beef producers, from primary to end product. We have set up a north-east Scotland red meat industry task force which represents all parts of the industry. On Friday, the organisation sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the first page of which states that it had already written to him on 1 May and to Lord Lindsay on 12 April and was disappointed not to have received a reply to either of those letters.
  The organisation said specifically that, given the importance of ensuring that the system is not abused, it is generally recognised that we have to be extremely firm and must prosecute anyone found guilty of abusing it. It would like to know who will be policing the rendering plants which, it feels, are not subject to the same tight inspections as abattoirs. It is also concerned about people who have fallen through the compensation net—I have mentioned a few of them already—and for whom no measures have been introduced but who, week by week, are getting closer to bankruptcy and liquidation. They are the very people—at the top end of the market—whom we shall need to lead Britain back into the export market when the ban is lifted, but they will not be there if we do not give them adequate support now.
  We are speaking on behalf of tens of thousands of people in the industry throughout Scotland, England and Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland. We want the Government to get the culling and slaughtering scheme fully operational and for it to be fully agreed with our European partners, and the sooner the better. In those circumstances, despite the Minister making a good fist of a difficult situation, the Government amendment to the motion is not good enough. People are not satisfied with the progress made so far—they should not be, and nor should the Government.
  9.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): This subject concerns many hon. Members, especially those of us who represent farming communities because we are aware of the seriousness of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy/Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease crisis which has hit not only the farming industry but allied industries.
  It is a matter of regret, however, that the subject should come again to the Floor of the House in the form of the Liberal Democrat motion. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) began his address by saying that the Liberal Democrats had refused to indulge in recriminations but went on to give a long list of recriminations. That is not uncharacteristic because it has been the tenor of his party's behaviour on this subject to speak in the Chamber in a statesmanlike way in a spirit of co-operation and to recognise the seriousness of the issue to the industry but, whenever its members had the opportunity to get in front of a microphone, to behave quite differently.

  733
  On the very day that the announcement was made, I took part in a BBC South-West television interview with the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who was down the line in the south-west. He questioned the very fact that the Government had made the announcement in the House. If we had hidden it from the House or the country, he would have been the first on his feet to complain about it.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: That is not true.
  Mrs. Browning: I am just about to quote the hon. Member for North Cornwall, so the hon. Gentleman can decide whether it is true. In the Financial Times on 25 March—the hon. Gentleman can check it—the hon. Member for North Cornwall said:
  "Ministers must now really state in unequivocal terms which beef products are entirely safe and which may carry some risk, however remote."
  That is hardly the judgment of somebody who had accepted what SEAC had said. He was putting question marks over the safety of products. In the Western Morning News on 23 March, he said:
  "Farmers are very very angry because Ministers have allowed confusion to reign by talking about the risk of beef instead of identifying that it was bovine products."
  Bovine products and beef were not a risk. The SEAC recommendations were very clear. Quite what the hon. Gentleman thought that he was doing in stirring the pot in that way, I do not know. It is very strange.
  Only recently, the hon. Member for North Cornwall said that the delay in the 30-month scheme was due to lack of staff in the Meat Hygiene Service, which is totally untrue. Even though my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained the matter very clearly, the hon. Gentleman said in the House today that the 30-month scheme was not wanted by the industry and that the Government had dreamed it up to present to the country.
  In his speech, the hon. Gentleman even quoted the Booker column of Sunday 12 May, to which he added his support. It described the 30-month scheme as "illegal", a "crackpot scheme" and
  "a plan for which there is not the slightest rational justification".
  Frankly, if that is the view of the hon. Gentleman and his party of the 30-month scheme, what they have said for the past three hours has hardly been worth listening to.
  Mr. Tyler: Obviously, I cannot answer all those stupid remarks in one quick intervention, but I can suggest how stupid they are by saying that the hon. Lady has not even cited the right article. I was referring to The Daily Telegraph, not The Sunday Telegraph. She has got the wrong quotation.
  Mrs. Browning: If they are stupid remarks, they are also the hon. Gentleman's words—QED.
  There have been some more serious speeches in this debate, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is well respected and, as a Cornish Member of Parliament, knows the farming community. He summed up the complexity of the scheme and endorsed the points that my hon. Friend the Minister made, when he outlined clearly the way in which the scheme has developed.
  734
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives not only described the scheme' s complexity but said that one of the reasons why there was some delay was that we listened to what the farming community wanted. We adjusted the scheme, added the extra money for the clean beef scheme and added the dead weight scheme at the specific request of the farming community. Obviously, such things could not be decided on the day that the proposal was announced. We had to go through the usual channels, talk to Brussels and get it agreed in such forums as the Beef Management Committee before we could assure the House that we would be able to run the scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives also talked about keeping farmers informed. We appreciate the need to keep individual farmers informed. My hon. Friend the Minister has already described the steps that we have taken to inform farmers—personally, by direct mailing—and slaughterhouses and livestock markets. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and other hon. Members who have raised this issue that the Government are conscious of the need for information as things have changed quite quickly. We shall continue to ensure that we inform people of any changes as quickly as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) raised the importance of the livestock markets and the role of the supermarkets in this matter. Very early in the crisis, the supermarkets said that they would continue to sell British beef. I pay tribute to them—unlike others who decided not to sell British beef—as they have been robust in promoting it. Supermarkets said that they would sell beef that was less than two and a half years old, which is why they have been supportive of the 30-month scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) referred to the difficulties that people in his constituency have experienced. I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State: while we can share the frustration of, for example, the abattoirs that are listed but that are not yet fully operational, it is a matter of the rendering capacity being able to meet what the slaughterhouse industry can deliver and a matter of it being able to process it.
  That is why my hon. Friend the Minister told hon. Members that we will progress, as quickly as possible, with a scheme for cold storage so that more animals can come through the abattoirs and be slaughtered and so that the farmers can receive their cheques as quickly as possible. We hope to put that into place soon. Many of the abattoirs that hon. Members have mentioned will be able to move the animals through and that will speed up the process.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister also look at the possibility of using the Government's influence with the intervention board? Some of the figures from the recent tranches of intervention have been quite disappointing in terms of the amount of beef that has been taken out of the United Kingdom market.
  Mrs. Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As hon. Members will know, we have negotiated opening more boxes with Europe—in fact, we are happy to look at that again. The hon. Gentleman will understand that this is a Europe-wide scheme and in the bids that go forward on a fortnightly basis the United Kingdom has not

  735
  always done well—ironically, bids from other countries sometimes do a little better. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of that and we will keep an eye on it. It is important, and a number of hon. Members have mentioned the difficulty with young bulls.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland) outlined the positive side of what is being done. He gave a good summary of the weakness of the argument of the Liberal Democrats this evening. Many of the measures that have already been announced and those that are coming forward show that this issue will not be with us for a short period of time. As hon. Members know, we are looking at the long term. For example, we hope to introduce the mature beef scheme as quickly as possible.
  We are currently consulting in this regard, and the consultation period is only two weeks. I had two meetings with industry representatives prior to the consultation document being issued. We hope that the mature beef scheme—which will affect animals that are more than two and a half years old—will be the forerunner for a wider scheme. It would be impossible to launch a scheme that is too wide to begin with; it will need to be narrow. I hope to get it up and running by June.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Browning: If we are to reassure the public and Europe—which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned several times this evening—it is important that we have in place a scheme where we can certify herds and put in place documentation tags and other systems that will ensure that no one can point the finger and say that there are weaknesses in it. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to take a scheme off the shelf and introduce it next week, we could do it, but it would not be in the interests of the industry.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady must acknowledge that the specialist herd is a small proportion. I refer to the selective slaughter agreement. We should get an agreement on it so that we can get the ban lifted from all beef.
  Mrs. Browning: I was very interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman and his friends said in Brussels. The selective slaughter policy is primarily a selective scheme to take out those cohorts of animals that have been fed infected feed at the same time on the same farm as animals that have suffered from BSE. The hon. Gentleman denigrated that policy and dismissed it, and he criticised the Government when that proposal was first presented to Brussels, scathingly calling it a "non-paper".
  I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that any more slaughter of any kind must pass the test of being approved by the industry in this country and by the Members of the House before it is presented to Brussels. That is the scheme that is on the table in Brussels. At the moment, our European partners have said no; they want more herds and animals killed. If the hon. Gentleman is supporting that, he had better say how many more animals he wants killed.
  Mr. Kirkwood: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 124.

  Division No. 126]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Alton, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Barnes, Harry

  Keen, Alan

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Callaghan, Jim

  Maclennan, Robert

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maddock, Diana

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Chidgey, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Morley, Elliot

  Coffey, Ann

  Mudie, George

  Cummings, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pike, Peter L

  Dafis, Cynog

  Raynsford, Nick

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

  Rendel, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Salmond, Alex

  Dixon, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dobson, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Eastham, Ken

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Etherington, Bill

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Tyler, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wallace, James

  Harvey, Nick

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.

  Janner, Greville

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Elletson, Harold

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Burns, Simon

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butcher, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison. James

  Heald, Oliver

  737

  Hendry, Charles

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Stephen, Michael

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

  Stem, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Streeter, Gary

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sweeney, Walter

  Legg, Barry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lidington, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Luff, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  MacKay, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tredinnick, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Viggers, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Walden, George

  Merchant, Piers

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waller, Gary

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to restoring consumer confidence in the UK beef industry by introducing a slaughter scheme for cattle over the age of 30 months; notes the progress made in the 30-month scheme; recognises the dependence of the scheme on co-operation between farmers, auctioneers, slaughterers and renderers and welcomes the steps taken to foster such co-operation to ensure that the maximum slaughter rates are achieved.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22,
  That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 22nd May, do adjourn till Tuesday 4th June.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.

  HOME AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Peter Butler be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Warren Hawksley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  School Security
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the horrendous problem of security in our schools. I have campaigned for many years and begged the Government to make available adequate resources for schools to provide security measures. They need these to counter the attacks made upon them, often daily, and to provide not only replacements for the goods and buildings that are destroyed but, more important, adequate security measures that do not have to be funded from schools' inadequate budgets.
  There are 43 schools in my constituency and in the past financial year no fewer than 41 of them have been attacked by vandals, arsonists and burglars—many of them on several occasions. The cost of putting right the damage caused is estimated at more than £315,000.
  In Leicestershire, the figures for arson have multiplied by six since the Government came to power. In 1979, there were about a dozen arson attacks on public buildings, including schools. In the past year, there were 72 such attacks. Schools and other public buildings are suffering from vandalism, burglary and other crime. Schools are forced to spend on security from budgets that should be used for teaching, for books and for other equipment because no adequate moneys are available to cover the cost of installing the preventive measures needed.
  Despite the difficulty of obtaining figures, research undertaken for me by Pallavi Sharma and Tom Playfoot shows that secondary schools in my constituency fall into two categories. Schools in the first category have no private insurance and must pay 70 per cent. of the cost of repairs and replacements. Primary and special schools must pay 55 per cent. The second category is schools that participate in a private insurance scheme. They must pay 20 per cent. of the premium, with an excess of 70 per cent. for secondary schools and 55 per cent. for primary and special schools. They should have to pay nothing. There is no reason why schools should be forced to meet from their budgets the costs resulting from vandalism, burglary and arson.
  Many schools in the most disadvantaged and vulnerable areas cannot even obtain insurance because the premiums are too high. They are left totally uninsured.
  Schools that want to install closed circuit television, security fencing, alarm systems and locks must, in most cases, meet the whole cost themselves, or at least a substantial part of it. I ask the Government to pay the full amount from whatever budget may be available. If no budget is available, I ask the Government to make such funding a priority.
  We are not talking primarily of awful tragedies such as the shootings in Dunblane—although that incident has thrown the whole problem into stark relief. We are talking about the everyday miseries of ordinary schools in my constituency and throughout the country. I have tried to obtain details of the cost, without success. The Department for Education and Employment says that

  739
  such figures are not available. I give notice to the Minister that I shall be tabling a series of written questions to force the figures out of the Government. There is no reason why all local education authorities should not produce such figures, in the same way that Leicestershire has done for me.
  Schools must compete with public buildings for a limited budget. Only four schools in my constituency received council moneys for security, and each school had to pay half from their own budget. In the past two years, Leicestershire education committee—starved of funds by Government measures—has received no money for school security. That is wrong. Schools should have proper security. Of course it is sad that such measures are necessary. We would all much prefer them not to be necessary. The reality is that with the cracking of the social system, the growth of deprivation and the causes of crime left unattended, schools must take security measures.
  I certainly hope, after Dunblane, that the time will come when the Government ban handguns in people's homes, but that will not be enough. The smashing of schools and equipment, the stealing of equipment and the burning of schools cannot be dealt with by banning guns.
  I offer the House a few examples. Barleycroft county primary school, an excellent school in my constituency, has a first-class head teacher, Philip Goulding, who at the age of 43 was attacked by five or six youths at the end of last year after he had caught one of them who had stolen a mobile phone from a car. He needed 16 stitches, he had a broken nose, cuts above both eyes, a trapped nerve and head and neck injuries. Over the past four years his school has had to spend £20,000 of its education budget on security measures. That is disgraceful; it should not be permitted.
  There is an excellent special school with a brilliant head teacher, Rufus Gordon, whom I have known for many years. He wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 29 January as follows:
  "In the past three years I have lost my Science Teacher and was not allowed to replace her due to financial restrictions."
  That in itself is shocking enough.
  "I have made my Deputy redundant, my Senior Mistress and Junior Teacher redundant, my Home Economics Teacher redundant, and my Languages and Support Teacher redundant. I have made Nursery Nurses redundant and Ancillary. I depend on hourly-paid teachers to stay afloat—that is, to cover the National Curriculum … There is no one else I can make redundant … There is no way we can maintain the payments on the closed circuit television—I have had to stop, in any case, paying our Premises Officer to come in on Saturday and Sunday to replace the video tape in the CCTV, as that was costing me £30 each weekend",
  which the school has not got.
  I hope that the Minister, too, is shocked by this. I hope that she understands the outrage among teachers in my constituency and will now at last provide the money to cover these costs.
  I have a soft spot for special schools such as the Western Park school and the Emily Forte school, which was set ablaze a short time ago. But I hope that the money for security will be forthcoming for all the schools in my constituency, not just these two.
  740
  With all these miseries besetting our schools, what do the Government intend to do? I pay tribute to the Secretary of State who was kind enough to come to my constituency at my invitation and meet teachers and head teachers, but nothing has happened since. The nearest to anything happening has been the preparation of a report which, by the sort of amazing coincidence for which this House is renowned, is due to appear tomorrow. The Secretary of State has been kind enough to provide me with a copy of it, but I cannot refer to it in this debate. I hope, Madam Speaker, to raise the matter as a point of order, because it is wrong, when there is a forthcoming Adjournment debate on a particular subject, to issue a written answer to a parliamentary question the next day so that there is no chance to debate it.
  I hope that the report will be favourable to my views and that it will accept what is patently obvious to everyone but the Government: that schools, teachers and pupils are suffering because there are no adequate security arrangements that schools can make without cutting into their budgets.
  It is not enough simply to issue a report. As Chairman of a Select Committee I have seen many reports issued, pigeonholed, commented on and then die the death. That will not do in this case. If it turns out that the report agrees with me, I hope that the Minister will undertake tonight immediately to implement measures to end this awful situation.
  We all know how much the schools are suffering, but I wonder whether the Government understand that the greater the disadvantage in an area, the greater the suffering for the school. If there is vandalism, burglary or arson at a school in a well-off area, the teachers can bring together parents who can, and do, chip in and help the school to replace the losses and, often, to put in security measures. I appeal to the Under-Secretary on behalf of the disadvantaged schools, in areas where the parents do not have the money to do that and, much as they would wish to, cannot help. I appeal to the Under-Secretary on behalf of areas with broken homes and broken schools, where there is vandalism, arson and burglary and where the police, even with the few extra who will be put on—that is all it will be—cannot hope to cope.
  I know that I speak with the full backing of the teachers, the parents and the Leicestershire police, who are under great strain. I beg the Under-Secretary to understand that the teachers want to teach and they want the resources to teach. The letter that I have read out to her from the Western Park school shows a state of affairs that should not be allowed to exist in a civilised country—certainly not in one in which the funds could be made available if the Government wished to do so. I hope that the Government will now give security in schools proper priority and that the Under-Secretary will produce for us tonight a constructive reply to a plea that is made in the greatest of good faith, on behalf of people who badly need the help that only the Government can provide.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: It is typical of the generosity of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) to offer his Leicester

  741
  colleagues the chance to make a brief contribution to the debate. I wish to pay tribute to him for the way in which he has championed this cause. I first met my hon. and learned Friend 20 years ago, when I was a student with his son at university. I came to the House at his invitation to have a look at the proceedings. I knew then of his reputation for fighting hard on behalf of his constituents, and tonight we have seen a tour de force and an example of the passion and the commitment that he gives to his constituents of Leicester, West. He will be missed after the next election, because, as the House knows, he has announced his retirement.
  My hon. and learned Friend has raised a crucial issue and he has put forward, in the most eloquent and passionate terms, the concern of teachers, parents and ordinary citizens about vandalism in schools in Leicestershire. I do not want the House to think that such incidents happen only in Leicestershire. Of course, it is a national problem, and my hon. and learned Friend has merely highlighted it on a local basis.
  I wish to add my voice to my hon. and learned Friend's and to stress the need for the Under-Secretary to come up with firm proposals in her reply. I, too, would like to know what is in the report that the Secretary of State will publish tomorrow. I hope that the Minister has seen a copy; my hon. and learned Friend said that he had seen a copy. It is vital that we do not just get promises and warm words, but that we have some positive action to ensure that schools are supported. As my hon. and learned Friend said, they suffer greatly because of the cuts in budgets that they have had to endure after 17 years of the Government.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Vaz: It is no good the Under-Secretary shaking her head. It is true that the schools are suffering because of the high rate of crime, which has doubled since the Conservatives have been in office.
  I have just had a conversation with Mr. Jones, who is a teacher at Charles Keane college. My hon. and learned Friend knows it well, because people from both our constituencies attend it. Mr. Jones told me that last night there was a burglary at Charles Keane college. The burglars stole the telephone keyboard, which is essential to the functioning of the school, which will have to replace it out of its budget.
  We want some action from the Under-Secretary and a positive response to the excellent campaign led by my hon. and learned Friend.
  10.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on securing an Adjournment debate on such an important subject. I am sad to hear that he has announced his retirement. I am sure that the House will be a poorer place without him. The hon. and learned Gentleman is renowned, most notably for his buttonholes. I note that he is not wearing one tonight. I hope that that is not the result of anything that I have done.
  742
  The hon. and learned Gentleman shares a concern about security in schools with many other Members. I am pleased that he allowed his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to contribute to the debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman join many colleagues throughout the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), to name but a few in the area around the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency who are interested also in school security; as, indeed, we all are.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, the timing of tonight's debate is both fortuitous, in the sense that the report of the working group on school security is to be published tomorrow, and unfortunate because, of course, I cannot tonight give more than a flavour of the group's recommendations. A flavour, however, I shall give at this stage. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has too long to wait. Indeed, given the late hour, it will not be long at all before the report is published. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman's curiosity will be fully satisfied.
  School security is a problem that concerns us all, as parents, as members of the local community and certainly as politicians. Vandalism and arson damage the fabric of schools, the morale of their staff and pupils and the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
  The Government are entirely at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman in our concern for schools suffering from such crimes. He kindly referred to the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Braunstone Hall school in Leicester last year, to discuss school security matters with local head teachers. In a recent exchange with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I expressed my great sadness over the arson attack faced by Emily Forte school in his constituency. It was a great sadness and I reiterate my remarks on that earlier occasion.
  I know also that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the rest of the House shared the country's shock and grief at the recent tragic events at St. George's school in Maida Vale and at Dunblane. Those events were all the more horrific because of the traditional place of schools at the heart of their communities. Schools naturally want to be open and welcoming to pupils, to parents and to the local community. They are often centres for wider education and leisure activity locally. They seek to be encouraging of education generally, and to draw parents and the community into supporting the education of local children. Those characteristics benefit and enrich our villages, towns and cities. They should be valued and protected.
  Nevertheless, it is natural that recent events should have raised questions about whether that accessibility exacts too high a price; whether schools now need to secure themselves more rigorously against threats from outside.
  Despite the emotional impact of the incidents that we are discussing, there is general agreement that attempting to turn schools into fortresses is not the right response. There is a need to strike a balance between

  743
  access and security. It is to the credit of heads, teachers and school governors throughout the country that they are determined to avoid a siege mentality. Such determination should be applauded and supported.
  That response should not be taken as an excuse for inaction. It is clear that there are limits to what can sensibly be done to prevent events as extreme as the horrific killings in Dunblane, but there are effective and practical measures that can be taken to protect staff, pupils and premises, without turning schools into fortresses.
  I have already referred to the working group on school security, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established immediately following the fatal stabbing of head teacher Philip Lawrence. In the wake of his tragic death, its remit was to consider what more should be done to help to ensure that schools are safe places for their staff and pupils.
  The group brought together representatives of all the main interests in school security: head teacher, teacher and support staff associations; school governors; voluntary aided, grant-maintained and independent schools; local education authorities; parents; the police; and Government Departments. We are immensely grateful to the group's members for their efforts in drawing up the report so quickly and with such care. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read it with interest, as it bears on much that has been said tonight—if, indeed, he has not already had a sneak read earlier.
  Without wanting to pre-empt the detailed recommendations, I can confirm that the group has made a range of positive and practical suggestions, covering issues such as the role of governors, local education authorities and school staff in maintaining and improving security; the availability of advice and guidance on security-related matters to schools and others with an interest; the law relating to troublemakers in and around schools; and funding for security improvements. The Government's response will be in equally positive vein: indeed, we have already acted on early recommendations from the group.
  First, we have taken firm action to counter the menace of people carrying knives and other weapons in schools. The Offensive Weapons Bill, which is currently before Parliament—promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—has been amended: it now makes it an offence to carry a knife or other offensive weapon on school premises, and we are extending to those premises police powers of search for such weapons. The press has focused on the application of the measure to pupils, but it is at least as much concerned with weapons carried by intruders.
  Secondly, following recent consultation, we are adding school security to the list of items on which school governors must report annually to parents. That will help to highlight and reinforce the important role of governors in maintaining and improving security in their schools. I have already mentioned that the school security working group has considered funding matters. There are already sources of funds that could, depending on LEAs' and schools' priorities, be used to pay for improved security. LEAs receive formula capital allocations for improvement and replacement work in county and voluntary controlled schools; equivalent support for grant-maintained schools
  744
  is channelled through capital formula allocations from the Funding Agency for Schools for England. Voluntary aided schools can receive support through the minor works programme and the voluntary rationing scheme.
  In the current year, the schools renewal challenge fund will provide the bulk of central Government capital funding for improvement and refurbishment of LEA and voluntary aided schools. The criteria for the scheme, published last week, indicate that projects that include measures to improve the security of school premises will be particularly welcome. Schools have also been able to bid to the Home Office for funds from the closed circuit television challenge competition, worth £15 million in the current financial year. The working group has taken all those existing sources into account in considering its funding recommendations.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has argued vigorously that the current arrangements are not adequate, and that funds should be allocated specifically to improving school security. I believe that, when he sees our response to the group's report, he will be reassured about the Government's determination to play their proper part in supporting action to improve school security.
  Mr. Janner: I appreciate what the Minister has said very much. Can she give an indication of when the Government will respond to the report's recommendations?
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is jumping the gun. I have said that we are publishing the report tomorrow, and that I believe that he will join us in welcoming the Government's response. He can press me, but I am afraid that he will get no further tonight: he will have to wait until tomorrow.
  The report is not, and should not be, the last word on school security. Specifically, important lessons may arise from Lord Cullen's public inquiry into the Dunblane tragedy. The Government will of course consider carefully any further issues that that inquiry raises, but school security should not be an issue to be considered only in the wake of individual high-profile incidents which, however shocking, reveal only a partial picture of the problems faced by most schools. To be effective, school security measures must be based on a regular and realistic assessment of the day-to-day risks faced by schools in different areas and in conditions that will vary over time. It is important that all people concerned remain alert to new needs and to changing circumstances. Protective measures are relevant only if they enable school staff and pupils to work and to study in safety.
  That must be a continuing priority for all people with a part to play. It is one to which the Government are fully committed, and I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman especially to the Department's guidance to schools on security issues, which covers crime prevention in schools, intruder alarm systems, closed circuit television, security lighting, school glazing and vandalism, graffiti removal and control, lockers and secure storage and "Schoolwatch UK", a video on the main criminal threats faced by schools.
  The Government are fully committed to the security of the UK's schools. I was sorry that, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke on this subject with such emotion,

  745
  I yet again failed to hear the amount of money that may be forthcoming from the Labour party in this matter. Again, no spending pledges were made, but there was merely a plea for more money.
  Mr. Janner: Wait until we are elected.
  Mrs. Gillan: That will be the day.
  746
  I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing the debate and I hope that, tomorrow, he will be big enough to welcome the report warmly, and the Government's response.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will restore the planned reductions in the Prison Service budget. [27859]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have made additional funding available to the Prison Service for security improvements, combating drug abuse and to cater for expected increases in the prison population, but they believe that efficiency savings can be achieved and that the privately managed prisons have shown that lower costs are possible without putting security and control at risk. The savings being required of the Prison Service over the next three years are broadly consistent with those expected of the public services generally. There are no plans to reduce the requirement.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) of 16 April,Official Report, columns 362–63, and 13 March, Official Report, column 631, why Doncaster prison was omitted from the list of prisons which carried out dye stamping of visitors. [27643]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 13 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about dye stamping of visitors to prisons.

  I regret that the reply to Mr. Cox's Question was not comprehensive. Records of prisons using dye stamping are not routinely kept, as it is a matter for the governor's discretion whether to use the system. The information on which the reply was based had been collected for another purpose, and did not reveal that Doncaster used dye stamping.

  The Director General's reply to your Question of 13 March was separately researched and unfortunately the result was not included in the reply to the later Question. Investigation of this error has revealed that Bedford prison was also missing from the list.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on current staff morale within the Prison Service. [28172]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  312
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 13 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the current level of staff morale within the Prison Service.

  Prison Service staff perform a difficult job within a considerable degree of dedication. The Service is facing a number of pressures, including the increase in the prison population and, in common with other public services, the need to make efficiency savings. But the Service, is approaching the task professionally, in consultation with unions and staff and with a firm determination to maintain the balance between essential security and control measures, constructive and effective regimes for prisoners and providing support for staff.

  Prison Population
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) of 29 April,Official Report, column 399, on the prison population, if he will list the number of prisoners held (a) in prison and (b) in police cells, on the last day of each of the last 24 months. [28347]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. George Howarth, dated 13 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking pursuant to the Answer to the honourable Member for Montgomery of 29 April on the prison population, if he will list the number of prisoners held (a) in prison and (b) in police cells, on the last day of each of the last day of each of the last 24 months.

  The requested information is given in the attached table.

  Population in Prison Service establishments and police cells in England and Wales on the last day of the month, April 1994–April 1996

  Date

  In Prison Service establishments

  Police cells

  Total

  1994

  April

  47,719

  224

  47,943

  May

  48,532

  143

  48,675

  June

  48,879

  50

  48,929

  July

  49,095

  74

  49,169

  August

  49,194

  198

  49,392

  September

  49,554

  258

  49,812

  October

  49,710

  141

  49,851

  November

  50,427

  138

  50,565

  December

  47,550

  61

  47,611

  1995

  January

  49,408

  134

  49,542

  February

  50,40

  162

  50,571

  March

  51,220

  374

  51,594

  April

  50,559

  228

  50,787

  May

  50,516

  127

  50,643

  June

  51,084

  —

  51,084

  July

  51,279

  —

  51,279

  August

  51,265

  —

  51,265

  September

  51,286

  —

  51,286

  October

  52,027

  —

  52,027

  November

  52,540

  —

  52,540

  December

  49,949

  —

  49,949

  313

  Population in prison Service establishments and police cells in England and Wales on the last day of the month, April 1994–April 1996

  Date

  In Prison Service establishments

  Police cells

  Total

  1996

  January

  51,947

  —

  51,947

  February

  53,178

  —

  53,178

  March

  53,740

  —

  53,740

  April1

  54,211

  —

  54,211

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 29 April,Official Report, column 399, on the prison population, when he expects to receive the Home Office feasibility study on the super-max prison; when he expects its publication; and when a decision will be announced on whether to commission such a prison. [28349]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Prison Service submitted to Ministers its report examining the feasibility, costs and benefits of building a maximum security prison to house the most dangerous prisoners in the system and a control prison to hold the most unruly and disruptive prisoners, on 30 April. No decisions have yet been made on publications, timing or whether, and if so how, this project should proceed.

  Prison Staff (Overtime)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average number of hours of overtime worked by prison staff for which time off in lieu is outstanding for each financial year since 1991–92 for each prison establishment; [28346]

  (2) how many hours of overtime were worked by prison staff for which time off in lieu is outstanding for each prison establishment. [28319]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. George Howarth, dated 13 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about overtime worked by prison staff and time off in lieu.

  Prison officers have not worked overtime since the current (Fresh Start) working arrangements were introduced in 1987, when the average amount of overtime worked was 16 hours per week.

  The Fresh Start agreement allowed for fluctuations in staffing levels to be met by the movement of officers' shifts or the anticipation of hours to be repaid by time off in lieu. The balance of additional hours/time off in lieu fluctuates throughout the year and from prison to prison.

  The figures you request are not currently collected centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. We are, however, able to provide you with information, for the period between April 1993 and July 1995, which was collected for a particular exercise and is given in the attached tables.

  I have arranged for a copy of these tables to be placed in the Library.
  314

  Prisons (Directors' Emergencies)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of directors' emergencies which were called, and the reasons for calling them during each financial year since 1991–92 for each prison establishment. [28320]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. George Howarth, dated 13 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about `directors'

  emergencies'.

  The term 'directors' emergencies' is not in common usage in the Prison Service but there are occasions when, for operational reasons, the normal provisions of our Industrial Relations Procedural Agreement are overridden—for example when a failure to agree has been registered by a branch of the Prison Officers' Association about plans for a prison to take additional prisoners, when this has been necessary to avoid holding prisoners in police cells. Such occasions are infrequent and no central record is kept of them.

  Parole
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales were paroled during 1995. [28601]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Provisional figures show that around 1,600 prisoners were recommended for parole during 1995.

  Art Theft
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use the police are making of private enterprise firms with computerised databases and specialised knowledge of art theft. [27851]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police work closely with the art loss register, which has a database of around 70,000 items. The Government consider this is an excellent example of partnership between the police and private enterprise.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of recent trends in the theft of art and antiques in the United Kingdom. [27852]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The recorded crime figures do not separately identify theft of art and antiques. However, the National Criminal Intelligence Service is aware of the problem of art thefts. Many local police forces have specialist computer systems which enable them to exchange information with each other.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 170, relating to Buckley Hall prison, what were the reasons for determining that a new Prison Service establishment should not be inspected until it had been operational for at least two years; and what was the

  315
  previous policy for the time taken before a prison faced an inspection under Her Majesty's Inspectorate annual programme of inspections. [28879]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The decision not to inspect new establishments until they have been operational for two years was taken in 1993 by the then chief inspector, who considered that that amount of time was necessary for new establishments to consolidate those aspects of their work which would be under scrutiny by his staff. Before 1993, the decision when to inspect new establishments was taken on the basis of such information as was known about each individual prison.

  Agecroft (Prison Site)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what alternative sites to the Agecroft site in Salford were investigated by the Prison Service for the siting of a new prison; and what were the reasons the Agecroft site was preferred against each of such alternatives. [29077]

  Sites in Manchester

  Site

  LPA

  Vendor/Owner

  Comment

  Eastlands

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester City Council

  Large amount of land, but reserved for project for millennium funding.

  Ardwick Goods Yard Site

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester City Council

  Already allocated to local industrial users who are moving from Eastlands. 11 acres available (too small).

  Middleton

  Rochdale MBC

  Mixed

  Land assembly delays/uncertainties; remote from public transport; surrounded by housing; and significant sections in Green Belt. Not for development before late 1997–98.

  Godley Hill

  Tameside MBC

  Tameside MBC/ other owners

  Site is small, badly shaped and undulating, as such not suitable for a prison. Problems of access and land assembly.

  Dewsnap Sidings

  Tameside MBC

  Tameside MBC

  43 acres with good public transport in area. But possible highway access difficulties and adjoining high density housing estates. Vendor refused to negotiate sale. Developer selected—permission granted. Development to start May/June 1995.

  Linnyshaw

  Salford MBC

  Manchester Ship Canal Company

  Green belt land. Wwaiting outcome of UDP objection.

  —

  Bury MBC

  —

  Too small (12 acres) and access problems as prospective vendor specified off-site access.

  Weaste Quarry Weaste & Seedley

  Salford MBC

  British Coal

  Within an industrial area. Site allocated under Salford Unitary Development Plan for industrial and warehousing use. Some development already under way. previous excavation and tipping make part of site unusable.

  Royal Ordinance Survey Factory Eccles

  Salford MBC

  Royal Ordinance

  Within industrial/commercial area. Allcoated for business and high tech uses in Salford UDP. Too small and surrounded by housing.

  Barton Eccles

  Salford MBC

  Mixed including Manchester CC

  Proposed for regional shopping centre (UDP). Planning application under judicial review. High amenity site for high tech industry and business. Partly owned by Manchester CC. Legal objections to this now dismissed.

  316
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. David Sumberg, dated 13 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reapply to your recent Question about sites which were considered as alternatives to the Agecroft site in Salford.

  Information about alternative sites considered and rejected by the Prison Service is provided in the attached table.

  The Agecroft site, in comparison with the other locations considered:

  made strategic sense in terms of other Prison Service establishments and courts in Greater Manchester;

  was suitable in terms of topography and ground conditions;

  was in the urban area, but was in a wedge of land largely isolated from its surroundings by a river and a canal. It was also at a considerable distance from large housing developments;

  was not allocated to any alternative use in the local planning control documents or policies;

  was available for sale (the owners of several other sites indicated that they would not sell) and at a price which the Prison Service could afford.

  317

  Reason

  Broadway Oldham

  Oldham

  —

  Allocated within Oldham Development Plan for industry and warehousing. Fragmented site— maximum single area available 12 acres (too small).

  Queens Road Cheetham Hill

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester City Council

  Used as a tip—unsuitable for building.

  Ashton Moss

  Tameside MBC

  Mixed inc. Tameside MBC

  Part within Green Belt. Planning permission for high quality industrial estate, site available late 1997–1998 when motorway completed.

  Kingswater

  —

  North West Water

  Subject to tenancies necessitating removal of two golf clubs—timing a problem.

  Wharfside

  Trafford MBC

  Multiple

  20 acre site available—2 developers working up proposal for 80 bedroomed hotel and 70,000 sq ft of B1 use for first tranche. Some development has now taken place.

  Northwest Direct

  Trafford MBC

  Gazeley Properties

  Contains a significant number of activities on site that handle hazardous substances. 30 acre site ASDA superstore being built on site. Plans for petrol filling station, Costco and cinema on remainder.

  The Village

  Trafford MBC

  Trafford MBC

  Contains a significant number of activities that handle hazardous substances. Site broken into small units; total available 20 acres. Maximum site size 4 acres.

  Hough End Playing Fields

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester City Council

  Used for recreation. Council unlikely to sell. Restrictive convenant for public open space.

  Adoption
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Home Office received an application on behalf of the child whose name has been passed to him to allow that child indefinite leave to remain here for the purposes of adoption; on what date the Home Office notified the parties concerned of its decision to allow that child to remain in the United Kingdom; and for what reasons there was a delay in processing this application. [29189]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have no trace of such an application.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money in real terms(a) overall and (b) specifically for mileage reimbursement has been allocated to local government for the fire service in each area of England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [28246]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 9 May 1996]: The amount allocated for mileage reimbursement from within budgets is a matter for each fire authority. Details are not held centrally. Information of the overall financial provision for individual brigades is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the revenue budget for each fire service authority is used to meet pension costs; and if he will make a statement. [28249]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 9 May 1996]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  318

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibition
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for a displayed exhibition relating to the Myasthenia Gravis Association to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall. [29327]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 10 June to Friday 14 June 1996.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount of taxation that will be paid by the average family during 1996–97; and how much this would have been if 1992–93 rates of taxation now applied. [28519]

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Tax paid by a one-earner couple on male average earnings with two children1

  £ per week in 1996–97

  Actual tax system

  21992–93 tax system

  Income tax

  50.21

  55.12

  Income tax and NICs

  85.06

  87.10

  1 Assumes only income is that from earnings. Child benefit is treated as a negative income tax.

  2 1992–93 tax rates and allowances.

  319

  Tax Office, Salisbury
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will review the decision to close the tax office at Salisbury; and if he will make a statement; [28994]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the background papers which formed the basis for the decision to close the Salisbury tax office; and if he will make a statement on the costs and benefits of the proposed closure; [28995]

  (3) what market research was commissioned by his Department prior to the closure of the Salisbury tax office to assess the effects on local businesses and individuals; [28996]

  (4) what estimate has been made of the increase in levels of tax evasion and uncollected tax which will result from the closure of the Salisbury tax office; and if he will make a statement. [28997]

  Mr. Jack
  No decision has been taken to close the tax office at Salisbury.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of visits made to the Salisbury tax office by local residents in the latest year for which information is available. [28998]

  Mr. Jack
  During the year to March 1996, 10,126 visits were made by members of the public to Salisbury tax office and tax inquiry centre. Although it is not possible to estimate the number of visits made by local residents, it is likely that the majority of these visits were made by individuals who either live or work in the Salisbury area.

ENVIRONMENT

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications have been received by his Department in respect of the operation of an aquarium by Shirayana Shokusan in the county hall, London SE1. [28926]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has received no applications for either listed building consent or planning permission relating to the operation of the proposed aquarium at county hall.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current location of the chairman of the GLC's chair. [28920]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  That is a matter for the owners of the riverside building of county hall.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much remains to be paid by Shirayana Shokusan to the London residuary body for the purchase of county hall; and when he expects to be paid this sum. [28924]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The contract for the sale of county hall provided for a deferred sum of £10 million to be paid to the London residuary body from April 1997, subject to the full sum being paid by 2012. Following the winding up of the London residuary body on 29 March of this 320
  year, the London borough of Bromley inherited the remaining rights and liabilities in respect of county hall including those in relation to the payment of this sum.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what payments have been made to the London residuary body by Whitbread plc in respect of the that company's involvement in the development of county hall. [28925]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Prior to the winding up of the London residuary body on 29 March 1996, Whitbread plc had not been required to make any payments to the residuary body in respect of the development of county hall.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour organisations failed to meet their statutory financial obligations in 1994–95. [29186]

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour and direct service organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives in 1994–95. [29281]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 13 February this year, 19 statutory notices were served on eight local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour and service organisations to meet the required financial objectives in 1994–95. My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses to those notices, and has decided to take action against six local authorities.

  Each of the six local authorities which are the subject of today's announcement recorded losses in 1994–95 in excess of £500,000 on work they carried out. The action we have taken today will ensure that, where authorities are failing to put their houses in order, they will have to subject the work to a fresh competition.

  In some cases, the in-house team will be barred from competing if it has been a consistently poor performer in recent years. The end result will be either better-run in-house teams or the use of private contractors. This will ultimately be for the benefit of local taxpayers.

  The directions take the following five forms:
  preventing the following authority from carrying out the work after a specified date: Hereford and Worcester (building maintenance).
  restricting the work carried out by the DSO and preventing the authority from carrying out the remainder of the work if it fails to meet the financial objective in 1996–97 or 1997–98: Burnley borough council (building maintenance).
  requiring the authority to retender the work and to seek the consent of the Secretary of State if proposing to award the work in-house: Burnley borough council (highways and sewers).
  preventing an authority from carrying out the work if it fails to meet the financial objective in 1996–97 or 1997–98: the London borough of Southwark (building maintenance).
  requiring authorities to retender the work if they fail to meet the financial objective in a specified year or years, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wishes to award work in-house:

  321
  1995–96 and 1996–97: Hereford and Worcester county council (highways and sewers), Kingston-Upon-Hull city council (building cleaning, building maintenance and grounds maintenance), and Salford city council (grounds maintenance).
  1996–97: St. Helens MBC (highways and sewers).
  1996–97 and 1997–98: Burnley borough council (other catering).

  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1993–94 by:
  New Forest district council (highways and sewers) and Salford city council (highways and sewers and schools and welfare catering).
  He is still considering the response from Liverpool city council (schools and welfare catering, vehicle maintenance, building cleaning, grounds maintenance and highways and sewers).

  In addition to the 19 notices served on 13 February, a further 26 were served on 22 local authorities on 2 April. Responses to these notices are currently being considered, and our decisions will be announced in June. Further notices for financial failure will be issued later in the year, and we expect to have announced all of our decisions by the end of October.

  The Secretary of State has also decided to revoke a direction given on 22 August 1995 to Hereford and Worcester county council for schools and welfare catering work, following financial failure in 1993–94.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department has taken to inform parish councils of the role and responsibilities of the new Environment Agency. [28646]

  Mr. Clappsion
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: None. The Environment Agency has contacted local organisations to inform them of the agency's role and responsibilities.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contact his Department has had with district and parish councils in Lancashire over the role and responsibilities of the Environment Agency in Lancashire. [28647]

  Mr. Clappsion
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: The Department consulted the local authority associations on its proposals for the Environment Agency, its scope and responsibilities.

HEALTH

  Residual Trust Property (Manchester)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the value of the North West regional health authority residual trust property which is being transferred to Manchester health authority; and where it is located. [28099]

  Mr. Horam
  No trust fund property is to be transferred to Manchester health authority.

  Grant Aid Funding
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report,
  322
  column 500, if he will list (a) the non-London organisations which have received section 64 grant aid funding for the provision of service to HIV clients and (b) the organisations receiving first time grants under section 64 grant aid funding for the provision of services to HIV clients, for the financial year 1996–97. [28465]

  Mr. Horam
  The non-London organisations which are currently receiving section 64 grant aid funding for the provision of services to HIV clients for the financial year 1996–97 are as follows:

  National Network of Body Positive Groups;

  Body Positive North East.

  The organisations receiving first-time grants under section 64 grant aid funding for provision of services to HIV clients, for the financial year 1996–97 are as follows:

  Positive Care Link;

  National Network of Body Positive Groups;

  UK Coalition of People Living with HIV and Aids;

  Body Positive North East.

  A new grant was also awarded to the National AIDS Trust, although this was not a first-time grant for the organisation.

  Milk (Nutritional Value)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the nutritional value of milk consumed by children between the ages of 11 and 16 years; and if he will make a statement. [28530]

  Mr. Horam
  (a) The Department, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has commissioned, through the national diet and nutrition survey programme, a survey designed to assess the habitual diet of school children aged four to 18 years. The results of this survey will give information about the amount and nutritional value of milk consumed by children between the ages of 11 and 16 years.

  (b) None.

  Dental Services (General Anaesthetics)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the guidelines currently in place for dentists who give general anaesthetics in their dental surgeries. [28620]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has issued no guidelines for dentists who give general anaesthetics in their surgeries, as this is a professional matter for the relevant professional bodies. The General Dental Council, in May 1993, published "Professional Conduct and Fitness to Practise", copies of which are available in the Library; paragraphs 17 to 28 are guidelines on general anaesthesia, sedation and resuscitation.

  BSE
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department received advice from the Committee on the Safety of Medicines concerning the sourcing of materials from cattle under six months from BSE—free herds; what steps were subsequently taken as a result of this advice; and when. [27980]
  323
  Mr. Horam
  In February 1989, at the request of the Licensing Authority, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials and the Veterinary Products Committee, convened an expert group to formulate guidelines on the sourcing of bovine materials for the use in the manufacture of medicinal products. These guidelines were considered and agreed by the CSM at its February 1989 meeting. The guidelines recommended that source animals should be calves up to six months of age. A letter containing these joint CSM-VPC Guidelines was sent to the pharmaceutical industry. The industry was asked to provide information on the source and type of material of animal origin used in the manufacture of medicines. Subsequently, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy working party was established jointly by the CSM and VPC. This group considered the replies from companies at its October 1989 and subsequent meetings. Companies changed their source of bovine materials to non-UK sources for parenteral, ocular and topical products applied to broken skin. All products licensed since the 1989 CSM-VPC guidelines were issued, and the subsequent European Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products 1992 guidelines, which replaced them, have been assessed in accordance with the guidelines for the acceptability of the bovine materials used.

  Private Hospitals
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many private hospitals there were (i) by region (ii) nationally in each of the last five years; [29192]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of private hospital beds (i) by region and (ii) nationally in each of the last five years. [29191]

  Mr. Malone
  Information relating solely to private hospitals is not available centrally. Information on private hospitals, homes and clinics as a group is available and published annually in "Private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984", copies of which are available in the Library. For the last two years, information is presented separately for private hospitals and clinics and for private nursing homes. Additional information on private hospitals can be found in the annual survey of "Acute Hospitals in the Independent Sector with Psychiatric Hospitals Supplement" by the Independent Healthcare Association.

  Elective Surgery
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the levels of elective surgery performed in the private sector(a) by region and (b) nationally in each of the last five years; [29184]

  (2) what was the amount of elective surgery performed in the private sector privately as a percentage of NHS elective surgery (a) by region and (b) nationally in each of the last 10 years. [29185]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on elective surgery performed in the private sector is not collected centrally. Information on the volume of elective and emergency admissions in NHS hospitals is contained in the annual publication "Hospitals Episode Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.
  324

  Cost Rent Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cost rent schemes have been agreed(a) in London and (b) outside London in each of the last 10 years. [29187]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is available for only 1994–95 and relates to cost rent projects agreed in principle by health authorities. Details will be placed in the Library.

  Human Embyros
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many embryos have been frozen under the provisions of licences issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority since its establishment; and in how many of those cases storage facilities are no longer able to trace the parents of that embryo. [28999]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave her on 25 March, columns 421–22. Statistics about contacts between licensed centres and patients are not available centrally.

  Private Finance (General Practitioner Premises)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about private finance in respect of general practitioner premises. [29188]

  Ms Horam
  The primary care sector of the national health service has always used private capital to fund the development of general practitioner premises.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the per capita expenditure by each health authority area in each of the last three years for which information is available. [29070]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 26 May 1994, column 305 and the reply my right hon. Friend the then Secretary for Health gave the hon. Member for Darlington on 12 December 1994, column 465, for per capita spend for each district health authority in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Per capita spend for each district health authority in 1994–95 will be placed in the Library.

  Comparisons of these per capita spend figures need to be treated with caution. First, not all the expenditure covered arises from population-related activities. Secondly, crude populations do not reflect differences in age structure or relative health care need. These differences feature in the formulae used to inform the main allocations to the former district health authorities.

  Adoption Rules (Foreign Children)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the rules governing transfer of consent by the natural parents on cases of adoption of foreign national children; and what assessment he has made of the compliance of the procedures in the case about which he has been informed with those rules. [29190]
  325
  Mr. Bowis
  Where an adoption application has been made to a court in England and Wales in accordance with the Adoption Act 1976, the court may not make an adoption order unless it is satisfied that the child is free for adoption and that agreement of the parent or guardian to the adoption has been obtained. Before making an adoption order, section 16 of the 1976 Act requires the court to satisfy itself that such consent has been given freely and with full understanding of what is involved and that each parent has agreed unconditionally to the making of the adoption order.

  Rules of court require that a guardian ad litem be appointed by the court in any case where consent is not given or there are special circumstances. In cases of consent, a reporting officer will be appointed. If he has any doubt about the validity of the consent, the court will consider whether to appoint a guardian. In the High Court, this is the official solicitor unless he declines to act or one of the parties objects. It is the duty of the guardian ad litem to investigate the application and prepare a report for the court.

  Parental agreement to the making of an adoption order may be dispensed with by the court in certain prescribed circumstances. These provisions apply to all adoption applications irrespective of the country of origin of the child concerned. Similar provisions apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Read Codes System
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 608, if he will list each hospital participating in the development of the Read codes project; which aspects of its application each hospital was deemed to be piloting; and when each pilot project was due to start and finish. [28935]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: The hospitals concerned have requested that their details are not divulged until the project has been completed.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to extend the work of the know-how fund in the Baltic states. [27700]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are starting a regional project covering all three Baltic states in public administration development. Through this and other initiatives, the know-how fund will continue to provide rapid and flexible assistance to the reform process in the Baltic states. The countries concerned very much welcome our support.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasion and in relation to which contracts, contracts sponsored under the know-how fund in Moscow in the last five years were allocated and subsequently extended without being the subject of tendering or re-tendering procedures. [29237]
  326
  Mr. Hanley
  Of the 1,574 contracts the know-how fund has issued over the last five years, 1,256 contracts were awarded without a requirement to tender. This includes contracts issued to nominated individuals, low-value contracts where the costs of a competition would outweigh potential savings, and cost-sharing contracts.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the United Kingdom contractors and consultants who have been engaged on know-how fund sponsored food distribution projects and training projects in Moscow during the last five years; [29235]

  (2) on what occasions and in relation to which contracts United Kingdom contractors and consultants who have been engaged on know-how fund sponsored contracts in the last five years were given such contracts without a requirement to tender; [29236]

  (3) if he will list the projects funded during the last five years by the know-how fund relating to (a) food distribution in Moscow and (b) training in Moscow. [29234]

  Mr. Hanley
  The answers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nigeria
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the British high commissioner returned to Nigeria; what steps he is taking to encourage the restoration of democracy in that country; and on what date he expects the Nigerian high commissioner to return to London. [29010]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 19 February, column 22. The Nigerian authorities have given us no indication of a date for the return of the Nigerian high commissioner to London.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had, and with whom, on the current regime in Nigeria. [28600]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to consult closely with Commonwealth, European Union and other partners on all aspects of our policy towards Nigeria.

  Human Rights Monitors (Africa)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of British sponsored and financed human rights monitors in Africa; and if he will list the countries in which they are working. [28599]

  Mr. Hanley
  UN human rights monitors are deployed in Rwanda and Burundi.

  Rwanda has 101 human rights monitors in the field. The UK is the largest bilateral donor and has contributed £3 million since 1995 towards the cost of the operation. The UK also contributes through the European Union, which is funding 11 of the UN monitors, rising to 27 at the end of May.

  In Burundi the first four UN monitors, funded by the European Union, were deployed in April 1996.
  327

  Land Mines
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being provided to(a) agencies involved in demining and (b) the victims of land mines; and if he will make a statement. [27697]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since April 1993, the ODA has funded mine clearing operations totalling nearly £17 million, including the UK share of European Community-funded projects. Details of these commitments have been placed in the Library of the House.

  We recognise the need for both post-trauma and longer-term assistance to land mine victims. We support medical care and rehabilitation through contributions to the International Committee of the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations. Longer-term needs to promote self-help and economic independence are addressed through country development programmes.

  Vector-borne Diseases (Iraq)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of vector-borne diseases in Iraq with particular reference to(a) malaria and (b) visceral leishmaniasis. [27764]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have not been invited to undertake an assessment of either malaria or visceral leishmaniasis in Iraq. An intensive spraying programme in northern Iraq, funded by the European Community, led to a dramatic decrease in malaria, from 65,000 cases in 1994 to 38,000 in 1995. No deaths have been reported. We understand that there are sufficient stocks of insecticide for 1996. Available information suggests that there was a decrease in leishmaniasis between 1992 and 1994—the last year for which we have information.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Stocks
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tonnages of stockpiled coal are presently held by(a) Powergen, (b) National Power, (c) Scottish Power, (d) British Steel and (e) private mine owners. [27301]

  Mr. Page
  Latest available data are for the end of February 1996 when stocks of coal held by electricity generators totalled 7,413,000 tonnes, stocks at coke ovens totalled 1,155,000 tonnes, and stocks at collieries and opencast sites totalled 5,984,000 tonnes. Figures for individual companies are commercially sensitive and cannot be disclosed.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change existing legislation regarding the sale of aerial shell fireworks to the public. [27299]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 28 March, I announced that my Department would be undertaking a comprehensive review of the voluntary and legislative measures dealing with the availability of fireworks to the public. The review will consider, among other issues, the current classification system of fireworks including the treatment 328
  of aerial shells. My Department will seek views from a wide range of interested organisations during the summer and I will then consider possible was in which the current measures might be improved.

  Industrial Death and Retirement Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will place in the Library copies of the documentation held by his Department relating to the industrial death and retirement fund. [28888]

  Mr. Page
  British Coal remains liable to meet all entitlements under the industrial death and retirement scheme—which closed in January 1995. I understand that the chairman has written to the hon. Member previously explaining British Coal's disclosure practice and, given the essentially commercial nature of the arrangements, it would not be appropriate to make these papers more generally available.

  Telecommunications Industry (Intellectual Property)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the letter of 19 February from the Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology, what action he is taking in European Telecommunications Standards Institute for the publication of the de facto standards in relation to intellectual property in the telecommunications industry; and if he will make a statement. [27933]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The European Telecommunications Standards Institute is the main body in Europe producing telecommunications standards. It has a membership of some 30 Governments and 370 private and public telecommunications companies.

  DTI officials have held various elected positions in the institute and in this capacity have been pursuing the idea that ETSI should be ready to publish not only its own standards but those that are drafted elsewhere, including de facto standards. This concept was agreed last year and incorporated in ETSI' s new rules of procedure on 19 April this year.

  Such publication should ensure that essential intellectual property is available on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The publication of a particular de facto standard depends though on the willingness of the originator to submit it for publication in this way and it is too early to say whether this will, in fact, be widely accepted.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Day
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Energy Council held on 7 May. [28845]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Council considered several issues and received reports on matters of interest. I represented the UK.

  The Council made some limited progress on electricity market liberalisation. Ministers agreed the broad framework for opening up electricity markets to competition and undertook to continue discussions on the extent and pace of market opening. I hope that we can

  329
  make further progress in the coming weeks with a view to reaching a final decision at at an extraordinary Council meeting before the end of the Italian Presidency.

  The Council also reached political agreement on the key elements of the Commission's proposal for a second programme, aimed at encouraging best use of energy efficiency technology which will help reduce CO, emissions. A five-year programme with a budget of 45 mecu was agreed.

  The Council reached agreement on a resolution on the European energy policy White Paper. Broadly, this invites the Commission to continue its existing activities in the energy field; to organise co-operation on energy policy objectives and energy studies; to report on transparency measures and to present proposals from the indicative work programme on the basis of existing treaties and competences.

  Also, the Council agreed conclusions on a Commission report on gas supply and prospects. These invite the Commission to continue to examine the issues raised in the report, bring forward proposals if necessary and report back to the Council in two years' time.

  Council conclusions were agreed on the energy aspects of the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean conference which identified energy as having a pivotal role in economic co-operation especially in terms of investment and the activities of companies in extending networks. The conclusions look forward to a conference of energy ministers in Trieste on 8 to 9 June—preceded by a day involving the industry on 7 June—to discuss possible participation in the energy charter treaty, implementation of trans-european energy projects and definition of priorities for future action.

  The Council held a discussion on the SYNERGY proposal which involves a multi-annual financial support programme over five years to help non-member countries in the definition, formulation and implementation of energy policy. Work on this dossier will continue.

  In addition, the Council received presentations from the Commission on its reports on civil protection, tourism and energy, as requested by declaration 1 to the treaty of the European Union, and on the oil supply and refining markets as well as progress reports on the energy charter treaty and the draft directive on integrated resource planning.

  Mid-Kent Holdings Plc
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will maintain the legal undertakings given by General Utilities plc to the then President of Board of Trade in March 1991 regarding its interests in Mid-Kent Holdings. [29155]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  General Utilities gave undertakings to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 March 1991. Since then, no decision has been made to vary the undertakings or to release General Utilities from them. The undertakings therefore remain legally binding.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effects on the Government's competition policy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Knox in the Chancery Division of the 330
  High Court in the case of Mid-Kent Holdings plc delivered on 30 April; and if he will make a statement. [29007]

  Mr. Taylor
  I will study carefully the judgment given by Mr. Justice Knox in the above case. It would, however, be inappropriate for me to give a view on whether and to what extent the Government's competition policy affected this judgment.

  Business Links
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the names, (b) the dates of report and (c) the dates of publication of each departmental study of business links; and if he will make a statement. [28534]

  Mr. Page
  The main departmental studies on business links that have been carried out so far are:DTI: Evaluation of Business Link; Report by KPMG Peat Marwick; published in April 1994
  Evaluation of Business Links; Report by Ernst and Young; published in February 1996

  The Government have an on-going programme of assessing business links. This includes gathering quarterly monitoring information, measuring the awareness perceptions and use of business links by businesses through bi-annual surveys and assessing the quality of information and services received by business through a mystery shopper exercise. In addition, we plan to carry out further evaluation studies of businesses links later this year and in 1997.

  Biotechnological Inventions (Legal Protection)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the EU draft directive on legal protection of biotechnological inventions. [29002]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Commission's proposal for an EC directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions is the subject of explanatory memorandum 4519/96 submitted on 4 March 1996 and available in the Library of the House.

  The proposal is currently under discussion before the Council. A first opinion of the European Parliament is not expected until this autumn.

  AEA Technology Restructuring Fund
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount allocated by the Government to the AEA Technology restructuring fund up to 31 March to prepare the company for privatisation. [29000]

  Mr. Eggar
  Until 31 March 1996, AEA Technology was a division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. In respect of UKAEA restructuring, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of Board of Trade, on 6 February 1996,Official Report, columns 144–45, which provides the most recent information on funding. Restructuring of UKAEA has been going on since the late 1980s and reflects the changing role of the authority and changes in its external business environment.
  331

  Global Free Trade
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is proposing to pursue the goal of global free trade. [28913]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government envisage three main stages in the pursuit of global free trade. First, the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Singapore in December 1996 should set in train a comprehensive work programme to carry forward the process of liberalisation, building on the achievements of the Uruguay round. Secondly, a new multilateral negotiating round should be launched in the WTO before the end of the decade, to be concluded and implemented early in the next century. Thirdly, the WTO should set itself a firm date for achieving the ultimate goal of global free trade by 2020. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set out his views on these issues in a speech given to the British American Chamber of Commerce on 30 April, a copy of which I have arranged to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Business Link Network Ltd.
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is(a) the DTI's involvement with and (b) the status of the Business Link Network Ltd. [28746]

  Mr. Page
  The Business Link Network Ltd. has recently been established by the business links national partners, including the TEC National Council, British chambers of commerce, the National Federation of Enterprise Agencies and local authority associations, to provide a range of practical support services to help business links to deliver a better service to the business community. Plans include the bulk purchase of insurance and other common services, dissemination of good practice and the development of a national business link presence on the Internet.

  The DTI is in discussion with the Business Link Network Ltd. about possible areas for collaboration.

  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the last two years he has received communications from hon. Members relating to the interests of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. [29233]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and ministerial colleagues have answered 23 separate letters or parliamentary questions, all of which relate to the acquisition by Scottish and Newcastle of Courage and the new company formed after the merger, Scottish Courage. In addition, three early-day motions were tabled and an Adjournment debate was held in January 1996.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Mature Students
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged 65 years or over were engaged in full or part-time education in(a)332
  and (b) the latest year for which information is available; and what percentage each represents of the relevant age group. [28127]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: The figures are given in the tables.

  Students aged 65 and over, 1990–91 and 1994–95, England

  1990–91

  1994–95

  Higher education

  8,127

  11,782

  Open University

  n/a

  2,441

  Further education

  165,000

  122,000

  Participation rate: percentage of population aged 65 and over

  1990–91

  1994–95

  Higher education

  0.1

  0.2

  Open University

  n/a

  0.0

  Further education

  2.2

  1.6

  Total

  2.3

  1.8

  A considerable number of people aged 65 and over attend adult education centres; no estimate is available. The decrease in numbers in further education since 1990–91 is due mainly to fewer students taking non-examinable courses; the number enrolled for examinable courses has increased sharply.

  n/a not available.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will extend the assisted places scheme to schools catering exclusively for children with special educational needs. [28350]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We have no present plans to do so, but are keeping the matter under review.

  Statemented Pupils
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority(a) the total number and (b) the percentage of pupils who are currently statmented. [28523]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The latest available information is shown in the table:

  Pupils with a statement of special educational needs in schools by local education authority area

  England

  January 1995

  Pupils with a statement of SEN

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  837

  2.9

  Greenwich

  1,369

  3.6

  Hackney

  877

  2.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  662

  3.3

  Islington

  827

  3.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  242

  1.2

  Lambeth

  848

  3.0

  Lewisham

  1,050

  2.9

  Southwark

  929

  2.4

  Tower Hamlets

  1,089

  3.0

  Wandsworth

  1,220

  3.6

  Westminster

  373

  1.6

  Barking and Dagenham

  559

  2.0

  Barnet

  915

  1.8

  Bexley

  858

  2.3

  333

  Pupils with a statement of special educational needs in schools by local education authority area

  England

  January 1995

  Pupils with a statement of SEN

  Percentage1

  Brent

  736

  1.9

  Bromley

  1,221

  2.6

  Croydon

  864

  1.6

  Ealing

  755

  1.6

  Enfield

  666

  1.5

  Haringey

  627

  1.9

  Harrow

  643

  2.0

  Havering

  810

  2.2

  Hillingdon

  1,135

  2.9

  Hounslow

  1,012

  2.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  507

  2.2

  Merton

  551

  2.0

  Newham

  990

  2.3

  Redbridge

  676

  1.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  497

  1.9

  Sutton

  694

  2.5

  Waltham Forest

  986

  2.8

  Birmingham

  4,327

  2.3

  Coventry

  1,084

  2.0

  Dudley

  923

  1.9

  Sandwell

  814

  1.5

  Solihull

  746

  1.9

  Walsall

  1,294

  2.6

  Wolverhampton

  1,095

  2.4

  Knowsley

  910

  3.0

  Liverpool

  2,512

  2.9

  St. Helens

  1,430

  4.6

  Sefton

  1,468

  2.8

  Wirral

  1,570

  2.7

  Bolton

  1,054

  2.1

  Bury

  1,042

  3.3

  Manchester

  1,523

  2.0

  Oldham

  607

  1.4

  Rochdale

  876

  2.4

  Salford

  723

  1.8

  Stockport

  1,536

  3.1

  Tameside

  1,034

  2.7

  Trafford

  742

  2.0

  Wigan

  1,933

  3.8

  Barnsley

  996

  2.8

  Doncaster

  1,931

  3.6

  Rotherham

  1,374

  3.0

  Sheffield

  1,761

  2.3

  Bradford

  1,639

  1.7

  Calderdale

  679

  1.9

  Kirklees

  2,113

  3.2

  Leeds

  3,510

  2.9

  Wakefield

  1,244

  2.2

  Gateshead

  588

  1.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,259

  2.7

  North Tyneside

  1,035

  3.1

  South Tyneside

  656

  2.4

  Sunderland

  1,561

  3

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  1.4

  Avon

  4,341

  2.8

  Bedfordshire

  2,425

  2.5

  Berkshire

  3,591

  2.7

  Buckinghamshire

  3,336

  3.0

  Cambridge

  2,718

  2.5

  Cheshire

  5,140

  3.1

  Cleveland

  2,524

  2.4

  Cornwall

  2,908

  4.0

  Cumbria

  3,205

  4.0

  Derbyshire

  5,251

  3.4

  Devon

  5,338

  3.4

  Dorset

  2,470

  2.5

  Durham

  2,942

  2.9

  East Sussex

  3,534

  3.4

  Essex

  5,492

  2.3

  Gloucestershire

  2,282

  2.6

  Hampshire

  7,739

  3.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,608

  2.3

  334

  Pupils with a statement of special educational needs in schools by local education authority area

  England

  January 1995

  Pupils with a statement of SEN

  Percentage1

  Hertfordshire

  4,599

  2.6

  Humberside

  3,222

  2.2

  Isle of Wight

  487

  2.5

  Kent

  7,256

  2.8

  Lancashire

  7,815

  3.3

  Leicestershire

  3,683

  2.4

  Lincolnshire

  3,048

  3.2

  Norfolk

  3,759

  3.3

  North Yorkshire

  2,616

  2.3

  Northamptonshire

  2,316

  2.2

  Northumberland

  1,155

  2.2

  Nottinghamshire

  1,932

  1.1

  Oxfordshire

  1,875

  2.0

  Shropshire

  2,449

  3.5

  Somerset

  1,947

  2.6

  Staffordshire

  4,543

  2.6

  Suffolk

  3,049

  2.9

  Surrey

  5,074

  3.1

  Warwickshire

  1,771

  2.2

  West Sussex

  2,598

  2.4

  Wiltshire

  2,624

  2.9

  England

  211,307

  2.6

  1 Pupils with a statement of special education needs expressed as a percentage of the school population.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority the number and percentage of currently statemented pupils statemented at(a) key stage 1 and (b) key stage 2. [28525]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority the amount per special educational needs pupils spent on special needs education in 1995–96. [28524]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The data collected centrally identify expenditure on statemented pupils and on special schools, but do not identify separately expenditure on other forms of provision for special educational needs.

  Mr. Havey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority the percentage of currently statemented pupils who are statemented for(a) physical disability and (b) severe learning difficulties. [28526]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the target for 1996 and (b) the actual intake for primary teacher training in 1995. [28587]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The primary target for England for 1996–97 is 11,500. The actual intake to primary teacher training in 1995–96 was 13,601.
  335

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amended orders she proposes to lay arising from the recommendations contained in the 15th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (HC 34-xv, HL 60 of Session 1995–96); and what is her timetable for laying these orders. [28628]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: The 15th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments refers to two sets of regulations made by the Department, the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/353, and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/235.

  In the case of SI 1996/353, the Committee, after calling for two memorandums from the Department, determined not to draw the special attention of both Houses to the regulations. In the case of SI 1996/235, the Committee drew the special attention of both Houses to the regulations on the ground that they included two provisions which referred to provisions in another instrument rather than setting the provisions out in full. Since the instrument is unambiguous and contains no error, it does not call for amendment. The Department therefore does not propose to lay any amending regulations arising from this report but will bear in mind the Joint Committee's views on drafting in future.

  Expulsion
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she has issued on the grounds which are justifiable for the expulsion of a child from school; and if she will make a statement. [28977]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Guidance was issued by the Department in May 1994 to heads, governing bodies and local education authorities on the proper use of exclusion. It indicated that exclusion should be used sparingly—as a last resort—in response to serious breaches of school policy or law.

  Competitiveness and Deregulation Policy
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the implications of her competitiveness and deregulation policy for job prospects in the United Kingdom in relation to those in other EU countries. [27678]

  Mr. Forth
  International evidence shows that keeping regulation to a necessary minimum allows employers to create a diverse pattern of jobs, giving workers greater choice in when and how to work. This leads to more people in employment. The latest available figures indicate that, in 1994, the UK had a higher proportion of its population of working age in employment than any other major EU member state.

  Interview Expenses
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment has been made by her Department of the impact of lengthening the qualifying period for the payment of 336
  expenses for attending job interviews; and what assessment has been made of the benefits of the scheme; [29003]

  (2) how much her Department has spent in each of the last three years in meeting the expenses incurred by unemployed people in attending job interviews; and how much her Department expects to save as a result of recent changes in the unemployment qualifying period for the payments of travelling expenses for attending job interviews. [29004]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions to her about the payment of expenses for attending job interviews. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The ES provides financial assistance to unemployed people attending job interviews beyond their normal daily travelling distance through the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS).

  The performance of TIS is assessed on a regular basis to provide information which will improve the effectiveness of the scheme in helping unemployed people back into work. Management information is collected quarterly to monitor the operation of the programme and latest figures show that in 1995–96 the scheme helped 46,810 people with travel costs.

  A full evaluation of TIS has also been carried out. This examined, in more detail, various aspects of the operation and impact of the programme. The evaluation was not designed to assess the impact of lengthening the qualifying period for payment. However, the report does contain some information about the impact of TIS on people with different unemployment durations. If you would like to see the full detail of this study, copies can be obtained through the House of Commons library.

  Over the last three financial years the cost of meeting the expenses incurred by unemployed clients to attend job interviews have been.

  1993–94 £1.79 million enabling 50,373 interviews

  1994–95 £1.8 million enabling 51,140 interviews

  1995–96 £1.7 million enabling 46,810 interviews

  As the figures show, the demand for TIS has fallen over the last 12 months. However, we will not be able to compare savings made through the introduction of the 13 week measures until we have collected statistics at the end of June and compared them with the corresponding quarter last year. I will write to you again in August when that comparison has been carried out.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Objective 4 Status
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the amount of money which would be available to British firms(a) in total, (b) with fewer than 100 employees, (c) with fewer than 50 employees and (d) with fewer than 10 employees, from the European Union if Britain had applied for objective 4 status.[28748]

  Mr. Forth
  The amount of support available under any objectives depends on the terms of the programme, which is agreed with the Commission in respect of that objective. Since the Government have not negotiated such an agreement in relation to objective 4, it is impossible to estimate which firms would be eligible.
  337
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of British firms(a) in total, (b) with fewer than 100 employees, (c) with fewer than 50 employees and (d) with fewer than 10 employees, which would be eligible for European Union aid under objective 4. [28749]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier.

  Education Council
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Council of EC Education Ministers held on 6 May. [29513]

  Mr. Forth
  On 6 May, the Council of EC Education Ministers adopted conclusions on the European Commission White Paper "Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society" and held a public debate on this topic. The Council also adopted conclusions on the synergies between academic recognition and professional recognition of qualifications within the community and a resolution on multimedia educational software.

  Ministers received information from the European Commission on the assessment of quality of higher and non-higher education; the European Year of Lifelong learning; co-operation with third countries; the progress of work on the forthcoming Commission green paper on obstacles to mobility; and the Commission publication "Key Data on Education in the European Union 1995". Ministers received a communication from the Greek delegation about the proposed European centre classical literature and were briefed by the presidency on the outcome of the conference on "Cultural Diversity and Social Integration" held in Turin on 11 to 13 April 1996.

  A copy of the official minutes of the Council will be placed in the Library when they become available.

  School Security
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will publish the report of the working group on school security. [29514]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The report will be published tomorrow morning, and I shall place copies in the Library.

  Footballers' Work Permits
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of her recent discussions with the football authorities in respect of the issue of work permits to footballers from other countries(a) entering the United Kingdom to play for a British Club and (b) being transferred between British Clubs; and if she will make a statement. [22383]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on 18 March 1996,Official Report, column 37.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Archdeacons
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church 338
  Commissioners, how many (a) male and (b) female archdeacons are currently paid by the Church Commissioners; at what stipend and emoluments; and if he will make a statement. [27704]

  Mr. Alison
  Most archdeacons receive their stipend from money raised by their diocese which is paid through the commissioners' payroll. At the end of April 1996, there were 104 male archdeacons and one female archdeacon on the payroll. The stipend recommended by the Church Commissioners, as Central Stipends Authority, is £20,860 per annum.

  Investment Income and Expenditure
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' investment income and expenditure in 1995. [27706]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners' investment income in 1995 was £137 million, a yield of 6.1 per cent. compared with 6.2 per cent. in 1994 based on the WM All Funds' independent assessment of our performance. This reduction is a consequence of rebalancing the portfolio by reducing property and gilts and increasing equities. Total return—that is, income plus capital growth—was 19.5 per cent. compared to the WM All Funds' benchmark of 19.1 per cent.

  Expenditure was £143 million. The two main items of expenditure were £77 million for clergy pensions, which are currently paid in full by the commissioners, and £42 million for clergy stipends.

TRANSPORT

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the report on the damage suffered by the Sea Empress to be made available to the marine accident investigation branch; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [28903]

  Mr. Norris
  The marine accident investigation branch will be conducting its own assessment of the damage to the Sea Empress. The vessel has only just become available for inspection following the cleaning operation in dry dock in Belfast and MAIB's findings will form part of its report into the accident and salvage operation. The MAIB report will be published and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions apply to people suffering from insulin dependent diabetes in respect of holding HGV licences; and if he will make a statement. [28596]

  Mr. Norris
  People with diabetes subject to insulin treatment are prohibited from holding a large goods vehicle driver's licence, with the exception of certain drivers who already held such a licence on 1 April 1991.
  339

  Foamix
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the application of R. J. Maxwell Ltd. for accreditation of its product Foamix to be formally approved by the Highways Authorities and Utilities Committee. [28953]

  Mr. Watts
  This matter is due to be discussed at the next meeting of the full committee on 16 May. I shall write to my hon. Friend advising him of the outcome.

WALES

  Milford Haven
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received a request from the Countryside Council for Wales to issue a holding direction on the application by Milford Haven port authority to construct a jetty to import orimulsion and limestone for Pembroke power station; and if he will make a statement. [29196]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The request was received on 15 April and is being considered, along with requests that the application be called in.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the European regional development fund projects approved under the Rural Wales 5b programme in 1995–96, indicating in each case their total eligible costs, the grant originally allocated to each project, the date each sponsor was informed of the actual grant available and how much grant was spent by 31 March. [28950]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the objective 5(b) rural Wales single programming document 1994–1999, 250 projects had been approved to receive European regional development fund grant assistance by 31 March 1996. The lists of selected projects and estimated individual grant amounts were published in Welsh Office press notices dated 24 August 1995, 5 February 1996 and 18 March 1996 and copies are available in the Library of the House. ERDF grant totalling around £36.7 million had been committed on projects with estimated eligible costs of £131.6 million, of which £5.8 million grant has been paid on expenditure up to 31 January 1996. The dates on which approval letters were issued will vary in each individual case.

  European Funding
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the European regional development fund projects approved under the Leader II programme in 1995–96, indicating in each case their total eligible costs, the grant originally allocated to each project, the date each sponsor was informed of the actual grant available and how much grant was spent by 31 March; [28948]

  (2) if he will list the total grant aid available for European regional development fund projects under Leader II and Rural Wales 5b programmes and European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund projects under Leader II and Rural Wales 5b programmes in 1995–96 from the Welsh Development Agency; if he will indicate
  340
  the budget for these programmes from the Welsh Development Agency in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement; [28952]

  (3) if he will list the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund projects approved under the Leader II programme in 1995–96, indicating in each case their total eligible costs, the grant originally allocated to each project, the date each sponsor was informed of the actual grant available and how much grant was spent by 31 March. [28951]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund projects approved under the rural Wales programme in 1995–96, indicating in each case their total eligible costs, the grant originally allocated to each project, the date each sponsor was informed of the actual grant available and how much grant was spent by 31 March. [28947]

  Mr. Jones
  Under the objective 5(b) rural Wales single programming document 1994–1999, 52 projects had been approved to receive European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund grant assistance by March 1996. The lists of selected projects and estimated individual grant amounts were published in Welsh Office press notices dated 24 August 1995 and 5 February 1996 and copies are available in the Library of the House. EAGGF grant totalling around £6.09 million had been committed on projects with estimated eligible costs of £14.4 million, of which £1.07 million grant has been paid on expenditure up to 31 January 1996. The dates on which approval letters were issued will vary in each individual case.

  Weather Data
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will place a copy of the weather data from the Countryside Council for Wales meteorological station at Deer park, Marloes, Pembrokeshire, for February in the Library; [29171]

  (2) if he will place a copy of the weather data from the Countryside Council of Wales wave rider buoy in St. Bride's bay, for February in the Library. [29172]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Rural Wales Projects
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total grant in aid available from the Welsh Development Agency to projects in rural Wales in 1995–96 and the budget allocated for similar projects in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [28949]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Development Agency's programmes support economic development throughout the whole of the agency's area; with the exception of the specific rural development programme expenditure in rural and non-rural areas is not identified separately. The agency's specific rural development programme budget for 1995–96 was £6.8 million with a forecast outturn of £6.0 million; the budget for 1996–97 is £2.5 million but, in addition, there is significant
  341
  expenditure in rural areas through the main property and environmental capital programmes and support for the encouragement of businesses.

  Rate Relief Scheme
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for a new rate relief scheme targeted on general stores and post offices in villages, as announced in the White Paper, "A Working Countryside for Wales". [29511]

  Mr. Hague
  The consultation paper I have published today sets out the proposals I promised in the White Paper "A Working Countryside for Wales" to help sustain village shops and post offices.

  These proposals will provide significant help to the small general stores and post offices which are a feature of village life and which provide an invaluable service to local people. Many small general stores and post offices will in future be entitled to at least 50 per cent. relief on their business rates. Local authorities will have discretion to top this up to 100 per cent. Local authorities will also have wide discretion to reduce the rates bills of other rural businesses, thereby helping to safeguard rural communities and preserve the fabric of village life.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  EU Documents
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council at which public libraries explanatory memorandums relating to documents considered by the Council of the European Community are regularly deposited; and by what other means members of the public are currently advised of the publication of such memorandums. [27118]

  Mr. Newton
  Explanatory memorandums are regularly deposited with four depository libraries in the United Kingdom. These are the lending and reference divisions of the British Library in Wetherby and London, the City of Westminster central reference library, and the Liverpool and District scientific, industrial and research library. Explanatory memorandums can also be obtained direct from Government Departments. Members of the public may obtain advice and information about European Union matters, including where to obtain copies of explanatory memorandums, through the national network of public information relays established throughout the United Kingdom by the European Commission. This includes European information centres, European documentation centres, European reference centres, public library authorities as well as a number of national organisations including the Local Government Information Bureau, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and citizens' advice bureaux.

  Drugs Strategy
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in implementing the Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy; and if he will make a statement. [28989]
  342
  Mr. Newton
  The Government's drugs strategy for England for the period 1995–98, "Tackling Drugs Together", was published on 10 May 1995. While fully maintaining the emphasis on law enforcement and reducing supply, the strategy recognises the need for stronger action on reducing the demand for illegal drugs. Separate action is under way in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, consistent with the strategy for England, but tailored to the particular circumstances in those countries.

  Some 49 tasks were set for Government Departments and statutory agencies in implementing the strategy during 1995–96. All have been undertaken and, where appropriate, completed. In particular:

  all police forces are publishing drugs strategies which combine law enforcement, demand reduction and partnership measures;

  research into the nature and incidence of drug-related crime is underway;

  HM Customs and Excise has reviewed its anti-drugs effort, and resources allocated to its investigation and intelligence work has been increased;

  the National Criminal Intelligence Service has reviewed its operations and is working more closely with the police and Customs;

  co-operation between the police and Customs has been enhanced, with performance indicators set for 1996–97 covering the full range of drugs law enforcement—and, for the first time, a joint press conference announced collective results in 1995;

  each probation service is developing a drugs strategy in line with guidance from the Home Office and Association of Chief Officers of Probation;

  all prison establishments have developed local drugs strategies—focusing on supply control, demand reduction and treatment—in line with the national strategy, using trained multi-disciplinary teams of staff;

  mandatory drug testing has been successfully implemented in all prison establishments;

  a first phase of drug treatment pilot schemes, involving 22 prisons, has been introduced;

  practical guidelines for local criminal justice drug prevention programmes have been issued for consultation—six collaborative projects are putting the guidelines into practice;

  funding of £5.9 million has delivered 16 innovative drug education projects and enhanced teacher training;

  guidance on managing drug-related incidents and drug education has been sent to all schools, with local policies being developed accordingly;

  information about drug education teaching materials and resources has been made available to schools;

  the Office for Standards in Education is monitoring the response by schools and others, including specific studies of drugs education and the contribution of the youth service to drugs prevention;

  consultations with further and higher education bodies have been undertaken to encourage effective prevention, counselling and support services;

  a three year national publicity campaign targeted at young people and parents run by the Health Education Authority, costing £5 million a year, has been launched;

  an increasing number of private companies have become involved in working nationally and locally on drugs prevention;

  £1.1 million has been used on 40 projects for early intervention services for young people at risk of drug misuse;

  a review of substance misuse services for young people has been published by the Health Advisory Service;

  343

  the consultation phase on improving the health and safety of young people at clubs and other venues is nearing completion;

  a four-year work programme has been agreed for the drugs prevention initiative;

  the 24-hour free national drugs helpline service has answered 192,755 calls in its first year;

  a national drugs information strategy is being developed, in consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and other bodies;

  the effectiveness review on effective and appropriate treatments reported to Ministers and has now been published, with work in hand to provide guidance to purchasers in the light of the review and other recent findings;

  shared care arrangements for drug misusers between primary and secondary health care providers have been reviewed by all health authorities;

  contacts have been made with medical and nursing professional and statutory bodies to improve staff training and education.

  At regional and local level, the main action has been the establishment of 105 drug action teams across England, and their local community networks—drug reference groups. All teams were established by 30 September 1995, and I agreed all their action plans for 1996–97 and 1997–98 by the beginning of April. Every team comprises senior professionals from the relevant health and local authorities, and police, probation, and (where appropriate) prison services. Some teams also include voluntary sector, business and Customs representatives. All are seeking to encourage these and other groups to engage in practical work to tackle drug misuse on the ground. A digest of examples, drawn from the first action plans, has been published to help on this.

  To assist in assessing the effectiveness of the strategy as it develops, baseline information on the key performance indicators set out in "Tackling Drugs Together" is now being collected. The significance of these indicators—and others locally—will be their trends over time. The immense commitment to tackling drug misuse which has been shown across the country—especially among drug action teams—is already very encouraging. The Government will continue to support this work as a high priority, both through the central drugs co-ordination unit and in other ways.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are currently enrolled at each primary school in the constituency of Newry and Armagh; and how many were in each primary school in the constituency five years ago. [28079]

  Mr. Ancram
  The current enrolment and that for five years ago for each primary school in the constituency of Newry and Armagh is in the table.

  Primary School

  Enrolment 1991–92

  Enrolment 1995–96

  Aghavilly primary school, Milford, Armagh

  90

  80

  Ahorey primary school, Portadown

  21

  1—

  Anamar primary school, Crossmaglen, Newry

  76

  74

  344

  primary school

  Enrolment 1991–92

  Enrolment 1995–96

  Annaghmore primary school, Portadown

  79

  98

  Armagh Christian Bros, primary, Keady Road, Armagh

  463

  458

  Armstrong primary school, Armagh

  400

  384

  Bessbrook primary school, Bessbrook, Newry

  118

  125

  Cabra primary school, Tandragee

  30

  1—

  Carrickrovaddy primary school, Cullyhanna, Newry

  34

  36

  Clady (St. Michael's) primary school, Mowhan, Armagh

  38

  45

  Clare primary school, Tandragee

  69

  84

  Clay primary school, Keady

  70

  51

  Clonalig primary school, Crossmaglen

  181

  159

  Cloughoge primary school, Newry

  379

  400

  Collone primary school, Collone, Armagh

  127

  112

  Corttamlet primary school, Altnamachin, Newry

  39

  39

  Darkley primary school, Darkley, Armagh

  110

  155

  Derryhale primary school, Portadown

  80

  62

  Drelincourt infants primary, Armagh

  43

  32

  Dromintee primary school, Killeavy, Newry

  133

  138

  Drumhillery primary school, Middletown, Armagh

  68

  54

  Drumsallen primary school, Killylea, Armagh

  47

  64

  Foley primary school, Tassagh, Armagh

  102

  102

  Glassdrummond primary school, Middletown, Armagh

  88

  76

  Hamiltonsbawn primary school, Hamiltonsbawn, Armagh

  112

  123

  Hardy Memorial primary school, Richhill, Armagh

  492

  506

  Jonesborough primary school, Jonesborough, Newry

  142

  132

  Keady primary school, Keady, Armagh

  44

  44

  Killeen primary school, Keady

  111

  123

  Killylea primary school, Armagh

  85

  64

  Kingsmills primary school, Whitecross, Armagh

  27

  40

  Kinnego primary school, Dungannon

  23

  1—

  Lisdrumchor primary school, Glenanne, Armagh

  27

  1—

  Lisnadill primary school, Armagh

  71

  96

  Lissummon, Newry

  2—

  36

  Loughgall primary school, Kilmore, Loughgall

  45

  24

  Markethill primary school, Markethill, Armagh

  235

  248

  Middletown Boys' primary school, Middletown, Armagh

  52

  52

  Mount St. Catherine's Con primary school, Armagh

  467

  410

  Mountnorris primary school, Mountnorris, Armagh

  76

  91

  Mullaghglass primary school, Newry

  69

  71

  Mullavilly primary school, Tandragee

  68

  90

  Newry Model primary school

  35

  1—

  Newtownhamilton (St. Michael's) primary school, Newtownhamilton

  97

  99

  Newtownhamilton primary school, Newtownhamilton

  119

  98

  345

  Primary School

  Enrolment 1991–92

  Enrolment 1995–96

  Our Lady's primary school, Keady

  43

  36

  Poyntzpass primary school, Poyntzpass

  69

  69

  Saints and Scholars Integrated primary school, Palace Grounds, Armagh

  2—

  117

  St. Brigid's primary school, Crossmaglen, Newry

  139

  145

  St. Bridgid's primary school, Belleeks, Newry

  85

  77

  St. Clare's Convent primary school, Keady, Armagh

  248

  184

  St. Clare's Convent primary school, Newry

  654

  491

  St. Colman's Abbey primary school, Newry

  721

  515

  St. Colman's-Saval primary school, Newry

  2—

  118

  St. Colmcille's primary school, Armagh

  29

  44

  St. James' primary school, Drumatee, Markethill

  48

  65

  St. James' primary school, Tandragee

  68

  55

  St. Jarlath's primary school, Blackwaterstown, Dungannon

  157

  140

  St. Joseph's Convent primary, Newry

  453

  462

  St. Joseph's primary, Armagh

  133

  145

  St. Joseph's primary school, Poyntzpass

  91

  83

  St. Joseph's primary school, Killeavy

  175

  182

  St. Joseph's primary school, Bessbrook

  406

  402

  St. Lawrence's primary school, Belleeks, Newry

  54

  41

  St. Louis' Convent primary school, Middletown, Armagh

  51

  47

  St. Malachy's primary school, Whitecross, Armagh

  76

  63

  St. Malachy's primary school, Armagh

  210

  211

  St. Malachy's primary school, Camlough, Newry

  283

  259

  St. Malachy's primary school, Carnagat, Newry

  454

  450

  St. Mary's Boys' primary school, Keady, Armagh

  233

  152

  St. Mary's primary school, Tassagh, Armagh

  69

  98

  St. Mary's primary school, Jerrettspass, Newry

  53

  69

  St. Mary's primary school, Mullaghbawn, Newry

  226

  211

  St. Mochua's primary school, Keady

  104

  115

  St. Oliver Plunkett primary school, Forkhill, Newry

  92

  122

  St. Oliver Plunkett primary school, Kilmore, Armagh

  111

  100

  St. Patrick's Boys' primary school, Rooneys Meadow, Newry

  382

  311

  St. Patrick's primary school, Crossmaglen, Newry

  323

  282

  St. Patrick's primary school, Armagh

  533

  552

  St. Patrick's primary school, Cullyhanna, Newry

  282

  226

  St. Peter's primary school, Cloughreagh, Bessbrook

  274

  290

  St. Ronant's primary school, Newry

  2—

  265

  Tandragee primary school, Tandragee

  321

  314

  346

  Primary School

  Enrolment 1991–92

  Enrolment 1995–96

  The Cope primary school, Loughgall, Armagh

  113

  134

  Tullyheron primary school, Mountnorris

  48

  50

  Tullymore primary school, Killyleagh, Armagh

  56

  62

  Tullyroan primary school, Dungannon

  40

  47

  Tullysaran primary school, Armagh

  77

  81

  Windsor Hill primary school, Newry

  216

  237

  1 Closed or amalgamated.

  2 Not open in 1991–92.

  Ulster University
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new students were enrolled in Ulster university in the present academic year; how many of these students came from the Republic of Ireland; if the enrolment of new students was within the agreed numerical limit; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of this year's enrolment rates for enrolment of new students in the next academic year. [28048]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of new full-time under-graduate students enrolled at the university of Ulster in the present academic year was 4,801 of whom 854 were domiciled in the Republic of Ireland.

  The limit—maximum aggregate student number MASN—which the university is required to observe is on its total enrolment of award-holding students. There is no specific control on the enrolment of new students. In 1995–96, the MASN was exceeded by 558 students. For the university to remain within its MASN in the next academic year, it will have to make an adjustment to its intakes commensurate with last year's excess.

  Carryduff Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment in each of the past five years at Carryduff primary school; what is the expected enrolment at the school in each of the next five years; what proposals there are to provide additional accommodation and teaching staff at the school; how many places in primary one will be available in the next academic year; how many applicants there are for places in primary one at the school for the next academic year; and if he will make a statement. [28080]

  Mr. Ancram
  The enrolment in each of the past five years are in the table.

  Year

  Number of pupils enrolled

  1991–92

  293 (at January 1991)

  1992–93

  280 (at October 1992)

  1993–94

  279 (at October 1993)

  1994–95

  281 (at October 1994)

  1995–96

  293 (at October 1995)

  It is not possible to project accurately an enrolment figure for each of the next five years. The Department has approved an enrolment number of 333 for the 1996–97 school year.
  347
  Accommodation issues at the school are a matter for the South-Eastern education and library board and there are no proposals to provide additional accommodation. The provision of additional teaching staff is a matter for the board of governors of the school.

  My Department has approved a temporary variation to the school's admissions number to 55 for the 1996–97 school year. The school has received 55 applications.

  Civil Evidence Act 1995
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 will be brought into effect in Northern Ireland. [28437]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) on 20 March 1996,Official Report, column 199.

  European Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to fly the European Union flag in Northern Ireland on European day; and if he will make a statement. [28458]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government have no formal plans to fly the European flag in Northern Ireland on 8 May.

SCOTLAND

  Sludge, Garrock Head
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what results have been obtained by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen from its survey of sludge dumped at Garrock Head; what evidence of the effect of polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT or Dieldrin in the food chain has been evaluated; what action he has taken or will take to deal with the problems arising; and if he will make a statement. [28100]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department's marine laboratory in Aberdeen regularly monitors contaminant levels at Garroch Head. All results of this monitoring programme are published or are available for public inspection. Fish analyses show that detected levels of contamination are well below internationally agreed limits. The marine laboratory's monitoring programme will continue up to and beyond 1998, when sewage sludge dumping in UK waters will cease.

  Ayrshire Child Abuse Case
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the judgment of Sheriff Miller made at Ayr sheriff court on 25 April on the reduction requested by the Scottish Legal Aid Board in the fees charged by lawyers in the Ayrshire child abuse case, insofar as it relates to public money involved. [28296]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proceedings on 25 April were held in private and details of the decision by Sheriff Miller were made available only to the parties 348
  to the action. I understand that the chief executive of SLAB will make the decision available to the hon. Member very shortly.

  Physiotherapy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people qualified as physiotherapists in each year since 1990; [28206]

  (2) which regions no longer provide funding for clinical education placements for physiotherapists. [28207]

  (3) how many placements were available for physiotherapy students for each year since 1990. [28208]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many physiotherapists there were in(a) general practices and (b) hospitals, in each health board area, in each of the last two years. [28210]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available centrally is shown in the tables.

  Qualified physiotherapists employed by NHS Trusts in Scotland: by health board area: as at 30 September

  1994

  11995

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent

  Total

  1,774

  1,427.2

  1,865

  1,508.9

  Argyll and Clyde

  118

  89.8

  127

  100.1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  138

  104.3

  143

  112.7

  Borders

  44

  33.7

  42

  32.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  38

  30.7

  40

  30.9

  Fife

  121

  100.5

  119

  98.2

  Forth Valley

  84

  69.2

  88

  75.8

  Grampian

  170

  123.5

  183

  137.1

  Greater Glasgow

  374

  316.5

  378

  318.6

  Highland

  69

  58.7

  72

  58.4

  Lanarkshire

  144

  117.1

  162

  131.4

  Lothian

  309

  253.1

  333

  273.0

  Orkney

  8

  5.7

  8

  5.6

  Shetland

  8

  8.0

  9

  7.9

  Tayside

  135

  105.8

  147

  116.1

  Western Isles

  14

  10.6

  14

  10.6

  1 Provisional.

  Physiotherapists employed in general medical practices in Scotland; by health board; as at 1 April

  1994

  1995

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent

  Scotland1,2,3

  2

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Clyde

  1

  0.1

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  349

  Physiotherapists employed in general medical practices in Scotland; by health board; as at 1 April

  1994

  1995

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent

  Headcount

  Wholetime equivalent

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  1

  0.0

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 1994 data exclude staff in fundholding practices in Fife Health Board.

  2 Data for Grampian Health Board are as at the dates shown, with the exception of those staff in 'live' fundholding practices for whom expenditure was met from the Practice Staff Scheme, for whom data are as at the date on which the practice became 'live'.

  3 As Lothian Health board was unable to supply data as at 1 April1995, data as at 1 October 1994 have been substituted.

  — = nil.

  0.0 = negligible.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the current number of physiotherapy vacancies. [28209]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Up-to-date information as requested is not yet available centrally. Information on vacancy levels at 31 March 1996 is being sought from NHS trusts in Scotland.

  Local Authority Boundaries
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the local authorities which cover all or part of each of the parliamentary constituencies which will come into existence at the end of the present Parliament. [28711]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  New Parliamentary constituency

  Unitary authority(s)

  Aberdeen Central

  Aberdeen City

  Aberdeen North

  Aberdeen City

  Aberdeen South

  Aberdeen City

  Airdrie and Shotts

  North Lanarkshire

  Angus

  Angus/Dundee City/Perth and Kinross

  Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and Bute

  Ayr

  South Ayrshire

  Banff and Buchan

  Aberdeenshire

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  Highland

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  East Ayrshire/South Ayrshire

  Central Fife

  Fife

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  East Dunbartonshire/West Dunbartonshire

  Clydesdale

  South Lanarkshire

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  East Dunbartonshire/North Lanarkshire

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  North Lanarkshire

  Cunninghame North

  North Ayrshire

  Cunninghame South

  North Ayrshire

  Dumbarton

  Argyll and Bute/West Dunbartonshire

  350

  New Parliamentary constituency

  Unitary authority(s)

  Dumfries

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dundee East

  Dundee City

  Dundee West

  Dundee City

  Dunfermline East

  Fife

  Dunfermline West

  Fife

  East Kilbride

  South Lanarkshire

  East Lothian

  East Lothian

  Eastwood

  East Renfrewshire

  Edinburgh Central

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  City of Edinburgh/East Lothian

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh South

  City of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh West

  City of Edinburgh

  Falkirk East

  Falkirk

  Falkirk West

  Falkirk

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Galloway Anniesland

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Baillieston

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Cathcart

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Govan

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Kelvin

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Maryhill

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Pollok

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  City of Glasgow/South Lanarkshire

  Glasgow Shettleston

  City of Glasgow

  Glasgow Springburn

  City of Glasgow

  Gordon

  Aberdeenshire/Moray

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  Inverclyde

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  North Lanarkshire/South Lanarkshire

  Hamilton South

  South Lanarkshire

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  Highland

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  East Ayrshire

  Kirkcaldy

  Fife

  Linlithgow

  West Lothian

  Livingston

  West Lothian

  Midlothian

  Midlothian

  Moray

  Moray

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  North Lanarkshire

  North East Fife

  Fife

  North Tayside

  Angus/Perth and Kinross

  Ochil

  Clackmannanshire/Perth and Kinross/Stirling

  Orkney and Shetland

  Orkney Islands/Shetland Islands

  Paisley North

  Renfrewshire

  Paisley South

  Renfrewshire

  Perth

  Perth and Kinross

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  Highland

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  The Scottish Borders

  Stirling

  Stirling

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  East Dunbartonshire

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Midlothian/The Scottish Borders

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  Aberdeenshire

  Western Isles

  Western Isles

  West Renfrewshire

  Inverclyde/Renfrewshire

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of speech and language therapists at each grade for spine points 23 to 27 in each of the past five years. [28444]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  351

  Strathclyde Police
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 376, relating to Strathclyde police (1) if he will list those individuals in the criminal justice system involved in the investigation outwith Strathclyde police; [29012]

  (2) how many witnesses in relation to the allegations have been interviewed by Strathclyde police; and how many (a) cautions and (b) charges resulted; [29014]

  (3) what instructions have been issued by Crown counsel regarding the conduct of the inquiry; [29011]

  (4) on what date the decision was made by Strathclyde police and the regional prosecutor that the inquiry would be internal. [29013]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has confirmed that it would be wholly inappropriate to give details of those individuals involved in this investigation or of the instructions given by Crown counsel. As I stated in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 29 April, column 376, it would also be inappropriate to disclose details of the investigation. The Lord Advocate has confirmed, however, that no charges have been brought against any person. The regional procurator fiscal decided on 2 June 1995 that an investigation should be conducted by Strathclyde police. Crown counsel was aware of this decision, which has been kept under review.

  Commercial Premises Valuation Appeals
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was in each(a) former regional and island council and (b) unitary council area in Scotland the total number of appeals lodged against valuation of commercial premises, the number and percentage of appeals which so far have been dealt with, the number and percentage of appeals which so far have been (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful, and the average amount of time taken to deal with a valuation appeal for each council area. [28630]

  Progress of appeals between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996

  Valuation area/Valuation joint

  Cases disposed of prior to VAC1 hearing

  Cases heard and disposed of by the VAC1>

  Cases dismissed by the VAC1 for non- attendance

  Cases referred to and accepted by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland

  board area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Scotland

  9,236

  8.6

  96

  0.1

  229

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Ayrshire

  145

  1.9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Central Scotland

  1,718

  29.4

  1

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  438

  14.3

  1

  0.0

  16

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  Dumbartonshire and Argyll and Bute

  1,160

  19.9

  0

  0.0

  60

  1.0

  0

  0.0

  Fife

  769

  11.8

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Glasgow

  1,795

  9.4

  4

  0.0

  118

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  Grampian

  1,140

  10.5

  3

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  352
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: From 31 March 1996, detailed quarterly information on the progress of appeals against valuation is being collected from assessors for each valuation area, or valuation joint board area. The available information, on the progress of appeals up to 31 March 1996, is given in table 1. This shows numbers and progress of appeals in relation to the 1995 revaluation, and also of inter-revaluation appeals.

  Information is also being collected from assessors on the number and progress of appeals in relation to the 1995 revaluation for properties in each unitary council area. The available information, on the progress of appeals up to 31 March 1996, is given in table 2.

  Detailed information is not collected on the time taken to process each appeal. Overall, almost 9 per cent. of appeals and complaints lodged with assessors against the 1995 revaluation were dealt with by 31 March 1996, which is within 15 weeks of 15 December 1995, the date by which such appeals had to be lodged. All appeals arising from the 1996 revaluation have to be dealt with by 31 March 1998 under the terms of the Valuation Timetable (Scotland) Order 1995.

  Table 1: Number of appeals lodged and progress of appeals by valuation area/valuation joint board area

  Number of appeals lodged between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996

  Valuation area/ Valuation joint board area

  Appeals against1995 revaluation Number

  Running roll appeals1 Number

  Total all appeals Number

  Scotland

  103,172

  3,896

  107,068

  Ayrshire

  7,225

  283

  7,508

  Central Scotland

  5,504

  342

  5,846

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,025

  46

  3,071

  Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute

  5,666

  163

  5,829

  Fife

  6,249

  257

  6,506

  Glasgow

  18,528

  631

  19,159

  Grampian

  10,293

  530

  10,823

  Highland and Western Isles

  6,178

  203

  6,381

  Lanarkshire

  10,283

  308

  10,591

  Lothian

  13,324

  521

  13,845

  Orkney and Shetland

  468

  55

  523

  Renfrewshire

  6,505

  268

  6,773

  Scottish Borders

  1,944

  50

  1,994

  Tayside

  7,980

  239

  8,219

  1Inter-revaluation appeals.

  353

  Progress of appeals between I April 1995 and 31 March 1996

  Valuation area/Valuation joint

  Cases disposed of prior to VAC1 hearing

  Cases heard and disposed of by the VAC1

  Cases dismissed by the VAC for non- attendance

  Cases referred to and accepted by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland

  board area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Highland and Western Isles

  60

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lanarkshire

  314

  3.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lothian

  778

  5.6

  86

  0.6

  35

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  Orkney and Shetland

  240

  45.9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Renrewshire

  59

  0.9

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Scottish Borders

  532

  26.7

  1

  0.1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tayside

  88

  1.1

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  1 VAC: Valuation Appeals Committee.

  Table 2: Number of appeals against the 1995 revaluation of non-domestic rates

  Appeals against 1995 revaluation1

  Appeals disposed of up to 31 March 1996

  Valuation board area

  Council

  Number of appeals

  Number of properties2

  Number of properties

  Percentage of properties

  Scotland

  103,172

  94,327

  8,639

  9.2

  Ayrshire

  East Ayrshire

  2,215

  2,038

  30

  1.5

  North Ayrshire

  2,382

  2,291

  30

  1.3

  South Ayrshire

  2,628

  2,425

  48

  2.0

  Central Scotland

  Clackmannanshire

  634

  621

  165

  26.6

  Falkirk

  2,711

  2,553

  894

  35.0

  Stirling

  2,159

  2,021

  484

  23.9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,025

  2,923

  434

  14.8

  Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and Bute

  3,028

  2,855

  583

  20.4

  East Dunbartonshire

  1,195

  1,107

  258

  23.3

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,443

  1,357

  263

  19.4

  Fife

  Fife

  6,249

  5,870

  742

  12.6

  Glasgow

  Glasgow, City of

  18,528

  16,013

  1,584

  9.9

  Grampian

  Aberdeen City

  5,500

  4,926

  722

  14.7

  Aberdeenshire

  3,304

  3,143

  161

  5.1

  Moray

  1,489

  1,439

  142

  9.9

  Highland and Western Isles

  Highland

  5,860

  5,489

  55

  1.0

  Western Isles

  318

  311

  2

  0.6

  Lanarkshire

  North Lanarkshire

  4,995

  4,455

  171

  3.8

  South Lanarkshire

  5,288

  4,628

  89

  1.9

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  1,005

  967

  5

  0.5

  Edinburgh, City of

  9,150

  8,517

  762

  8.9

  Midlothian

  777

  743

  9

  1.2

  West Lothian

  2,392

  2,139

  120

  5.6

  Orkney and Shetland

  Orkney

  294

  286

  111

  38.8

  Shetland

  174

  167

  118

  70.7

  Renfrewshire

  East Renfrewshire

  1,071

  985

  3

  0.3

  Inverclyde

  1,713

  1,479

  14

  0.9

  Renfrewshire

  3,721

  3,285

  38

  1.2

  Scottish Borders

  Scottish Borders

  1,944

  1,893

  516

  27.3

  Tayside

  Angus

  1,597

  1,547

  23

  1.5

  Dundee City

  3,918

  3,520

  16

  0.5

  Perth and Kinross

  2,465

  2,334

  47

  2.0

  1 Appeals and complaints lodged with Assessors departments in relation to the 1995 revaluation.

  2 The number of properties against which there are appeals. This is less than the number of appeals because there are, in some cases more than one appeal in relation to a property.

  354 355

DEFENCE

  Louise Jensen (Killing)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will pay the defence costs of the appeals by the three British military personnel against sentence and conviction for the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [28598]

  Mr. Soames
  The Army legal aid scheme will continue to pay the legal expenses of the three British service men convicted of the manslaughter of Miss Louise Jensen until all legal processes have been exhausted.

  Refit Contracts
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those refit contracts that have been undertaken at(a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport as part of their core allocated programmes since 1994; and what has been the average cost per man hour to public funds for each contract. [29057]

  Mr. Arbuthhnot
  The following core refits have been completed since 1 April 1994:at Rosyth: HM ships Berkeley, Leeds Castle, Gloucester, Ledbury, Orkney, York, Shetland, Edinburgh, Dumbarton Castle and Cattistock; and
  at Devonport: HM ships Illustrious, Battleaxe, London, Bulldog, Trafalgar and Herald.

  Information relating to labour costs is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list for(a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport dockyards, the refit contracts that have been provisionally allocated as part of their core allocated programmes and the projected starting date for each contract; [28058]

  (2) if he will list those Royal Navy ships and submarines that will require refits before the year 2002 and be the subject of competitive tendering; and what is the estimated time period and cost of each contract. [28059]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The refit programme continues to be governed by the principles announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 24 June 1993,Official Report, columns 447–50 in an oral statement. It is not our practice to release information relating to the future movements of vessels, including their refit start dates. Individual refits will continue to be announced either at the time their allocation is confirmed, for those in the core programme, or at the outset of competition for those in the unallocated programme.

  United States Air Force
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will release the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Administration under which facilities in the United Kingdom are made available to the United States air force; and if he will make a statement. [29072]
  356
  Mr. Soames
  Facilities are made available for use by United States forces in accordance with the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951 and confidential arrangements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America. It is not our practice to disclose the details of such arrangements.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal process was involved in designating RAF Menwith Hill; on what date this change of name took effect; how many RAF personnel are stationed at RAF Menwith Hill; what is the role and function at the base of the senior RAF officer; who is the base commander; who is accountable to the senior RAF officer; to whom he is accountable; and if he will make a statement. [29073]

  Mr. Soames
  Menwith Hill is a Crown freehold site belonging to the Ministry of Defence. The designation RAF Menwith Hill came into effect on 19 February 1996. This was simply an administrative change to bring the base into line with other RAF sites made available by the Ministry of Defence to the United States Government.

  The senior RAF representative at the base is the RAF commander whose role is to provide advice to the base commander, who is the senior US officer on the site, on a range of UK policy and protocol matters. He is also responsible for liaising with the local community.

  The RAF commander has the status, disciplinary powers and responsibilities of a commanding officer in respect of all RAF personnel and in respect of civilians—except the Ministry of Defence police—employed by the MOD at the site. However, it is not our policy to give details of personnel assignment. As a serving RAF officer, the RAF commander is responsible to the higher command of the Royal Air Force, which in this instance is exercised through the air officer commanding directly administered units at HQ strike command, High Wycombe.

  Territorial Army
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if members of the Territorial Army called up for service in Bosnia were required to send home their civilian clothes and travelling bags from Bosnia at the start of their service. [27653]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: No policy instructions have been issued from the UK or in theatre which require personnel to send home their civilian clothing. I understand, however, that a few members of the Territorial Army have arrived in theatre with inappropriate civilian clothing. Storage space for personal effects is limited in Bosnia and in such circumstances the individual may well have been instructed to return unnecessary clothing to the UK. The guidance on civilian clothing given to the reservists about to deploy to Bosnia has been made more specific, so that the problem should not recur.
  357

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel-Lebanon Peace Settlement
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to use their good offices to raise the issue of reparation payments for damage to property and infrastructure inflicted during the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict as part of a peace settlement. [28562]

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of a peace settlement between Israel and Lebanon would be a matter for the two countries concerned. We are concerned by the scale of damage in Lebanon and are discussing Lebanese requests for reconstruction assistance with our EU partners.

  Armed Conflict
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends to put forward at the Council of Foreign Ministers on 13 May to make the European Union more effective in preventing armed conflict(a) between and (b) within states. [28451]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall not be putting forward any proposals about the EU's role in conflict prevention at the 13 May Foreign Affairs Council. The EU's role in conflict prevention in Africa was considered at the 25 March Foreign Affairs Council. Officials are currently examining detailed proposals. The UK plays a leading role in conflict prevention—through national action, through the EU's common foreign and security policy, and through other international organisations, in particular the UN.

  Mr. Lashkar Singh Dhami
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have been made with the Indian high commission in London, and the authorities in India, to establish the facts of the disappearance of Mr. Lashkar Singh Dhami since his arrival in Bombay on 7 May 1992, on British Airways flight No. 139. [28719]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our high commission in New Delhi and our deputy high commission in Bombay have made extensive inquiries of the Indian authorities in an attempt to trace Mr. Dhami. The latest contact was with the missing persons bureau of the Bombay criminal investigation department in January 1996. It is extremely disappointing that, as yet, there has been no trace of Mr. Dhami.

  Our posts will continue to press the Indian authorities for the news of Mr. Dhami. However, they have no investigative role in cases of this nature. The proper channel is through Interpol. There has been no contact with the Indian high commission in London.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the whereabouts of Mr. Lashkar Singh Dhami, who arrived in Bombay, India, on 7 May 1992, on British Airways flight No. 139. [28720]
  358
  Mr. Hanley
  Despite extensive inquiries by our high commission in New Delhi and our deputy high commission in Bombay, there has been no trace of Mr. Dhami since his arrival in Bombay on 7 May 1992.

  War Crimes Tribunal (The Hague)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the United Kingdom's contribution to the work of the war crimes tribunal in The Hague; and if he will make a statement. [28856]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have consistently demonstrated our support for the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  To date, we have donated £950,000 in assessed contributions to the tribunal. We have also given almost £500,000 in voluntary contributions to help fund the secondment of staff and to provide equipment.

  European Court
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will table proposals at the intergovernmental conference to limit the power of the European Court of Justice. [28916]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), on 3 April,Official Report, column 382.

  North Atlantic Common Market
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet tabled proposals in(a) Brussels and (b) Washington to develop a common market of the north Atlantic. [28914]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have been at the forefront of European states pressing for the further liberalisation of trade with north America—in both Brussels and Washington. One of the priority elements of the EU/US action plan, which closely reflects the UK's ideas, is a joint study which will look at ways of reducing transatlantic barriers to trade and investment.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it remains his policy to create a north Atlantic free trade area. [28931]

  Mr. David Davis
  As was made clear in the Queen's Speech of 15 November 1995, this Government"will continue to pursue the objective of transatlantic free trade in the context of world trade liberalisation".

  Lebanon
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the findings of the United Nations report on the shelling of the UN base at Qana. [28704]
  359
  Mr. Hanley
  We welcome the publication of the UN's thorough report into the Qana bombing and the fact that it has been discussed in the Security Council. We have expressed in the Security Council and elsewhere our concern at the report's findings. We look to the Israelis to respond fully to it.

  Taiwan (Environmental Damage)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received concerning environmental degradation and pollution in Taiwan; and if he will make a statement. [28642]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. The environmental problems of Taiwan are primarily the responsibility of the authorities in Taiwan. Taiwan gross national product per capita in 1994 was US$ 11,604, which suggests Taiwan has the financial resources necessary to deal with its problems. Total reserves excluding gold at February 1996 stand at US$ 90.1 billion. British companies stand ready to supply the relevant expertise and equipment on a commercial basis.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the United Kingdom to help Taiwan tackle its environmental problems; and if he will make a statement. [28645]

  Mr. Hanley
  The environmental problems of Taiwan are primarily the responsibility of the authorities in Taiwan. Taiwan gross national product per capita in 1994 was US$ 11,604, which suggests Taiwan has the financial resources necessary to deal with its problems. Total reserves excluding gold at February 1996 stand at US$90.1 billion. British companies stand ready to supply the relevant expertise and equipment on a commercial basis.

  British Council Budget
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to help the British Council to cover the costs involved in restructuring following reductions in its budget. [28722]

  Mr. Hanley
  The possibility of the Government helping the British Council with some of its restructuring costs is being looked at the context of the studies currently being carried out with the aim of avoiding overseas post closures.

  Sudan
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent elections in Sudan. [28884]

  Mr. Hanley
  Regrettably, the elections did not offer the Sudanese people a full choice. The opposition, whose parties remain banned, refused to take part. Government candidates were thus given a clear run. Observers also reported a number of flaws in the election organisation and procedures.
  360
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Sudan. [28883]

  Mr. Hanley
  Relations with Sudan remain cool. We are concerned at the Government of Sudan's prosecution of the civil war in Sudan, their appalling human rights record, their support to terrorist groups and their obstruction of the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan relief operation. The UK voted for, and will implement, UN Security Council resolution 1054, which imposes diplomatic and visa sanctions on the Government of Sudan for their failure to hand over three suspects implicated in last year's assassination attempt on President Mubarak of Egypt and their support for terrorist groups.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Sudan. [28885]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain extremely concerned about human rights in Sudan. The continuing civil war in Sudan is a source of many serious abuses of human rights. We have received disturbing reports of slavery and genocide. The Sudanese authorities continue to detain activists without trial.

  We welcome the Government of Sudan's agreement to resume co-operation with the UN special rapporteur, Gaspar Biro, and hope that they will facilitate his early visit to Sudan.

  West Bank and Gaza Strip
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken to raise with the Israeli authorities the issue of access by international non-governmental organisation workers to the west bank and Gaza strip. [28721]

  Mr. Hanley
  We raised the specific cases of British non-governmental organisation workers with the Israeli authorities through our embassy in Tel Aviv. We also have pressed the Israeli Government at a senior level to relax the closure on the west bank and Gaza.

  British Military Cemetery (Baghdad)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from the keeper of the British military cemetery in Baghdad about his need to grow vegetables to sustain his family within the cemetery grounds; and when the cemetery keeper was last paid by Her Majesty's Government. [27762]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible for the British military cemetery in Baghdad and for paying staff who work there.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the condition of the grave in the British military cemetery in Baghdad of the late Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude, commander of the metropolitan expeditionary force. [27766]
  361
  Mr. Hanley
  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible for the British military cemetery in Baghdad.

  Food and Agriculture Organisation Report (Iraq)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation he has made of the FAO report of 1995 on Iraq in relation to cereals, meat, fish and baby milk. [27763]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain very concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people. Our aid programme has a high priority, and we are working for implementation of UN Security Council resolution 986. We believe, though, that the 1995 report by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Food Programme gave a seriously misleading picture of the situation in Iraq. The report did not take account of the misallocation of resources by the Iraqi regime. Further, the research methods were flawed—the statistics in the report were based in part on Iraqi data, which could not be independently confirmed. We have taken this up with the FAO and the WFP.

  Sanctions (Iraq)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK policy to United Nations joint council resolution 986. [27765]

  Mr. Hanley
  We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 986 in April 1995 as a way of alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people. The regime has since refused to co-operate. We hope that current discussions in New York will at last result in Iraq implementing the resolution. Meanwhile, UN sanctions must remain for as long as Saddam refuses to comply with Iraq's international obligations.

  "Hundan Al Belgrano"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from(a) his Department's officials in Argentina, (b) other sources in Argentina and (c) Sir Sandy Woodward about the showing of the film "Hundan Al Belgrano"; and what responses he has sent. [27809]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have received only one report, from our embassy in Buenos Aires, to the effect that the film is now showing in one cinema in Buenos Aires.

  Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the work of the European Union delegation which visited Iran to discuss terrorism and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. [27849]

  Mr. Hanky
  A European Union troika delegation visited Iran on 2 to 3 April 1996 to deliver a clear message on terrorism and the middle east peace process, as mandated by EU Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Palermo on 9 to 10 March 1996. The delegation received assurances that Iran would not interfere with, or sabotage, the peace process. Iran also reaffirmed its commitment to the "critical dialogue" with the EU.
  362

  Hafey Dulkamoni
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the German Government about the impending release of Hafey Dulkamoni, a Syrian citizen. [27850]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. Any question of release is solely a matter for the German authorities.

  German Trade (Iran)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the German Government to abandon trade relations with Iran. [27853]

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

  Ali Fallahian
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the German Government about the guided tour given by the German intelligence chief, Bernd Schmidbauer, of the German intelligence headquarters at Wiesbaden, to Ali Fallahian, head of Iranian intelligence. [27854]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Iranian Intelligence Minister, Ali Fallahian, visited Germany as a guest of the German Government from 6 to 7 October 1993. The arrangements for the visit were a matter for the German Government. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), then the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, expressed his concern to Foreign Minister Kinkel about the visit and about Iran's activities.

  Russian Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests Her Majesty's Government have made to the Russian Government about an operation to dump 20 elderly nuclear submarines at sea. [27855]

  Mr. Hanley
  No protest has been made. Media reports of such an operation have not been substantiated. At the Moscow nuclear safety and security summit on 20 April, President Yeltsin stated that Russia would formally accept in 1996 the 1993 amendment to the London convention 1972 banning the dumping at sea of all radioactive waste.

  Clothing Costs (Royal Family)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what costs were met by his Department for clothes worn by the Princess of Wales when she participated in the tour of Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in 1986. [28923]

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not possible to specify individual expenditure items for this visit, since detailed records for 1986 have been destroyed in line with Government accounting practice.
  363
  Mr Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has paid for clothes for members of the royal family undertaking official duties abroad in each of the last 10 years; and if he will identify the recipient in each case. [28922]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is no longer available in full, and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Visits (Royal Family)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has paid towards the cost of visits abroad by members of the royal family in each of the last 10 years. [28921]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on official visits overseas by members of the royal family in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  1986–87: £382,500

  1987–88: £386,600

  1988–89: £396,400

  1989–90: £424,000

  1990–91: £464,000

  1991–92: £620,800

  1992–93: £455,695

  1993–94: £491,845

  1994–95: £558,268

  1995–96: £405,342 (bills presented to date).

  Diplomats (Expulsions)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom diplomats officially accredited to missions in foreign countries have been expelled from(a) Libya, (b) the former Soviet Union, (c) the former Czechoslovakia, (d) Bulgaria, (e) Cuba, (f) Vietnam, (g) Iran, (h) South Africa and (i) Sudan, since 3 March 1995; and on what dates and for what stated reasons. [29006]

  Mr. Hanley
  One. The head of the British interest section at Tripoli was expelled on 24 December 1995. The stated reason was that he was

  "engaging in activities which were incompatible with his diplomatic status".

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many diplomats officially accredited to missions in London have been expelled since his answer of 18 January 1995,Official Report, column 580, and if he will indicate their nationalities. [29009]

  Mr. Hanley
  Two diplomats have been expelled; one from Libya, one from Iraq.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of China concerning the protection of existing business interests in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement. [28944]
  364
  Mr. Hanley
  We have on many occasions explained to the Chinese, through the Sino-British joint liaison group and other official channels, the importance of maintaining Hong Kong's economic and social systems, in particular an environment in which business can prosper and flourish. These priorities were enshrined in the Sino-British joint declaration on the question of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong basic law—a Chinese law which will be Hong Kong's constitution after 30 June 1997—which contains important provisions designed to ensure that Hong Kong businesses can continue to operate in a free and open environment. It provides for the economic and social systems in Hong Kong to remain unchanged, for Hong Kong to retain its status as an international financial centre, and for private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment to be protected by law. The common law ill continue to apply in Hong Kong.

  Telecommunications Industry (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Chinese Government in the last three years about the future of the telecommunications industry in Hong Kong. [28946]

  Mr. Hanley
  The regulations and development of the telecommunications industry in Hong Kong is a matter for the Hong Kong Government. However, the British side keeps the Chinese side informed, in the Sino-British joint liaison group, of significant developments in the industry. We also consult the Chinese side on the award of renewal of major contracts, including telecommunication franchises, that will straddle the transition.

  State Recognition
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the states Her Majesty's Government do not officially recognise. [29076]

  Mr. Hanley
  Those entities which some claim to be states, but which are not recognised as such by the UK are:

  Palestine

  Taiwan

  The Saharan Arab Democratic Republic

  The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards United Kingdom ratification of the chemical weapons convention. [29512]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK's instrument of ratification was signed on 1 May. The instrument has been sent to New York and will be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations today.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28569]
  365
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 1 February,Official Report, columns 857–58 which included a projection of £8,213,136 for expenditure in 1995–96 on hospitality and entertainment by the FCO, diplomatic wing; its Wilton Park agency; the Overseas Development Administration; and the Natural Resources Institute, which was then the ODA's agency, but is now in the private sector.

  Provisional outturn expenditure figures for 1995–96 are expected to be available soon.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministers (Unlawful Actions)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which Government Ministers have had their actions declared unlawful since 1973 in(a) United Kingdom courts, (b) the European Court of Human Rights and (c) the European Court of Justice. [28980]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  As regards cases in the United Kingdom and in the European Court of Justice, the information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In any event, most actions in the European Court of Justice are either references from national courts, in which the European Court of Justice does not declare actions to be unlawful, or infraction proceedings commenced by the Commission, where the case is against the United Kingdom and in practice it rarely, if ever, happens that action taken by a particular Government Minister is in issue. As regards the European Court on Human Rights, proceedings are against the United Kingdom, rather than individual Government Ministers. In practice, it is difficult to say that a breach of the convention has arisen solely because of action taken by a particular Government Minister.

  Healthcare Group plc
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, column 74 (1) what procedure was used by his Department prior to its entering into its contract with the General Healthcare Group plc; what other private companies or organisations were approached with a view to tendering for the contract now held by Healthcare Group plc; how many companies or organisations tendered for this contract; and what adjustments have been made to the terms of this contract since it was entered into; [28621]

  (2) how many audiology tests were carried out under his Department's contract with the General Healthcare Group plc in each financial year since 1993–94; and what was the cost of this contract in each of these years. [28622]

  Mr. Burt
  These are matters for Mr. Kevin Caldwell, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  366
  Letter from Kevin Caldwell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 10 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the contract held with General Healthcare group plc and the process leading up to the award.

  The tender exercise leading to the award of contract began with an advertisement in the national press on 30 November 1992. This invited any organisation who wished to do so to express an interest in participating in the exercise with a view to inclusion on the tender list.

  Questionnaires were then issued to thirty eight organisational who had expressed interest, requesting information on such areas as financial stability, capacity and capability, management infrastructure and commitment together with experience in the audiology field. Evaluation of these responses identified six companies who appeared suitable for shortlisting to the next stage, which consisted of site reference visits and further exploration of potential capability to provide the service. Of these six, four were considered suitable for inclusion on the tender list.

  In fact sealed tenders were received from three companies: Nuffield Audiological Services, Minerva Health Management and General Healthcare Group PLC. They were opened in line with usual Departmental guidelines and evaluated by a panel comprising representatives from medical, operational and contractual backgrounds.

  Following its analysis, the tender evaluation panel produced a report recommending award of a national contract to General Healthcare Group plc, trading as BMI Healthcare Audiology Services. This recommendation was endorsed by an independent Tender Board comprising senior managers within the Department.

  Several adjustments have been made since the commencement of full service in 1993. These are all of an operational or administrative nature designed to modify operational aspects of the service in order to ensure maximum efficiency in the prevailing circumstances. The Terms and Conditions of the original contract remain unchanged.

  The volume of tests by category together with the relevant costs in each financial year since award of contract is as follows:

  Volume of tests

  14 June 19931 31 March 1994

  Standard Tests

  61,822

  Standard Tests (Domiciliary Visit)

  1,661

  Tympanograms

  7,984

  Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry

  562

  Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry (Domiciliary Visit)

  17

  Annual Cost £2,948,588.80

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  Standard Tests

  60,553

  Standard Tests (Domiciliary Visit)

  5,025

  Tympanograms

  8,178

  Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry

  2,756

  Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry (Domiciliary Visit)

  364

  Annual Cost £3,929,563.90

  1 April 1995–31 March 1996

  Standard Tests

  align="right">36,338

  Standard Tests (Domiciliary Visit)

  3,593

  Tympanograms

  4,951

  Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry

  2,563

  Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry (Domiciliary Visit)

  691

  Annual Cost £3,636,035.42

  1 Setting up of operations began in July 1993. Full services were operational from October 1993.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency since it was established, within(a) the Newbury parliamentary constituency, (b) the area of Newbury district council and (c) the area of Berkshire county council. [28906]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. David Rendel, dated 10 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency cases.

  Information in the form you have requested is not routinely kept, nor is it readily available.

  Every case the Agency deals with involves at least two clients who may live in very different parts of the country. Our cases are allocated to an office on the basis of the location of the home of the parent with care. The Agency's work is dealt with by six Child Support Agency Centres (CSACs), each supported by Divisional and Field offices, dealing with particular geographical locations. Plymouth CSAC covers the Southwest and Central Southern regions. It has a Field office in Newbury, but the boundaries of this office do not correspond to any or all of the three areas you mention.

  When the Agency was established, the Field offices dealt only with cases requiring local contact. The majority of work was dealt with by the CSAC. Since June 1995, Newbury Field office has dealt with pre maintenance assessment work in its area and has kept figures on the number of cases it has dealt with since then. Such figures, however, only relate to the area covered by the office and not the areas specified in your question.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employers make national insurance contributions; and what would be the yield from removing the present cap on employers' contributions. [28311]

  Mr. Heald
  There is no upper earnings limit on the payment of national insurance contributions by employers: the limit applies only to employees. It is estimated that in any one week in the year 1996–97 some 18.6 million employees will pay contributions and that of those 3.2 million will have earnings above the upper earnings limit.

  If the upper earnings limit on employees' contributions were removed, it is estimated that an extra £3.25 billion would be collected in a full year.1

  Note:

  1Assumes that the current 10 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings above the upper earnings limit.

  Maternity Pay
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been paid by employers of(a) under 100 employees, (b) under 50 employees and (c) under 10 employees, since the withdrawal of reimbursement of statutory maternity pay. [28750]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  368
  Small businesses which pay annual national insurance contributions of £20,000 or less are still able to obtain full reimbursement of their statutory maternity pay costs. For employers paying more than £20,000, the reimbursement rate was reduced to 92 per cent. from 4 September 1994 to meet the cost of improving maternity pay for employees as a result of the Government's implementation of the EC pregnant workers directive. The first full year following the change has just ended and any information about employers's payments will not be available until end-of-year-returns have been submitted and assessed.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the small employers' relief scheme for statutory maternity pay. [28751]

  Mr. Heald
  None.

  Benefits (Reductions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions since 1979 a benefit has been reduced in cash terms. [28632]

  Mr. Burt
  A comparison of the main benefit rates payable in 1978 and 1996, is made in the 1995–96 departmental report (HMSO, CM3213, March 1996), a copy of which is in the Library. The table (Fig. 20) shows no reduction in the main benefits in cash terms over that period.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are currently in receipt of SERPS pensions; what is the average weekly payment; and what was the equivalent figure in(a) 1985 and (b) 1990. [28892]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioners in receipt of additional pension

  Number of pensioners

  Net average weekly payment

  September 1995

  4,584,700

  £9.33

  September 1990

  3,066,050

  £4.88

  September 1985

  1,443,650

  £1.89

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for all countries. The sample size for 1985 and 1990 was 10 per cent. The sample size for 1995 was 5 per cent.

  2. The net payment is the amount of additional pension paid after the deduction of a contracted out deduction (COD). A COD is deducted when a person has been contracted out of SERPS into a contracted-out pension scheme or an appropriate personal pension used in place of SERPS.

  Source:

  Retirement Pensions Statistics.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the percentage of pension income of newly retired pensioners, excluding the basic state pension, which was represented by SERPS payments, in the most recent year; and what were the equivalent figures in(a) 1985 and (b) 1990. [28894]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  369
  The source of data for estimates of pensioners' incomes is the pensioners' income series. This is based on the family expenditure survey, which contains information only on total state retirement pension and cannot differentiate between basic and additional pension.

  The table gives an estimate of the percentage of pensioner income of newly retired pensioners which is total state retirement pension.

  State retirement pension as a proportion of pension income

  Per cent.

  Recently retired pensioner units

  1981

  1987

  1990

  1993

  Pensioner couples

  57

  50

  53

  52

  Single pensioners

  58

  59

  61

  65

  All pensioner units

  58

  53

  55

  55

  Notes:

  1. Recently retired pensioner units are defined as being single women aged 60–64, single men aged 65–69 and couples in which the husband is aged 65–69.

  2. Pension income has been defined for this purpose as being the sum of total State Retirement Pension receipt and occupational pension payments.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest whole per cent.

  4. No information is available for 1985 as the Pensioners' Income Series was not compiled for this year.

  5. Estimates drawn from the PI 1993 are subject to a large degree of statistical variability, particularly in relation to recently retired pensioners because of the limited sample size, and co comparisons of estimates from different years may not give reliable results.

  Sources:

  Pensioners' Income Series—1981, 1987, 1990, 1993.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average weekly SERPS pension paid to those who retired in the most recent year; and what was the equivalent figure in(a) 1985 and (b) 1990. [28893]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Figures are not available for 1990 as the movement tables were not produced due to the change from the existing pensions computer system to the pensions strategy computer system which took place during the period 1989 to 1992.

  The number of new retirement pension awards and the average weekly additional pension paid for 1985 and 1995 are given in the table.

  Year ending

  Number of pensioners

  Net average weekly payment (£)

  31 March 1995

  322,890

  11.92

  31 March 1985

  251,510

  2.35

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for all countries and the numbers of pensioners relate to the number of awards of retirement pension in the period.

  2. The net payment is the amount of additional pension paid after the deduction of a contracted out deduction (COD). A COD is deducted when a person has been contracted out of SERPS into a contracted-out pension scheme or an appropriate personal pension used in place of SERPS.

  3. The figures for 1985 were collected on a yearly basis ending March. The movement tables are now issued every six months. To enable a comparison to be made with the earlier figures, the 6 monthly figures of September '94 and March '95 have been added together, with the average payment being recalculated accordingly.

  Source:

  Retirement Pension Statistics—Movement Tables.
  370

  Child Support Act 1991
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a progress report on the research work being undertaken by the centre for research in social policy at the university of Loughborough into the effects of the Child Support Act; and if he will make a statement. [28738]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  No research into the effects of the Child Support Act has been commissioned from the university of Loughborough.

  Income Support
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner claimants of income support have savings of less than £3,000. [28896]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. The number of income support pensioner claimants who were recorded as having capital of up to and including £3,000 was 464,000 in May 1995, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry: May 1995

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner claimants are defined as those in the pensioner statistical groups ie. where either the claimant or partner is aged 60 or over.

  2. The figure has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Some claimants with savings of less than £3,000 may not be recorded as these amounts do not affect the assessment of benefits.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of administering income support for pensioners; and what this figure is expressed as a percentage of income support paid to pensioners. [28897]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been paid in statutory sick pay to employees by employers of(a) under 100 employees, (b) under 50 employees and (c) under 10 employees since the withdrawal of the small employers relief scheme for statutory sick pay in April 1995. [28743]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available.

  The first full year following replacement of the small employers relief scheme has just ended. Any information about employers' payments will not be available until end-of-year-returns have been submitted and assessed.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many firms(a) in total, (b) with under 100 employees, (c) with under 50 employees and (d) with under 10 employees reclaimed statutory sick pay under the small employers' relief fund in each of the 10 years preceding the end of the scheme in April 1995; [28744]

  (2) how much was reclaimed in statutory sick pay under the small employers' relief fund in each of the 10 years preceding the end of the scheme in April 1995 by (a) all firms, (b) firms with under 100 employees, (c) firms with under 50 employees and (d) firms with under 10 employees. [28745]
  371
  Mr. Heald
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  The statutory sick pay small employees relief scheme was introduced from 6 April 1991. For the years 1991–92 to 1993–94, employers were not required to distinguish in their end-of-year returns between reimbursement under SER and the 80 per cent. reimbursement of employers' SSP costs available to all employers. For 1994–95, following abolition of 80 per cent. reimbursement from 6 April 1994, the total amount reclaimed under SER was £25 million.

  Pensioners (Savings)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner recipients of(a) social fund loans and (b) social fund grants, have savings in excess of (i) £500, (ii) £1,000 and (iii) £3,000. [28895]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of unfair treatment have been taken to industrial tribunals by employees of the Department of Social Security in each year since 1988; and in how many of these the industrial tribunal found in favour of the employee. [28660]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the citizens charter. [27667]

  Mr. Willetts
  The key criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of the citizens charter is improvement in the standards and responsiveness of public services. A full account of this is set out in last year's charter White Paper "The Citizen's Charter: The Facts and Figures".

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many statutory instruments were introduced in the 1994–95 Session; and what is their estimated total annual cost to business and to public funds. [27668]

  Mr. Freeman
  Numbers of statutory instruments are recorded by calendar year. The number of new statutory instruments in 1995 was 3,345, of which fewer than 12 per cent. placed compliance costs on business. The costs of individual instruments are specified in compliance cost assessments, but these include transfers between sectors and other factors which prevent the type of aggregation requested by my hon. Friend.
  372

  Contracting Out (in Service Pensions)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received regarding the Contracting Out (Administration of the in Service Pension Scheme) Order 1996. [27676]

  Mr. Willetts
  Various representations that had been made were taken fully into account in the decision to open up to competition administration of the principal civil service pension scheme and associated schemes. Competition will ensure value for money, and the focus on performance outputs will help improve further the quality of service to scheme members.

  Ministerial Visit (Plymouth)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Plymouth to discuss inward investment. [27684]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have no such plans at present, but would be very glad to consider an invitation.

  Widdecombe Report
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Widdecombe report on the conduct of local government. [27685]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  None. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Regional Offices
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and the Government's regional offices. [27686]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is in regular contact with the 10 Government regional offices on those matters relevant to this Department—competitiveness and deregulation.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what initiatives his Department is taking to disseminate abroad its work in co-ordinating Government policies. [27689]

  Mr. Willetts
  My Department has responded positively to interest expressed by other countries in the action we take to co-ordinate and present Government policy.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the impact of European regulations and directives. [27690]

  Mr. Freeman
  Revised guidance requiring Departments to produce a compliance cost assessment for each EC legislative proposal was published in January. These assessments are a vital tool for helping to minimise any costs to business arising from new legislation.
  373

  Deregulation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minster what discussions he has had with trade unions in respect of his policies on deregulation. [27691]

  Mr. Freeman
  We welcome the views of all interested parties to our deregulation initiative, including those from trade unions.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to alter the number of staff in his office; and if he will make a statement. [27666]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I expect to see further reductions in staff numbers in the Office of Pubic Service in the coming year.

  BSE
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his role in disseminating information relating to BSE. [27683]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Like other senior members of the Government, I take every opportunity to explain the Government's position.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28578]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure on official hospitality by the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service, and its executive agencies, excluding HMSO and the Buying Agency, in the financial year to 31 March 1996 is estimated to be £53,900. This figure includes total annual expenditure of £5,000 on official hospitality by the Security and Facilities Agency, responsibility for which transferred to the Office of Public Service from the Department of the Environment on 1 January 1996.

  Expenditure by HMSO and the Buying Agency, both of which have a different accounting year, was 38,500 and 4,000 respectively, covering the calendar year to 31 December 1995. Responsibility for TBA transferred to the Office of Public Service from the Department of the Environment on 1 January 1996.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Young Bulls
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what intervention proposals he has for young bulls aged around 12 months; what representations he has had on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [24465]

  Mrs. Browning
  There have been several representations on this matter, as a result of which young bulls were, at our request, added to the list of animals the meat of which is currently eligible to be sold into intervention in the UK. To date, intervention tenders for more than 500 tonnes of UK young bull beef have been accepted for purchase into intervention.
  374

  Cattle Herds
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of(a) dairy and (b) beef cattle in England at the latest available date. [28144]

  Mrs. Browning
  The latest figures available are from the 1995 December agriculture survey—1 December:

  Cattle and calves

  Thousands

  Total breeding herd

  Dairy herd

  1,838

  Beef herd

  798

  Total heifers in calf

  Dairy herd

  322

  Beef herd

  111

  Total other cattle and calves

  3,591

  Total cattle and calves

  6,661

  Totals may not necessarily agree with the sum of their components due to rounding.

  Please note that "other cattle and calves" includes bulls for service, and also cattle intended for replacements for the beef and dairy herds. Further breakdown of the figures are detailed in statistical notice 58/96/Survey of Agriculture: 1 December 1995 England—published on 9 April 1996—which is available from the MAFF press office.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the European Commission to publish its forthcoming consultation document on the availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements; and for what period of time he expects that document to be open for consultation. [28220]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 12 March in the Official Report, column 577.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each other member country of the European Union the information which he has evaluated on the controls which are imposed upon the availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements. [28221]

  Mrs. Browning
  Our understanding of the controls on the availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements in other member states is based on a number of sources, including the position member states took when this matter was previously discussed at EU level in 1992.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to persuade his counterparts in other European countries to support his policies in respect of the continued availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements; what steps he has taken to encourage support for that policy at recent meetings of the Agriculture Council; and if he will make a statement setting out that policy. [28219]
  375
  Mrs. Browning
  My Department takes every opportunity to ensure that other member states are aware of our views on dietary supplements. However, the matter is not one which is considered by the Agricultural Council.

  Former Defence Site, Rhydymwyn
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with regard to investigations into the former MOD site at Rhydymwyn, Mold, Flintshire. [28271]

  Mr. Boswell
  In April 1996, the Ministry, in conjunction with Flintshire county council and the Welsh Development Agency, commissioned AEA Technology to

  Applications received1

  Applications refused

  Applications granted

  Number of birds licensed to be shot

  Number of birds actually shot2

  Cormorants

  90

  32

  52

  341

  121

  Goosanders

  25

  19

  5

  19

  2

  Mergansers

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 Some applications are still to be determined.

  2 Provisional figures.

  BSE
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there have been of(a) farmers, (b) cattle dealers, (c) auctioneers, (d) abattoir purchasers and (e) meat wholesalers concerning breaches of BSE regulations. [28529]

  Mrs. Browning
  One case has been successfully prosecuted under the Specified Bovine Offals Order 1995. The defendants were fined at total of £3,000 plus £2,000 costs for two offences under the order. There are no further cases before the court at present; a number of other cases are, however, under investigation.

  Local government also plays a significant role in implementing the control measures on BSE. It is in part responsible for enforcing the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991, as amended, and the provisions of the new Specified Bovine Materials Order 1996 in relation to SBOs in non-food premises. We are aware that local authorities have taken several BSE-related prosecutions. We do not, however, hold details of these centrally.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on(a) the incidence of BSE, (b) the steps in place to identify cases of BSE, (c) the steps taken to remove specified bovine offal from the carcases of animals believed to be affected and (d) the method by which the carcases of animals slaughtered because their herd was infected with BSE are disposed of in respect of each of the other EU countries; and what assessment he has made of the relative effectiveness of each country's programme to protect the public from BSE-related diseases. [28544]

  Mrs. Browning
  Up until 3 May 1996, 160,032 suspect cases of BSE have been reported in Great Britain. All suspect cases of BSE must, by law, be notified to the Ministry. The Ministry's veterinary officers visit all 376
  carry out a further assessment of the site to identify chemical and mineral residues. The results of its desk study are expected by late summer. Field work and chemical analysis will then follow, if necessary.

  Cormorants and Saw-billed Ducks
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for a licence to shoot cormorants and saw-billed ducks were received by his Department in the year 1995–6; how many of these were refused; how many birds were licensed to be shot; and how many have been reported as having been shot. [28293]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is set out in the table for the period 1 May 1995 to 31 March 1996:

  suspect animals to make a clinical diagnosis. Animals subsequently confirmed by the Ministry's veterinary officer as being suspected of suffering from BSE will be slaughtered on farm and their carcase disposed of by incineration. Specified bovine material is not removed from these animals as the whole carcase goes for disposal.

  We do not have details of the preferred method of disposal of BSE suspect cases in other EU member states. Details of SBO controls in other EU member states were given in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, (Mr. Key) on 29 April, Official Report, column, 413–14.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all recommendations made since 1986 by the scientific committees advising the Government on spongiform encephalopathies, which have not been fully implemented. [23199]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: There have been four reports published by the various advisory committees on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies since 1989.

  Recommendations were made in both the "Report of the Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Southwood Report)" dated February 1989 and the "Interim Report (Tyrrell Report)" dated June 1989. The only recommendation made to Government which has not been implemented is a low-priority research recommendation for the survey of brains of cattle routinely sent for slaughter to monitor incidence of unrecognised infection, which was contained in the Tyrrell report. This recommendation was of course superseded by regulations which protected human health by the exclusion of specified bovine offals from the food chain.
  377
  The two later reports produced by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee "Interim report on Research" dated April 1992 and the "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies—A Summary of present Knowledge and Research" dated September 1994 contained no recommendations to Government. The interim report on research did, however, state that detailed examination of the relevant studies indicated that, in the Committee's view, there were no inappropriate overlaps; that all high-priority studies had been started, and that satisfactory progress had been made in implementing the recommendations of the interim report (Tyrrell report) (paragraph 4.1).

  The committee has made a number of recommendations to Government on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies since the last set of published recommendations contained in the Tyrrell report were put to Government. The Government have acted swiftly to ensure that these recommendations were put in place with the minimum of delay.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many BSE cases have been confirmed in animals aged less than 30 months old since 1988. [27978]

  Mrs. Browning
  Since 1986 and up to 3 May 1996, the number of BSE cases confirmed in animals less than 30 months in Great Britain is 80.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has evaluated on the distribution and timing of BSE infectivity in cattle before the final brain disease under farming conditions. [27979]

  Mrs. Browning
  All details on BSE infectivity have been published in the latest progress report. So far, from confirmed field cases, the BSE agent has been detected only in brain, cervical spinal cord, terminal spinal cord and retina. Under experimental conditions, infectivity has also been detected in the distal ileum of calves 18 months after challenge, but in no other tissues. Assays of tissues collected at later stages of that experiment are still in progress.

  In the same study, CNS lesions were detected no more than three to four months before onset of clinical disease.

  Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of cats suffering from spongiform encephalopathies have been reported to his Department in each of the last five years; and what research his Department has evaluated relating to future trends in the incidence of such diseases. [28590]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table shows the numbers of cases of feline spongiform encephalopathy recorded in the United Kingdom until 8 May 1996:

  Number of case

  1990

  13

  1991

  12

  1992

  10

  1993

  11

  1994

  16

  378

  Number of cases

  1995

  8

  1996

  1

  Epidemiological studies are in progress but are incomplete. With the exception of one cat thought to be born in October 1990, none of the cases of feline spongiform encephalopathy confirmed in the United Kingdom are believed to have been born after the ban, in September 1990, on the use of specified bovine offals in animal feed.

  These investigations are complicated by the difficulty in obtaining lifetime feeding and breeding histories for cats. This makes predicting the future trends difficult, although, at present, the shape of the epidemic appears to be similar to that of BSE.

  Plympton Market
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reopen the Plympton market as a collecting centre for the culling scheme. [29071]

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that an application for approval of Plympton market under the scheme is being considered by the intervention board at the moment.

  Fishing Grants
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average length of time taken to process applications for grants awarded in England and Wales under the provisions of the fishing vessels (safety improvements) (grants) scheme each year from 1990 to 1995. [29153]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Sea Fish Industry Authority administers the fishing vessels (safety improvements) (grants) scheme on behalf of the Government. It does not keep detailed historic records of the time taken to deal with individual applications, but I understand that the average time taken to deal with an application, from receipt to formal approval, is estimated at four weeks.

  Tanning Industry
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial support will be provided to the tanning industry in the financial year 1996–97. [25135]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: It is not the Government's intention that financial assistance should be specifically targeted at the tanning industry in this financial year.

  Beef Heads
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial support will be provided to plants licensed to process beef heads in the financial year 1996–97. [25134]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The Government sympathise with the cattle and head deboners whose traditional business has disappeared as a result of measures introduced on 29 March. However, as Ministers have made clear on a number of occasions, the purpose

  379
  of the financial assistance which has been made available to the slaughtering sector is to provide market support to keep the essential links in the beef supply chain operating while companies adjust to the changed market circumstances. It is not our policy to use public funds to compensate businesses for losses incurred. Against this background, we have concluded that no financial assistance can be offered to plants licensed to process beef heads, except the support available to all licensed slaughterhouses and licensed cutting premises in respect of unsold beef stocks.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the welfare of animals; and if he will make a statement. [27571]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 9 May 19961: We have action in hand across a wide range of animal welfare issues. For example, we are now developing our plans to implement the important new EU rules on the welfare of animals in transit which were secured by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in June 1995; we are pressing hard, in the EU negotiations on the welfare of calves which we ourselves got brought forward, for an end to the veal crate throughout Europe; and we shall be pressing at the intergovernmental conference for a protocol to be added to the treaty, placing a legal obligation on the Community institutions to pay full regard to animal welfare when exercising their powers in relation to agriculture, transport, research and the single market.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information has been requested by the Environment Agency from his Department about the Sea Empress oil spillage; when that information was requested; and if he will place a copy of his Department's reply in the Library. [28864]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 May 19961: Primary responsibility for fisheries matters in relation to the Sea Empress oil spillage rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I refer the hon. Member to his reply of 10 May 1996, Official Report, column 301–02.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are taken to ensure that an animal rejected by a local veterinary inspector as 380
  unfit to travel on an export journey is not transported in Great Britain in a way which may cause it unnecessary suffering. [28627]

  Mrs Browning
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: There is a considerable variety of circumstances in which local veterinary inspectors may reject an animal as unfit for an export journey, and there is no basis for specifying a follow-up procedure which would be applicable in all cases. However, if an animal is unfit to travel, anyone who transported it, except in accordance with the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, would be committing an offence.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bovines were exported during 1994 and 1995 to(a) Northern Ireland, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) France, (d) Spain, (e) Italy, (f) Belgium, (g) Netherlands and (h) Greece. [28625]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: Exports of bovine animals from the United Kingdom for 1994 and 1995 as recorded in the overseas trade statistics are as follows:

  Number of head

  19941

  19951

  Irish Republic

  1,313

  668

  France

  238,080

  234,013

  Spain

  Nil

  Nil

  Italy

  Nil

  119

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  79,372

  56,385

  Netherlands

  160,803

  138,257

  Greece

  Nil

  Nil

  1Data provisional.

  These overseas trade statistics record exports from the United Kingdom but not trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, figures collated from the computerised animal movement—ANIMO—database, which records animals certified for export, show that 18,340 and 25,044 bovines were exported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland in 1994 and 1995 respectively. These figures remain provisional, and subject to amendment.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure there is an obligation on manufacturers of animal feed to declare a full list of ingredients. [28872]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: Ingredients of compound animal feed must be declared either in full or by category. The Government are currently exploring whether the relevant EC directive should be changed.

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

Organophosphates: Demeton-S-Methyl
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the organophosphate pesticide Demeton-S-Methyl is currently used in the United Kingdom; how use of this chemical compares with other organophosphate pesticides; and how many reports of incidents attributable to this chemical have been recorded by the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Demeton-S-Methyl is approved for professional use in agriculture only. It is used on a wide range of agricultural and horticultural crops and is of particular importance to growers of brassicas. Demeton-S-Methyl accounts for about 10 per cent. of the crop area treated with organophosphate pesticides and about 5 per cent. of the total weight of such pesticides applied to crops. In the five-year period to 31st March 1995, 44 incidents involving pesticides containing Demeton-S-Methyl were reported to the Health and Safety Executive. Twenty-three incidents were investigated in which adverse health effects were claimed, but in only nine cases did HSE find it confirmed or likely that ill-health had been caused by exposure to a pesticide.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very full reply to my Question. Is he aware that in the United States of America manufacturers have withdrawn this product from the market and that it is no longer licensed there because of concern about its teratogenetic effects; that is, the birth defects that it may cause? It is also a known mutagen. As it is a class 1 hazard organophosphate, is any consideration being given to the cessation of production in this country?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am aware that the product is currently under review. I am not aware of the problems in the United States and I shall draw them to the attention of my colleagues.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Transport and General Workers' Union, many of whose members work on farms, is concerned about the effects of this chemical and believes that it should be banned? Will he inform the House of the present situation in regard to the new pesticides forum, which was referred to at col. 193 of Hansard in the debate on 6th February?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have with me information on the pesticides forum, but I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness. In regard to the concerns
318
of the Transport and General Workers' Union, this is an old and well established pesticide. We do not believe, looking at its history, that there is any evidence that it is wildly more dangerous than any other organophosphate pesticide, but all these chemicals have to be treated with the greatest care.
The Countess of Mar: Is the noble Lord aware that when this matter was last reviewed in 1993 only six pages of information were provided? Most of those pages said that there was no information on the effects of this pesticide. That is to be compared with OP dichlorvos, where the information amounts to 136 pages. Does the noble Lord appreciate that we do not know what this stuff does and therefore we should not be using it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, "not knowing what this stuff does", as the noble Baroness puts it, is a characteristic shared by many older pesticides because they were introduced at a time when that information was not required. All such pesticides are in the course of being reviewed. But we draw comfort from the fact that it has been in use for 30 years without the appearance of any known major or unusual problems.

Anti-personnel Mines
2.40 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to their recently declared support for a worldwide ban on the use or export of anti-personnel mines, whether they will now state that no such weapons will be used by the British Armed Forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, our Armed Forces will not use our stock of non self-destructing anti-personnel mines operationally unless, in exceptional circumstances, Ministers are satisfied that their use is essential.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which I believe restates the Government's position. Is he aware that six countries—Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and the Philippines—have voted not only to ban the production and export of all types of anti-personnel mine but also to stop supplying their armed forces with these weapons? Is the Minister further aware that a group of American generals, including General Schwarzkopf—Stormin' Norman—recently wrote an open letter to President Clinton which questioned the need for the retention of such weapons by that country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we took account of the position of our allies in deciding our new policy. Those views vary considerably—from support of a total ban to countries which firmly believe they still need anti-personnel landmines for national defence. Clearly, it is for other countries to justify their own policies. Our decision reflects a balance between humanitarian goals and the needs of our Armed Forces. I am aware of the

319
ongoing review in the United States. We remain in close touch with the Americans, and we shall study carefully any decisions they make.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, given that the recent review conference achieved only limited success, what specific steps will the Minister take to expedite an international ban on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines? What is the earliest realistic date by which that goal can be achieved?
Earl Howe: My Lords, if we want to achieve a total ban, as indeed we do, there is no alternative to international agreement. Any effective measures to reduce the dangers to civilians can be achieved only through broad international agreement involving those countries which produce, export and use anti-personnel landmines. We shall pursue that aim in a number of ways and through a number of fora. I believe that the good outcome of the UN weaponry convention review conference is a step in the right direction. There is scope to build on that by persuading those countries which give rise to the greatest concern. I cannot be of much assistance to the right reverend Prelate as to timing. I assure him that we shall do our best to achieve the outcome that we all want to see.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to place in the Library of the House a copy of any of the decisions made at the review conference? Does the agreement criminalise the use of landmines in internal conflicts? If so, are such offences subject to universal jurisdiction? Will the UK introduce legislation to give effect to the decisions of the conference?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that a copy will be placed in the Library if that has not already been done. He is right that one of the positive results of the UN weaponry convention review conference was to extend the scope of the convention to civil wars, where, after all, most misuse has occurred. We regard that as a welcome step forward. As regards international sanctions against countries which break that condition, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the anti-personnel mine is probably the only weapon that can harm and kill after an armistice and cessation of hostilities, should not our Government concentrate, with Commonwealth countries, the US, and the countries of the former Soviet Union, on quickly achieving a complete ban on the use of such weapons? I appreciate that we cannot do it on our own, but I believe that we could obtain the support of the countries that I mentioned to see that this detestable weapon is abolished.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am in great sympathy with much of what the noble Lord said. We want to achieve a halt to the appalling catalogue of human suffering around the world caused by the irresponsible use of landmines. We shall, as I said, do all we can to introduce
320
a global ban. That will require international agreement. As the noble Lord acknowledged, it is not the British Armed Forces which use anti-personnel mines irresponsibly. Only an international ban will reduce civilian casualties.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his first Answer he referred to circumstances that might justify the use of such weapons. Can he name one such circumstance?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that must remain an operational matter. What we have said—it represents a strengthening of the rules to which we have adhered up to now—is that when our military commanders recommend the use of landmines our troops will not be allowed to use those landmines without ministerial consent, and that consent will not be given unless Ministers are satisfied that there is no alternative to the use of landmines. That is a positive step forward.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that we will not sell abroad any of our remaining stocks of these objects?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there has been a de facto ban on exports for many years now. No landmines have been exported from this country for some considerable time. We have said that that moratorium will now be extended indefinitely.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what has been done to help with the clearance of mines?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have extended considerable assistance around the world. We have contributed some £18.2 million to de-mining activities since 1991. We shall maintain our position as one of the world's leading contributors to such programmes.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, by exempting self-destructing mines are not the Government committing themselves to using such devices in the future? Will they not have to develop a whole new range of self-destructing mines?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are looking for alternatives to mines. I do not believe that the first part of the noble Lord's question was to the point. We intend to destroy almost half of our current stockpile of anti-personnel mines as soon as possible, without replacement. That should reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, have we yet cleared all the landmines from the minefields in the Falkland Islands?
Earl Howe: My Lords, no, some mines still remain in the Falkland Islands, although work there is continuing.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that anti-personnel mines are a feature of runway-denial ordnance and the Government's answer to an earlier question, will the Government confirm that such ordnance is not allowed to be exported from this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the runway-denial weapon. That is classified as a mine, but it is not an anti-personnel mine. Its primary purpose is to deter, and, if necessary, to take out runway repair vehicles. We are reviewing at the moment the implications of the convention for all our mines. That weapon will come under the scope of the review we are undertaking.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to understand how the Government can support a world-wide ban on the use of landmines yet refuse to implement it themselves. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that we shall not be importing any landmines to replace the stock that the Government are now destroying? If he cannot give that assurance, surely the Government's position is utterly hypocritical.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we intend to destroy almost half our current stockpile, and we have said that our Armed Forces will not be using anti-personnel mines in the future unless Ministers are satisfied that such use is essential. However, we need to retain the right to use anti-personnel mines in exceptional circumstances where there is no alternative in order to ensure the safety of our troops. That must remain a paramount consideration. I would not wish to rule out the import of anti-personnel mines in the future, any more than I would wish to rule out the purchase of such mines from British manufacturers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is nothing hypocritical nor anything difficult about the issue, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone? Does he agree that the Government's attitude is entirely well founded? Is it right that we support an international convention but reserve the right to use such weapons if needs be in order to protect our troops until we get a ban?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Without doubt, our decision is a sacrifice in military terms. We have undertaken not to use such weapons other than in exceptional circumstances. In many respects, the undertakings we have given go beyond the international conference decisions of a few days ago. The UK Armed Forces are not currently using these mines anywhere in the world; if they do so, that use will be severely circumscribed and responsible.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Government are right to show concern for the needs of the Armed Forces. Nevertheless, to claim as part of their policy that they are backing a worldwide ban on such mines is a little disingenuous. Are we really going to wait until the last, most recalcitrant nation signs the convention before adopting any change?
Earl Howe: My Lords, no, not at all. There are various ways and fora through which we can press for an international ban. One of the conclusions of the UN weaponry conference was that annual reviews should provide a forum for the international community
322
to monitor compliance with the convention. There are many other avenues we can pursue; for instance, resolutions at the UN General Assembly. This week the European Union is reviewing its joint action on landmines. Therefore, we can maintain pressure in an effective way.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House that the Chief of the Defence Staff and the other chiefs of staff accept entirely the arrangements he has outlined to the House today; that is, insisting on ministerial control on the tactical and other use of mines?
Earl Howe: My Lords, yes. Ministers will take decisions based on expert advice. I believe it is right that Ministers should take the final decision.

Civil Service College
2.53 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What options they have been considering on the future of the Civil Service College.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the recent review of the Civil Service College was designed to ensure that the college achieves its full potential for developing the best traditions and international reputation of the Civil Service. A wide range of options has been considered, including continuing in the public sector and partial or full transfer of ownership to the private sector. The Government have concluded that the college should proceed within the public sector to develop new activities in partnership with the private sector; and will ensure that the essential link between the Civil Service and the Civil Service College is preserved.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, which marks a considerable step forward from the answers which my noble friend Lady Miller was allowed to give on a previous occasion. Will he be good enough to communicate to others the suggestion that talk of partnership with the private sector in such a context and of considering various options is the kind of vagueness which provokes curiosity and suspicion rather than understanding?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we aim to please and we aim in particular to please my noble friend. He mentioned partnerships. I cannot go into too much detail at the moment but I can outline the ideas that we are considering. Clearly the college must be run commercially in order to cover its costs. The use of the college by departments and agencies tends to be somewhat seasonal and therefore it makes sense to explore the scope for better utilisation. The college already has partnership arrangements with Cranfield

323
University and Manchester Business School. We wish to give that idea a boost in terms of both training and conference facilities.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on obeying one of the basic principles of management; that when something is functioning quite well leave it alone?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that that principle could equally be applied to your Lordships' House. The Government wish to ensure that senior managers in the Civil Service receive the best possible training consistent with the interests of the taxpayers. In achieving that aim, we also wish to develop the full potential of the college and to enhance its reputation both at home and overseas. I believe that our plans will enable us to do that.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, may I echo the congratulations that have been bestowed on the Government for their decision in this case, as the Civil Service College is one of the main custodians and disseminators of professional public service values and should therefore self-evidently remain in the public service? Will the Minister comment on the hypothesis that this particular swallow might make a summer?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not need too much of a qualification to know to what the noble Lord is referring. I cannot give him further news about the subject of RAS, but I can say that the high reputation of the Civil Service College as a centre of excellence—and it is well regarded by its customers—will continue. It has full-time and contracted tutorial staff drawn from both the Civil Service and the private sector. The reputation that those people generate for the college speaks for itself.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, did the Minister say that it all depended on the college being commercially viable? Do the Government believe that every training establishment and college must be commercially viable in order to exist? Surely we cannot always look at such colleges commercially.
Earl Howe: My Lords, if the college does not cover its costs through charges to its customers, the taxpayers will not only bear the full costs but subsidise the college in competition with other providers of training. That cannot be right—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Of course it is.
Earl Howe: My Lords, no, that cannot be right when one of the key policies of government is to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of both the public and private sectors. In the end, the college will succeed or fail on how many customers it attracts. It is succeeding by attracting customers not only from this country but from overseas. We want to see that continue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry but I am getting a little lost and I wonder whether the Minister can help me. Is he saying that the college must make a profit in
324
order to stay in the public sector; and is he saying that it will remain in the public sector but that it will try to find people to occupy the bedrooms when classes are down and on holiday; or is he saying something slightly different from those two statements? Looking at the situation from this side of the House, with more than 300 Conservative hereditary peers taking the Conservative Whip, may I venture to express the hope that the Civil Service College will continue to function with perhaps a greater degree of fairness, equity, efficiency and speed than does your Lordships' House?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the key aim of our policy will be to construct a range of partnerships which will bring demonstrable benefits to both the college and potential private sector partners and at the same time bring in private sector expertise and finance as well as risk-sharing. Therefore, I believe that the second part of the noble Lord's first question reflects more accurately what we intend to do.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend show a little sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who seems to have become rather lost in matters which are not in any way related to this Question?

Horticulture Research International
3 p.m.
Lord Chapple Lord Chapple asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the main considerations which led to the proposal to privatise in full Horticulture Research International.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Horticulture Research International is currently the subject of a prior options review which the Government are still considering.
Lord Chapple: My Lords, I hope that the Government will give some further thought to this matter because it is widely understood in the industry that the decision has been taken. That is causing great consternation in an organisation which is a flagship organisation of the industry and which has a worldwide reputation. The fear is that, if the Government act with undue haste, the organisation will be sold off piecemeal and the best of it will be lost.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I echo entirely the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, about the quality of HRI. It is an excellent organisation which is very well regarded by its customers and by the Government. We have taken no decision. I know that the noble Lord has a wide knowledge of this matter, not least because I believe that his daughter-in-law works for the organisation. I hope that he will feel able to reassure her that we have not yet taken a decision and we intend to do so in the interests of HRI to ensure that it has the best possible future.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, will the Minister say how much the Government expect to receive from the sale of HRI or does the Minister expect that we shall have

325
to pay somebody to take it off our hands as we had to do with the National Engineering Laboratory last November?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is an entirely irrelevant question since we have not yet embarked on that stage of our considerations.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why the Government are doing any of this? We have a very important horticulture industry which is subject to intense international competition and which needs first-class research and development to back it. Although I am not an expert in the field, I believe that Horticulture Research International is a body of international standing. I could give the Government a list a mile long of useful things to do. Why are they spending their time on this matter? Why do they not let this body get on with what it is doing; let the horticulture industry get on with what it is doing; and find something else for themselves to do?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that at the end of the day, Horticulture Research International will feel that it has benefited from this process.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I speak as a very keen horticulturist. Does the noble Lord accept that it is a great consolation to hear the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, speaking on horticulture and expressing his concern about the probability of privatisation and returning to his roots?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord expresses the matter far better than I could.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the institution commercially viable?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister explain what consultation will take place in this situation if the Government decide to go ahead with privatisation? Will the Minister accept that this weekend I received from a large local garden centre an expression of anxiety about the possibility of this privatisation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's concern. I cannot answer her first question because we have not yet reached that stage of our considerations.

Stalking (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for a new criminal offence of stalking and for a prohibitory order with sanctions against stalking; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 14th May
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 14th May, to enable the two Motions standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Food Safety (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; and to enable the Earl Russell's Motion for a resolution to be taken before the Motion for an Humble Address.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: NHS (Residual Liabilities) Bill
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 21st May to enable the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Qualifications Authority]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert (", from amongst persons nominated by, or by bodies appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of, the Universities of Scotland, education authorities, colleges of further education, institutions of further education, central institutions, educational advisers, teachers employed in educational establishments and grant aided and independent schools").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister back from his recent visit to Aberdeen where he was no doubt doing his best to help to preserve an endangered species—and I hope not too successfully.
Your Lordships will realise that Amendment No. 1 is of historic and, indeed, perhaps pre-historic importance as it makes reference to central institutions which, unfortunately perhaps, now no longer exist. There may be some who think that it would be better that they should continue to exist, but they do not.
The part of the Bill dealing with the establishment of the Scottish qualifications authority is non-controversial. Indeed, I believe that it is welcomed broadly throughout Scotland and the education sector in Scotland. But there

327
is one difficulty with it which the amendment seeks to correct; that is, that the Bill as presently drafted leaves completely undefined the composition of the authority.
That is important because it is of vital interest that the Scottish qualifications authority enjoys the confidence of all those involved in the examination process in Scotland and that there is confidence in the integrity and robustness of its deliberations and outcomes. Indeed, when this issue was put to the Minister, Mr. Robertson, when we were collecting evidence in Glasgow, he made the observation:
"I think the reassurance that you are seeking there would be given in Debates in the Committee stage both in your House and in my own".
When we discussed the clause in Committee, the Minister was only able to go so far as to say that the Secretary of State intended to appoint to the authority those people who would bring:
"a breadth of experience covering a broad range of interests".— [Official Report, 23/4/96; col. CWH5.]
That falls somewhat short of the need to ensure that those involved with education authorities, universities, further education, local authorities and all those who have a direct interest in the robustness and integrity of the examination system are incorporated into the Scottish qualifications authority so that they will have confidence that its deliberations are purposeful and effective.
I hope that the Minister will be able to go further today and give some indication that the authority will have a degree of structure and will not be as unstructured and open as the Bill presently indicates. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the amendment is one of a type that we have all seen before and has been put forward for the simple reason that what it proposes is generally necessary. We are trying to get some support for the new body and that means that it must be respected by those people whom it is supposed to be representing; namely, the educational establishment in Scotland. It is to be hoped that something similar to the amendment in the Bill would give greater authority and weight to the new examination authority so that those concerned will be able to give more authority to the relevant qualifications, which is something that everyone needs. All we are saying is that those people who actually know what is going on in education should be consulted. That is all that lies behind the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the proposal or, indeed, something very like it.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am rather intrigued by the amendment. Although I have never managed to take part in the proceedings on the Bill up to now, I am surprised that, in specifying the persons who should be included, the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment have not considered the appointment of someone from industry. I believe that in future there needs to be a slightly closer connection between industry and education than has been the case in the past. The other aspect which rather surprises me about
328
the amendment is the fact that the noble Lords concerned have included "the Universities of Scotland" in the text. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Bill has nothing to do with the university side of education in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the matter has already been well discussed on three occasions. It was discussed on Second Reading, when the Scottish Select Committee took evidence in Glasgow, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned, and, indeed, in Committee. The advantage of this new House of Lords procedure, which adds an extra stage to the consideration of Scottish legislation—a stage which takes place in Scotland—is that noble Lords will have an even better opportunity than before to hear what groups and individuals in Scotland want. Moreover, evidence can be placed on the record. In my view, in the case of this amendment, that has been extremely helpful.
The amendment is in fact the same as one discussed in Committee. However, it is no worse for that because there was no opportunity to vote on that occasion. Therefore, I do not in any way chide noble Lords for tabling it again. If passed, the amendment would still allow the Secretary of State to choose and appoint most of the members of the body. I should tell my noble friend who has just spoken that the nominees would not be those appointed; they would be a number of people from whom the Secretary of State would make appointments. In that case, it is perhaps one degree better than my noble friend supposed.
If the amendment were passed, it would still mean that the choice of the Secretary of State would be limited to people nominated by bodies listed on the face of the Bill. As my noble friend said, the list proposed still does not include—as was the case with the amendment tabled in Committee—anyone with experience as an employer or indeed in industry; nor, for that matter, does it include the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which I should have thought would, just like employers, have an interest in how young people are qualified for work in Scotland.
Moreover, if even the principle of the amendment were adopted, members of the new authority, having been nominated by a certain body, would tend to see themselves as representatives. As Mr. Miller, who has experience as a chairman of the existing bodies which will come together under the new authority—namely, the Scottish Examination Board and SCOTVEC—told us in evidence, that tends to make for less good and balanced discussion than does a group of individuals appointed because of their wide background of experience. That is a better way than forming a body from nominees.
In evidence, various groups made plain to the Select Committee the importance that they placed on the membership of the body. That was extremely understandable and was something that was very much emphasised. Indeed, great emphasis was placed on the need for the Secretary of State to consult on the matter. Clearly it is crucial that the membership should be

329
properly balanced and that the views of those with an interest should be taken fully into account in deciding the membership.
As a result of discussion of the amendment in Committee on 23rd April, my noble friend the Minister put on record (at col. CWH 6 and 7 of Hansard) the fact that there will be significant consultation. My noble friend also said—and here we read between the lines—that,
"local authorities have an interest that will require to be properly represented".—[Official Report, 23/4/96; col. CWH 6.]
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will not press the amendment. However, if he decides to do so, I hope that the House will not accept it. When he replies, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us—he may think that this is a naughty question, but it is one that I believe to be relevant—whether, should his party be elected to government at the general election, it would return to the system that was used before 1979, when important bodies like the new SQA were put in the hands of the nominees of interested bodies rather than those chosen by the Secretary of State of the day? I have been a member of many such bodies and I know how that system worked. I trust that we shall not see a return to it. That is one reason why I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to follow my noble friend and neighbour so that the voice of Angus can perhaps be heard in the House this afternoon. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and what he said made me think about many such amendments which are installed or, although I do not believe the noble Lord used the word, put on the face of the Bill. The proposed amendment has one particular danger, in that any group or organisation might feel deprived or left out if it were not included. Indeed, such a group or organisation might be upset if the amendment were accepted. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour, but I wonder whether both he and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would consider glancing at Clause 5 of the Bill. It seems to me that subsections (1) and (2) of that clause will certainly cover the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, without necessarily ring-fencing those persons who might or might not be fitted to give advice.
My noble friend Lord Balfour made some excellent remarks. I did follow the previous proceedings on the Bill, but I have one query regarding Scottish qualifications. Are such qualifications applicable only to young people under 16? Alternatively, are they applicable to someone like myself? I am happy to declare an interest as I am a member of the chartered accountants of Scotland. Considering those among us who have taken qualifications of that nature, I certainly think that Clauses 2 and 5 would cover all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. However, if I am totally wrong in that respect, perhaps my noble friend the Minister can put me right.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, my concern about the amendment is probably the same as that
330
expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I say that because in legislation, where, as here, there is a list of people who may nominate persons to be considered by the Secretary of State, is it not the case that any organisation not included is thereby excluded? Therefore, such a provision could be rather restrictive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I am grateful for the clear explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when moving the amendment. I am also grateful to him for the welcome that he extended to me on my return from Aberdeen. However, I should point out to the noble Lord—although I am sure he realises it—that we are not an endangered species; indeed, we are in good heart and our numbers are strong.
In the Moses Room I assured the Committee of the intention to consult widely before making appointments to the SQA. I am happy to confirm that assurance today to the House. It may be helpful if I repeat the words that my noble friend Lady Carnegy recalled. Local authorities have an interest in this matter that will require to be properly represented on the SQA. I hope that it is obvious to all noble Lords that there are certain organisations which would probably be consulted by the Secretary of State before appointments were made to the SQA. CoSLA would probably be one of the principal consultees, as would the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Colleges, the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, and the STUC, which is also an important source of advice. My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to its omission from the list. The Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce also springs to mind. We have given an assurance as regards consultation and a number of bodies will probably be included. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, made the vital point that in specifying a list one automatically excludes others. I hope that I have reassured those who have been worried about this matter since the Committee stage.
The SQA will be an important new public body and it is vital that individuals of the right calibre and mix of skills and experience are appointed to its board of management. In order to achieve that, we shall consult widely and take full account of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee and the code of practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The range of bodies will certainly include the interests currently recognised within the existing membership of the SEB and SCOTVEC, as I indicated.
This goes beyond the list suggested in the amendment and embraces also employer interests which we consider equally important. My noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out the importance of industry. Noble Lords cannot seriously suggest that employers do not have an interest in a qualified workforce. I am sure noble Lords will agree that employers have a vital and particular interest in the SQA's role in work-related and work-based qualifications. We also see merit in going beyond those currently represented; for instance, to consider the interests of parents.

331
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, expressed concern at an earlier stage that a requirement for names suggested in consultation to be scrutinised by a selection panel would make the consultation meaningless. I do not believe that to be so. The purpose of the consultation is to provide a field of names from which members can be selected. The involvement of a selection panel, including independent members, as required by the Commissioner for Public Appointments will, on the contrary, add value to the process. I am also happy to repeat my assurance, made in Committee, that the consultation process will be significant in the final composition of the SQA.
I recognise, however, that representation on the authority for particular groups is behind much of what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, put to the House today. As I explained in Committee, echoed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, we do not believe that an approach based on guaranteed constituencies is appropriate or indeed necessary. We remain firmly of that view. I cannot therefore give assurances that specific organisations will supply one or more members. However, I have given categoric assurances that it is our intention that the members of the authority will have the breadth of experience and knowledge necessary to cover a broad range of interests. In this context, I recognise the helpful contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at Committee stage, and indeed today. In bringing to bear his experience as Vice Principal of the University of Aberdeen he pointed out that the authority needed to carry the confidence of its customers. We entirely agree. We endorse that view and would expect the composition of the authority to reflect the interests of its main customer groups. This of course would include further and higher education, schools, local authorities and employers.
However, that does not mean that we can accept the amendment. It is too narrow, and it excludes the interests of industry, employers and parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, pointed out, it also includes "central institutions", a term which no longer has statutory significance. I do not believe therefore that the interests of those who will use the services of SQA would be best served by restricting the scope of the Secretary of State to appoint its members. Rather I feel that by allowing flexibility a broader range of relevant interests will be covered and indeed represented on the authority. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, we want balance and consultation, and we want to reflect the views of those who have an interest in the matter. I wish to reassure my noble friend Lord Lyell that as regards age the SQA is totally flexible. One cannot be too old as regards the SQA. In the light of the reassurances and the clarification I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. The object of the amendment was to try to ensure that the relevant groups which have a real interest in the work of the authority are incorporated into the authority. I hear what the Minister has said and I accept it. It was a helpful reply, and it goes most of
332
the way to meeting our concerns. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that when this side changes places with the side of the noble Baroness, any organisations we establish will be broadly represented and—who knows?—she may even find herself on one of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Accreditation function]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 3, after ("function") insert ("of accrediting qualifications").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. There was a full debate about the accrediting function of the SQA at the Committee stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for explaining clearly the background to the amendments which I intend moving today. I record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Stockton for contributing to the prominence which this issue has commanded during the parliamentary process.
I assured noble Lords in Committee that the arrangements set out in the Bill would put on a statutory basis the current arrangements successfully undertaken by SCOTVEC. This change provides all necessary assurance to customers of SCOTVEC about the approach to be taken by SQA. To put beyond doubt that the Secretary of State's direction-making power will apply to the accreditation committee, I undertook to move an amendment. This amendment makes the necessary adjustment to the Bill. The amendment also makes clear that the accreditation committee is set up for the purpose only of accrediting qualifications. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Secretary of State's directions to SQA]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State may give to the Accreditation Committee directions of a general or specific nature and it shall be the duty of the Accreditation Committee to comply with such directions.").
Page 5, line 12, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Grants for education of children under school age]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5:
Leave out Clause 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was originally moved by my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford in Committee. We take it extremely seriously, as the Minister will recollect. Our basic point is that no one we can find in Scotland, other than the few people

333
who support the party opposite—and not even all of them—believe that the voucher scheme is a wise or good way of improving the provision of education for under-fives. Local authorities will be at a great disadvantage if they assume that they will have the same number of children in the nursery schools. They make arrangements for staff and accommodation on the basis of the £1,100 that will be given as a voucher for the children going to the school.
We have still not had an answer from the Minister to the important point put by my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford. It is a simple point, and I believe that it encompasses the whole argument. For example, two children go to a local authority nursery school. One lady decides that she is able to top up the £1,100 and transfer the child to an approved, private nursery school. Having spent a great deal of money organising staff, accommodation, the apparatus for the morning milk break, and so on, for the children, the local authority will be left with those costs still to pay off, although it will not have the same number of children going to the school.
We believe that the provision will be extremely divisive. My noble friend spoke about two children going together daily to a nursery school who are suddenly split up, one going home at lunch-time, the other attending a private nursery school all day until three or four o'clock in the afternoon. Therefore, at a very early age those children would be separated and feel that there was a difference between them; and that is obviously not good.
I do not wish to spend time on the issue. We went into it in great detail at Committee stage. We have had representations from almost every educational body and involved parent group in Scotland. I can only repeat to the Minister that no one wants the scheme. I can say quite positively that even if the scheme were in full operation by the time that the Government change, it will certainly not be implemented or continued by this side of the House.
We have had no answer from the Minister on these specific points. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when evidence was taken in Scotland, there was indifference from everyone other than those proposing the scheme, as the noble Lord said. The scheme does not have great support. It was called bureaucratic, wasteful and divisive. There was no support for the measure in the evidence. Those who run private nursery schools managed indifference. With that degree of support from those who will use such a scheme, I suggest that there is a strong case for getting rid of the provision.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that this is a wrecking amendment. It would remove the voucher scheme from the Bill. It would take the guts out of Part II of the Bill and would remove the proposed new parental involvement in children's nursery education.
334
I was surprised that the amendment was accepted on the Marshalled List at Committee stage. I am even more surprised at Report stage when noble Lords have the ability to divide the House. It seems to me a highly unsuitable proposal in this unelected House, in particular since the Bill has not yet been through the House of Commons.
The objections of the two parties opposite to the proposed voucher scheme have been well and fully argued at each stage of the Bill. It is true that when various bodies gave evidence in Glasgow, few supported the principle. They seemed fearful of the change that the scheme might bring. I was far more fearful before discussion on the Bill began than I am now, having seen the detail. The scheme seems highly workable.
I believe that those on the Front Benches opposite have a prejudice against giving influence to parents in the education of their children. They have a prejudice against allowing parents a direct effect where new or extended nursery provision is established. They are clearly prejudiced against allowing parents to affect the quality of what is provided through their own choice; and prejudiced, too, against extending what public money can provide by bringing private money into partnership with public money.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was worried. He gave an example of where a parent might top up the voucher to a value which would enable the child to go to a private nursery. He asked what that would do to the local authority's planning. Does it not occur to him that there may be private nurseries about which parents are not satisfied? They may wish their children to attend local authority nursery education. The movement can be both ways. That is what choice is about.
The room for manoeuvre for local authorities in their funding of nurseries is great because a large amount of the money spent at present on nurseries will remain with the local authorities. The local authorities will have flexibility. Only a proportion of their expenditure will be passed by the voucher to the parent to choose where he or she spends that money. It does not seem to me to be a problem, although I understand that it is a fear enunciated by councillors because at present local authorities plan with considerable certainty. Virtually all nursery provision in its area is in the hands of the local authority.
I believe that if this House is to remain a scrutinising Chamber (if it is allowed to remain at all) its duty is not to remove the guts of a Bill—not to remove the main purpose of a large part of the Bill. Whatever the lack of information about the voucher scheme and satisfaction as regards whether it is designed to work well, I hope that under no circumstances will noble Lords agree that this clause does not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, having been present at the Scottish Select Committee in Glasgow, I believe that the oral evidence, especially in relation to the voucher scheme, has to be accorded the respect of this House. The scheme is unpopular and, more importantly, is deemed unworkable. However, that view may change depending on the outcome of the four pilot tests.

335
Strong reservations were voiced about the length of time allocated to these tests, especially in view of the Government's intention to launch the system a year after the tests have started. Representations showed that almost all local authorities are opposed to the scheme in one way or another. Concern was expressed regarding the quality and standards of the education which might be supplied by new providers. The system was criticised for being too bureaucratic. The amount of £1,100 was considered insufficient, especially in regard to children with special needs.
There is also an absence of a clear curricular framework and, as has already been mentioned, the scheme has been seen as socially divisive. A survey of 377 primary schools carried out by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council showed that 55 per cent. had used local authority nursery schools. That compared favourably with the 55.9 per cent. of all four year-olds in local authority nurseries, as measured by the Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin. The survey showed that 77 per cent. would have opted for local authority nurseries as their ideal choice, the problem being availability of the local facility, not lack of choice.
Both Lothian and Fife have adequate provision and consequently have a high percentage of four year-olds at their schools. The scheme does not cater for that lack of facility in other areas of Scotland. I grant that it gives parental choice—which I assume is the Government's intention—which will help to stimulate private investment in the provision of new pre-school facilities. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the numbers stack up. Less densely populated areas will not attract new providers, and that is where the lack of pre-school facility is most evident. If 55 per cent. of all children receive pre-school education, I should have thought that the proposed extra investment of £30 million should be used to address the needs of the not-so-fortunate 45 per cent.
Finally, I do not believe that the scheme will increase nursery places, nor that sufficient time has been allocated to test it properly.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I did not attend the session described by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. He made one or two points towards the end of his remarks about rural areas, and I can think of places like Sutherland, Argyll and Inverness where there are enormous open spaces. My noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy and I live in Tayside, an area which was not mentioned by the noble Lord but which is broadly similar to Grampian, which is well known to the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Ewing of Kirkford. In Kirriemuir and Northmuir—my neck of the woods—there is adequate provision for children, but Clause 23 could give assistance to parents where I live. It is helpful to have the facility of the option provided by Clause 23.
I was interested in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. When the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, winds up he may be able to enlighten me about the questions of divisiveness and, above all, timing. He described two children going to school side-by-side, with one leaving at the end of the morning
336
and the other at the end of the afternoon. Many people on these Benches think that I am going back to my youth; that is not necessarily so, but I know the span of children's attention at the age of four. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, that it is interesting that, as noble Lords are aware, in Scotland, at the start of the school year in August, at lunchtime—12 o'clock—one cannot get near schools. For the first six or 10 weeks of a child's school career it is considered reasonable for the child to attend only in the morning. If that is the pattern in primary and infant schools, I wonder whether the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about divisiveness and one child leaving in the morning and another staying on in the afternoon are relevant. Perhaps he will be able to enlighten me when he winds up.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, as I said at Committee stage, I am surprised at the pessimism of noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite. At present in Scotland only a minority of children enjoy pre-school education. For every child who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may leave and go to the private sector with a topping up fee, I believe that, if the local authority nursery education is good, several will go to the local authority nursery schools. Parents will be given a voucher; they may never previously have had any encouragement to send their children to a pre-school nursery. They will want to use the vouchers. If the schools are good, I believe that the local authorities will gain far more. Yes, new private schools may well be set up, but I believe that more people will want to send their children to established local authority schools if those schools are good.
I too attended the meeting in Glasgow and had the honour of chairing the splendid Select Committee. I heard the opposition that came from local authorities, but we must realise that there is always opposition to anything new or radical. Many of the best ideas that have come from the Government over the past 15 years have been fiercely opposed by the Opposition. Yet they are now accepted by New Labour as policies which it would wish to follow. The voucher system for nursery education is the same. It should receive a fair trial, and I believe that the outcome will be beneficial to all pre-school children in the country.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I did not sit on the Select Committee in Glasgow, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. However, I have read the evidence and noted that one argument was that the sum of £1,100 a year was inadequate to fund a nursery school place for a child. Therefore, either the local authority would be out of pocket or private suppliers would not be able to afford to start up. Alternatively, parents would have to top up the voucher and therefore it would be nursery education for the well off and no education for the poor.
I have a grandson aged four who lives in Edinburgh. He goes to nursery school for three hours a day, five days a week. For that, the fees are approximately £520 per term. According to my arithmetic, that works

337
out at £1,560 a year and, also according to my arithmetic, at that fee £1,100 a year would provide either 2.5 hours a day—which is as long as some children are able to concentrate—for four days a week or 3.5 hours a day for three days a week. As I understand it, the scheme was not intended to provide full-time education. At the outset it was only intended to provide part-time nursery education. Apart from the problem of disabled children who have learning difficulties, it is possible that £1,100 may be perfectly adequate.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I have slipped unobtrusively from my seat on the Front Bench to where many noble Lords consider I should be, a seat on the Back Bench. I am not sure that the leader of my own party does not consider that to be my place. It is important that I should make my position clear at this stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right: Clause 23 is the crucial, central feature of the Bill. Throughout our debates I have argued strongly from the Front Bench against the proposal to introduce a voucher scheme for nursery education.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that the £1,100 is meant to purchase approximately two hours of nursery education. In her words, that is all that a child can stand in any case.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I said two-and-a-half hours a day four days a week, or three-and-a-half hours a day three days a week. Children vary as to their concentration span.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as I understood her, the noble Lady was arguing that, by and large, that was what a four year-old child could accept. If that is the case, why on earth is there a provision in the Bill to allow parents to send their children to private rather than local authority nurseries? That is a noteworthy point. A provision in the Bill allows people sending their children to private nurseries to top up the £1,100. They can therefore choose to send their child to a private nursery not for two-and-a-half hours a day four or five days a week or three hours a day for four days a week, but for five or six hours a day for five days a week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will say that that is a matter for parental choice. I suggest a simple solution to the whole question. If we want to give parents real choice, let us leave it to them to decide whether they want the voucher. Let us leave it to parents to apply for the voucher. But of course that is not part of the scheme; parents do not have to apply.
In advertisements throughout the national press for a company to run the scheme, the scheme is quite clearly defined. Parents of every four year-old in this country will have a voucher sent to them whether or not they want it. That is not parental choice. This suggestion was laughed off in the beginning, but I challenge the Government. If we want to give parents a genuine choice let us leave it to them to decide whether they want the voucher. Let them decide whether they turn to the local authority in areas where, as the noble Lord,
338
Lord Sempill, said there is adequate provision. For example, in Fife and Lothian, where there is over 96 per cent. provision, parents could decide whether to go to Fife central headquarters or Lothian council headquarters or their outfield offices to ask for a voucher. The Government will not do that of course. It would be a negation of the very principle they seek to introduce.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goold, said, a number of areas throughout Scotland have inadequate provision. The Islands are a very good example. Anybody who believes that a voucher scheme will cure the problem of inadequate provision in those areas completely fails to understand, first, the culture and, secondly, their rural nature. By and large, because of the widespread nature of communities, children have to travel very long distances between home and school even for primary and secondary education, let alone nursery education. A £1,100 voucher will not persuade a mother or father in the Western Isles, the Outer Hebrides or the Orkneys and Shetland to send a four year-old child between 20 and 50 miles to a nursery class. The suggestion is ludicrous. Yet that is what the Government pretend.
I do not believe the Government themselves think the scheme will be implemented. I do not believe for a minute that sensible people such as the noble Earl the Minister, who has the unfortunate task of trying to pilot this Bill through the House, think that that is a sensible proposition. The problem in the rural areas of Scotland is not linked to the councils. It is not that councils do not want to supply nursery education. It is simply a matter of the distance children have to travel to reach the facilities provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made a constitutional point; namely, that the Opposition's suggestion that Part II of the Bill should not stand part would "take the guts" out of the Bill; it is a wrecking amendment when the Bill has not been before another place. Of course it has not been before another place—it started its passage here in this Chamber. It is not a defence for a government supporter to say that if a Bill begins its passage in this place we should not make any fundamental changes to it because it has not been to the other place. If the Bill is so fundamental, it should have started its passage in the other place.
I believe with all my heart and say in all sincerity that the voucher scheme is destined to failure even before the four pilot areas are tested. There is no guarantee whatsoever from the Government that if the experiment in those four areas should fail, they would then withdraw the scheme. I do not believe that they would, and for one simple reason. They have ignored all the evidence given to the Select Committee of this House which met in Glasgow (of which I was not a member) and have gone ahead, head down, determined to implement the scheme. There is little hope that if the pilot project is a failure, the Government will withdraw the scheme. They will not.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I say with great respect that there is a fundamental difference between those who sit on these Benches and the Government's supporters. This whole question has

339
absolutely nothing to do with the provision of nursery education. It has everything to do with dogma. No professional educationist the length and breadth of the country—some of whom must be Conservative supporters—supports the measure. It may well be that such people are very reluctant to come out and declare their support for the Conservative Party. I have a great deal of sympathy and full understanding for them in their very difficult position. However, not one has supported the proposal. Had there been any support, the Government would have trumpeted it from the rooftops.
As I have told the noble Earl the Minister, he can make a name for himself. All right, he will be sacked; but we will look after him! He can stand up, accept this amendment and get rid of this absolutely madcap idea. In that way he would write himself into the educational history books of Scotland as having done something for our four year-olds. This proposal is an absolute disaster. I urge my noble friends to test the opinion of the House on this issue. It is crucial to the future of nursery education in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I know that at Report stage every speaker rises only once to speak, but with the leave of the House perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about the main constitutional point that he made. Does he believe, whether a Bill begins in this House or in another place—I am glad that the Bill began in this House because we have examined it with great care so far—that an unelected Chamber should remove the guts of the most important part of a Bill?
It seems to me that he is misleading the House on this matter, as when he joined in a number of misleading arguments that we have heard before—for example, that parents have to use their voucher. They do not; they have their piece of paper but do not have to use it. He made a number of misleading comments to which perhaps at this stage I should not respond. But does he believe that this House should remove the guts of a Bill whether or not it has been before the House of Commons?
4 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I feel that the noble Baroness is getting a little over-excited. I am not guilty of misleading your Lordships or anyone else. I explained before that during my term as a Scottish Office Minister there were six or seven press officers. There are now something like 44 in the Scottish Office. There are four press officers for every Scottish Tory MP. The noble Baroness complained that I am misleading the people of Scotland, when in the Scottish Office there are four press officers for every Tory MP in Scotland. I plead not guilty to what I regard as a very grave charge of misleading your Lordships.
With regard to the constitutional question, I take a rather simple but profound view. If your Lordships' House is asked to examine legislation, we have every right to amend it. Otherwise, why are we asked to examine the legislation? That we have no right to amend
340
it is the best argument that I have yet heard—the noble Baroness has it on the record—for Tony Blair's proposal to reform this Chamber.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, history is catching up with many of us today. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to Grampian and Tayside and I have to tell him that he helped to abolish those authorities.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this part of the Bill. For the first time a Bill seeks to ensure that the provision of a major service is achieved through a voucher scheme. Nothing at all like that has been done in the area not only of education policy but of social policy generally. It is a major change in the approach of the Government to the provision of major services. Therefore, it requires very close and detailed scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made a principled objection to the voucher approach. By introducing vouchers, we move into uncharted waters and there are dangerous rocks ahead. Let me mention just a few. One that concerns me is the whole area of fraud. The Audit Commission has already drawn attention to the need to have in place extremely robust and powerful procedures to guard against fraud. I find it extremely difficult to see how we can have a scheme which minimises to acceptable levels the opportunity for fraud.
If there are unscrupulous providers, what is to prevent some deal being done whereby the person holding the voucher (which cannot be cashed for £1,100) can obtain fewer sessions than the face value of the voucher would secure and have a cash settlement as well from the provider? It is difficult to see the kind of procedures that would prevent such fraud taking place. We need a clear statement from the Government, with the support of the Comptroller and Auditor General, about how that major kind of abuse is likely to be prevented.
The Government also argue that the voucher scheme will increase provision and bring new players into the market. I do not believe that is likely to be the case. The voucher scheme is pitched at the level of £1,100, which, as we have been told on a number of occasions, covers basically the recurrent revenue costs of a half-time provision. It does not cover the capital costs. So it is unlikely that new players will enter the market when the price of the voucher does not enable them to cover their capital expenditure in setting up the new nurseries. There will certainly be some slack. There may well be a marginal increase but not a significant increase.
The perversity of the scheme is that, by introducing the £1,100 voucher, far from increasing the provision, it may have the effect, if provision remains roughly constant, of allowing the price level to rise. So in the private sector, the price level of private provision may increase. I think that is not what the Government want but, clearly, it is one of the dangers that beset a voucher approach.
There is also the danger that in some areas there may be a reduction in provision from the present levels. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, made reference to the difficulties of rural areas. Let me repeat the example that I gave in Committee. In a rural area, a local authority may just be able economically to make provision for one

341
nursery class, say of 25 children. Quite understandably, perhaps because of the area in which the father travels to work, it may be more convenient for two or three of those children to be taken to a private nursery school and the voucher used to gain access. I do not criticise the parents for doing that. But by taking those children out of the local authority nursery school and taking money with them, there is a danger that the local authority nursery school will no longer be economically viable. So there is the bizarre situation whereby the choice exercised by the few denies provision for the many. That is the situation that can stem from this ill conceived and ill begotten idea of nursery provision.
We have seen in Scotland the model for effective nursery provision. The noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord Ewing, have already drawn attention to it. Basically, it builds upon the strengths and example of local authority provision, certainly complemented and in partnership with the private sector. It is not done through a madcap voucher scheme.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, offered me a place in the history books should I decide to abandon this part of the Bill, which I have no intention of doing. I should tell him that in an area of Scotland that he knows well, I am already in the local education history books. I shall soon have 25 per cent. of an entire primary school because five of my children will all be attending the same school at the same time. I intend to keep that very good local authority primary school going by maintaining that sort of proportion.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, has the noble Earl advised his wife of that?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I believe in partnership.
I was interested in the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy on the constitutional point. I do not disagree with the noble Lord's riposte. However, in defence of my noble friend, I point out that the other place passed the English Bill which deals with nursery voucher provision and therefore backed the principle of nursery voucher provision. For those who, like my noble friend, see a constitutional problem, that may be of relevance.
I point out to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael, Lord Addington, Lord Sempill and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that there are people in Scotland who are looking forward to the provision of nursery vouchers. Many parents are seeking the provision. The pilot scheme launched in East Renfrewshire illustrates an interesting reaction. When the scheme was announced, the telephone system could not cope with the calls coming in from interested parents. When my honourable friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, the Scottish Education Minister, recently visited on the helpline, it was swamped with calls from outside the pilot project area asking why they could not be included in the scheme.
Parents want the voucher system. It may be that there are elements of the existing educational structure which do not want to contemplate such change. But the
342
beneficiaries—the parents and the children themselves—have a much more positive approach. Other organisations also support the idea. The Gaelic playgroup movement in particular expressed a keen interest in the voucher system. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, referred to the Western Isles as being a place where it would have little relevance. We know that it will have great relevance, not only for journeys of 40 miles or more but also to generate playgroups serving specific communities such as the Gaelic community.
I draw attention also to the Scottish Consumer Council, which paid tribute to the opportunities of wider involvement which the voucher initiative will offer. There are people in Scotland who want the voucher system to be installed. The four pilot project areas—I address this point especially to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, because he had anxieties about certain rural areas and the practicality of the voucher system—are deliberately located across a range of different types of community and geography. We want to find the rocks in the water, if they exist, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred; we want to iron out the problems and ensure that the benefits the scheme can bring are delivered.
My noble friend Lord Goold put his finger on the point when he said that radical ideas are always treated with suspicion. I hasten to add that they are not always treated with wisdom. The witnesses who gave the so-called "evidence" to the Select Committee in Glasgow were speculating about a scheme that did not exist. To categorise it as "evidence" may be misleading. They were seeking to speculate as to what their response would be to something which did not yet exist.
Fifteen years ago noble Lords on the Benches opposite would have made the same speeches about the sale of council houses to sitting tenants as we have heard today. They resisted those reforms to the last ditch, yet in Scotland the system has produced 315,000 home-owners and increased home ownership from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. Similarly, noble Lords opposite would have spoken against the system of school placing requests which since 1981 has enabled over 240,000 parents—90 per cent. of all the parents who applied—to exercise choice in selecting the school that they want their child to attend. They would have spoken against school boards and even report cards. The dogma which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, accuses us of having is one that they hold in terms of opposing parental choice wherever it occurs.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, is the noble Earl intending to make reference to the outstanding success of opted-out schools in Scotland, of which I believe there are two?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, this clause is a serious part of the Bill and I intend to make reference to all matters that are relevant to the House's deliberation on the issue.
When one thinks of the party opposite opposing choice, it must be a matter for comment that certain senior members avail themselves of that choice. But they are right to do so; it proves that they are good and

343
conscientious parents, even though they are not consistent as politicians. It comes down to choice. Many parents will opt for local authority nursery provision, just as many council tenants choose not to buy houses. All three elements of education provision, whether in the public, voluntary or private sectors, will benefit from the scheme. They will be winners and not losers. Competition will improve provision and excellence. The new provision will come into being in response to market demands.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, mentioned the Scottish Parent Teacher Council study that suggested that 77 per cent. of parents wanted local authority provision. That is fine. We want the excellent reputation of local authorities to continue to attract children to their education systems. We expect the voucher scheme not only to increase the number of children who attend local authority schools but also to increase the provision for those children. However, a recent survey by the Scottish Independent Nursery Association suggested that 65 per cent. of parents want independent nurseries. I have no view on that. It is entirely up to parents whether they go to the public, the private or the voluntary sector, which is a vital sector, for the pre-school education of their children. It is parental choice that matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, for the second time, made great play of the fact that we are hardly offering parents choice if we are sending them vouchers. First, I doubt the logic of that argument. Secondly, we are not sending parents vouchers; we are sending them application forms for vouchers. Should any parents not want to be involved in the nursery voucher scheme, they simply need not fill in the application form. I believe that answers the noble Lord's concerns absolutely.
Many research studies have shown that early years education brings significant benefits to children in terms of both social development and learning capability. Pre-school education gives children a head start, and the Government's pre-school voucher initiative aims to make that head start available to every child. It need not be socio-divisive. Indeed, we wonder why noble Lords opposite are convinced that it must be socio-divisive.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Sewel, imagined hypothetical situations where, because of the nursery voucher system, a number of parents opted for a different type of provision. If we relate that hypothesis to the facts, we can assume that five children in an area attend a local authority school. I remind the House that 55 per cent. of four year-olds at the moment receive local authority pre-school education. With the advent of vouchers, if two of those five children are taken to another source of provision by the parents because they have that choice, there are probably an additional four children in the area who will opt for provision from that local authority for the first time. For every two children that may leave the school, there is a huge pool of four year-old children in Scotland at present who are not receiving pre-school education but who will be given access to pre-school education for the first time by the voucher system.
344
I stress that it is not as though the private sector is the only sector which charges parents for the education of their children. I will not recount an article that appeared in the Scottish section of The Times Educational Supplement on Friday. It dealt with the upset felt by parents and others because Glasgow, Inverclyde and West Dumbarton are proposing to charge up to £70 a week for their local authority provision of pre-school education where, for instance, children come in from outside the local authority area. The public sector is also indulging in charging parents, which in some instances will prevent those parents from continuing to have access to that local authority education. Vouchers will enable those parents to continue to enjoy that provision.
I would also remind the House that the voucher initiative can be implemented using existing powers contained within Section 73 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Part II of the Bill does not introduce the ability to provide nursery vouchers for the parents of four year-old children. What it does is to introduce precisely tailored powers with associated provisions that will bring quality, public accountability and efficiency to how provision is made. It will bring protection for parents, for the children and indeed for those where information about their status as being parents of four year-olds is taken from social security records. It is therefore essential that we add to the existing provision, which enables the Secretary of State to grant vouchers to providers of pre-school education, the vital parts of Part II which will ensure quality and other necessary measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, continues to be concerned about the dangers of fraud. I explained in great length in Committee that we are adamant that fraud will be fought with all the most sophisticated and modern measures. The voucher system cannot be susceptible either to significant fraud or to significant bureaucracy. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, that a management company will administer the scheme at very low cost. We are confident that the cost of issuing and redeeming the vouchers will not exceed 2 per cent. of the total voucher programme. The scheme will be a remarkably cost-effective provision. As regards fraud, we have to, and will, employ robust procedures to ensure that no taxpayers' money is wasted. We in the Scottish Office and in government have to account for those procedures and will take on board any comments or suggestions made by the public accounts watchdogs which scrutinise the disbursement of public money.
Clause 23 has a key part to play here. It empowers the Secretary of State to pay grants and with the other provisions of Part II of the Bill to provide the quality we are looking for. In addition, it provides that the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe the children in respect of whom such grants can be made. It is a very simple and central clause; it is a very simple and central part of the Bill.
I was grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for explaining from, as she said, her first-hand experience as a grandmother the costs that arise and the kind of provision that is offered to parents of young children. I can remind the House and indeed my noble friend

345
Lord Lyell that there is a whole variety of educational provision for four year-olds. Some parents will choose fairly long sessions for their children which are of a fairly low input in terms of educational material. One thinks of playgroups. We are not talking about child care; we are talking about structured activities. There are other parents who will go for the half day or part-time option which has greater emphasis on actual education.
As various noble Lords have pointed out, with the average education span of a child, if education rather than the less formal playgroup is the main purpose, it is quite right that the part-time approach is pursued. However, we are confident that the £1,100, voucher will broadly cover the costs of the average provision of this kind of education for children. Recent Audit Commission studies in England and Wales, which I quoted in Committee, confirm our confidence that £1,100 vouchers will cover substantially the costs of either of those routes. I also dealt in Committee with a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. The providers, be they in the voluntary sector, the private sector or the public sector, will be able to use the vouchers to help off-set the cost of loans and other sources of capital investment.
It is very important that we understand the basic facts underlying Part II. The Government are determined that we provide all parents of four year-olds with the means to supply their own children with pre-school education if that is their wish. We are determined that the vouchers initiative should support diversity of provision across the different sectors of providers. Our initiative will give parents choice because that will lead to more responsive services and a strengthening of the mixed economy of pre-school education. I am disappointed to find noble Lords opposite in both main opposition- parties so opposed to parental choice.
The Government are confident that the voucher system represents the best means of ensuring the expansion we all desire. There are some 27,000 four year-olds in Scotland who are currently not going through local authority nursery schools. We want all those children to be stimulated into schooling. By allowing the Secretary of State to make grants for pre-school education, Clause 23 would allow the creation of a broad and quality oriented range of providers.
No political chamber in the world attaches more importance to or spends more time on discussing matters concerning the family than does this House. The crucial means of supporting the family is to give decision-making powers to parents from the very beginning of children's education. Parental involvement is the best way of enhancing contact between parents, teachers and children. It will help discipline in the home. Children must be our primary consideration—not the status quo as regards local authority education provision. Unless overall nursery provision is stimulated in all three sectors, some children will be left to watch "Power Rangers" on television in their pre-school year while others learn social skills at a nursery school.
346
This is no attack on local authority nursery schools. They have a tremendous reputation in Scotland. They will be great winners from the additional provision that will be required by those voucher-holding parents. Local authorities will benefit from this initiative, as indeed will all other parts of the educational sector, and as indeed will parents and their children. That is why we are putting so much new money into the initiative.
On this amendment Labour and the Liberal Democrats would appear to want to bar parental choice from this whole issue. They appear to want to bar parents from being involved in schooling. We welcome parental involvement in this. Parents who have made decisions about their children's nursery education are more likely to participate throughout the rest of their children's educational lives. They are more likely, for instance, to be involved in school boards. The whole cycle of co-operation will create a greater sense of community. Only the children of Scotland will suffer if this House rejects the valuable provisions in Clause 23 and in the rest of Part II. I therefore urge noble Lords to allow Clause 23 to remain a part of the Bill.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, one of the difficulties about opposing the noble Earl is that I believe that he believes everything he says and I believe that he is looking for the best of all possible worlds. If the whole process was left to him I might well be persuaded that the ideas were good. What makes me think again is that in Glasgow we spent nearly two days in the Select Committee with experts on education from all walks of life. None of them believed that this was a good scheme. We had our own experiences and we listened to experts on education who came to speak to us. That is the basis on which we have opposed the scheme so vigorously.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She tried to suggest that this is a wrecking amendment. If we disagree violently with a Bill, I do not see why we should not seek to wreck it. I suggest to the noble Baroness that she studies the period when there was a Labour government instead of looking into a crystal ball. She should examine the record; she will see our scars as regards the number of Bills wrecked in this place by the party opposite. Anyone who was here at the time will remember that many Bills were destroyed or emasculated. That is why we feel strongly about the matter.
The Minister gave one example which almost perfectly illustrates part of the problem. He spoke of about 65 per cent. of those in East Renfrewshire who are keen to have the voucher system. That is exactly what we are talking about. It is one of the few areas, which includes Newton Mearns, where there is still a Tory representative. I do not believe that there are any councillors there. I wonder whether noble Lords saw the cartoon in one of the weekend magazines showing a rather imperious lady saying to a gentleman, "Oh, a Tory councillor in Scotland—how quaint!" That is exactly the position in East Renfrewshire.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is not only in East Renfrewshire where there are pilot projects or where

347
the hotlines have been swamped by parents who want this provision. We are also talking about Argyll and Bute, North Ayrshire and parts of the Highlands and Islands. The parents across these areas want this system and that is why they show such energetic interest in what is going on.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I was intending to mention the islands because I agree they are a very special case. They are desperate for any movement at all. If the Minister gives the matter a few minutes thought, I believe he will realise that East Renfrewshire does not represent a very good cross-section. I know the area very well. It does not represent a cross-section of the west of Scotland because it is only a small part of that area. Despite liking the Minister and conceding that he believes what he is saying, we are so strongly opposed to this measure that we must take the view of the House.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Seear, B.

Falkender, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sempill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stallard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taverne, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hayman, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Healey, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

348

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Addison, V.

Kimball, L

Ailesbury, M.

Kintore, E.

Ailsa, M.

Knollys, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Leigh, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsay, E

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lucas, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Berners, B.

McConnell, L.

Blakenham, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cadman, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Nelson, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Chorley, L.

Ncrthesk, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Comwallis, L.

Oxfuird, V

Courtown, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

De Freyne, L.

Pym, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Drogheda, E.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Rees, L.

Ellenborough, L

Rennell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Foley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shannon, E.

Gainford, L.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goold, L.

Slim, V.

Goschen, V.

Stockton, E.

Granard, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Peiherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Teynham, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hertford, M.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wharton, B.

Ilchester, E.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
EVALUATION OF PILOT SCHEMES
(". No grants shall be made under section 23 of this Act until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament an evaluation of any pilot or experimental schemes and of their implications.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the premise of the amendment is that if there is a pilot scheme, regard should he had to what is said. After the scheme has been run—there is dispute as to whether the period is long enough to be effective—Parliament should pay attention to the results of it.
This amendment was tabled slightly late on Thursday, for which I apologise, but it has already been flagged up. In Glasgow the Minister assured the Select Committee that in a pilot scheme everything would be taken into account. When we pushed him a little further he repeated that. At the end I asked whether, if the scheme ultimately failed, the whole voucher system would be withdrawn. The Minister replied that he could not conceive of any situation in which the scheme would fail. He was probably the only person who gave evidence who could not foresee anything that could be deemed a failure of the scheme.
The amendment provides that the results of the scheme should be laid before Parliament. All of the matters referred to in the last debate—the degree of parental choice, the fact that many who knew anything about the Bill were not keen on it and so on—could be taken into account. At that time we will see what has gone wrong and what has gone right. If this scheme seems to be appropriate for the Islands of Scotland or the outlying regions, perhaps it could be retained or something else tried later on. We must remember that the voucher scheme is not in the Bill itself, which is merely concerned with a grant-making power.
On the basis of this amendment or a consideration along these lines, Parliament would be given time to think again with knowledge. I suggest that this can be easily done. If not, I suggest that dogma is taking over on all sides and the idea of providing better education has been ignored. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. Perhaps at a later stage he or my noble friend the Minister may be able to enlighten me as to the evaluation of the pilot scheme. What is the process of the catch-all system of evaluation? What will be the parameters for the evaluation of the success or otherwise of the scheme? If the noble Lord can spell that out for me at the end, I await his comments with interest, as I believe that that will clarify the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I should have thought that it would be for the noble Earl to explain the evaluation of the pilot scheme. To take the argument back one stage, what is the purpose of the pilot scheme? If the purpose is not to find out the strengths and weaknesses of any aspect of policy that is being introduced, basically there is no point in having a pilot
350
scheme in the first place. If the Government are to introduce a pilot scheme that is not to be evaluated, it seems to me that there is little purpose in introducing it. If it is being suggested that in introducing the pilot scheme all that the Scottish Office is doing, with its massed army of civil servants, is trying something out to see what form the application should take and to test various administrative aspects of the voucher system, that can be done without the expense of a pilot scheme in these four areas of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will tell your Lordships whether the Scottish Office is to evaluate the scheme. If so, no doubt the noble Earl can answer his noble friend's question and the questions that are in the minds of us all. I am quite happy to state what I believe should be examined.
One of the matters is the quality of nursery education to be provided. I believe that that is essential in the pilot project. It was noticeable that the Minister did not mention it in summing up the last debate when he spoke of the desires of parents. Some parents would be happy with a high educational content; others would be happy with a "play scheme" content, to quote his words. That is not part of nursery education. The Scottish Office has advertised for an inspector for the private nurseries which are to be set up to check that they provide an acceptable standard of nursery education. It does not say anything about "play scheme" content. I believe that the noble Earl should look closely at the advertisement placed in the national press some months ago. The Scottish Office advertised for an inspector to inspect the private nurseries which are to be established. Already one has two aspects of the pilot scheme that ought to be evaluated.
There are other aspects of the pilot scheme that should be evaluated; for example, the take up. The pilot scheme should find out how many parents are presently paying for nursery education for their children and take the £1,100 voucher as a contribution to what they have been paying over the past given number of years, depending upon how many children there are in the family. The pilot scheme might show that it is subsidising those who are already paying and who can afford to pay for their children's private education.
I always remember Michael Forsyth, the Scottish Secretary, saying during an education debate in the Scottish Grand Committee that his parental choice was made through his cheque book. That quote can be checked easily. It was a Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh. Michael Forsyth was not then Scottish Secretary but Minister of State or one of the Under-Secretaries in the Scottish Office. He made it clear that he made his parental choice through his cheque book. That is a privilege people are entitled to have. I do not act in that way but if people wish to, who am I to criticise? Where I do criticise is if those parents cash in on the scheme and claw back some of their cheque book parental choice.
There is no shortage of aspects of the pilot scheme that should be evaluated. I am surprised that the question was put. I look forward to hearing from the Minister,

351
first, whether the Scottish Office will evaluate the scheme; secondly, what tests it will apply to the pilot project in the four areas of Scotland; and, thirdly, whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the scheme will be withdrawn in the event that the pilot projects are shown by the evaluation test to have failed.
This is an important aspect of the discussions of Part II of the Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Carmichael, I have great respect and liking for the Minister. I know that he is keen to give as much information as possible and to be as helpful as he can when these questions are raised. It is in that spirit that I join the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in speaking to the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can clarify a matter. It seems to me that a year will be a very short time in which to evaluate the pilot schemes. If I were planning to set up a nursery school, it would take me at least a year to obtain suitable premises and carry out any necessary conversions, equip them and engage staff before I could even start taking in pupils. It seems to me that if we are to get a real picture of how well the whole thing works, a period of at least two years will be necessary.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I was unable to be present to hear the evidence given in Glasgow. I support the amendment. I have read and listened carefully to the points made. The first and most important issue to make clear is that there are two aspects to parental choice. There is the aspect of whether public finance is available to provide a voucher for parents who at present cannot, because of lack of availability, or do not choose to, use LEA provision, and whether giving a voucher to parents in that group is a valid position to take.
There is then the question regarding the nursery provision which is able, and available to, meet parental choice where the parents want their child or children to go to the local authority nursery. We could have a long debate as to how many parents—it would be a bit like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin—will choose to send their child, full or part-time, to a local authority nursery and avoid the use of vouchers. The Government could then argue that there is complete choice.
However, the financial arrangements of the scheme the Government have put forward appear to carry a marked danger, under the guise of offering increased choice to some parents who do not now receive what they want, of eroding or worsening the choice that is currently available to other parents. Among them may be parents of children who are deemed to be most in need of access to the maximum time available for pre-statutory school age education.
I am thinking not just of children who are physically handicapped but of those who are emotionally and behaviourally disturbed or who come from families with multiple problems. There is often provision made to ensure that special needs children—not just the most severe 2 or 2.5 per cent. but the 18 per cent. about whom
352
Members of your Lordships' House on all sides are deeply concerned and to whom we want to see high quality nursery education made available—are catered for.
There is also the question of whether any particular means of looking at the financial arrangements for implementing the scheme will have expected or unexpected financial repercussions on local authorities' ability to continue the existing level of provision, and whether interfering with the complex nature of local government funding will have a damaging impact.
I listened with interest to the Minister when he alleged that Members on this side of the House condemned the Government's proposals as being ill thought out. I waited for him to refer to the community charge or "poll tax". He omitted to do so. Interfering in the complicated nature of local authority funding, and thereby, perhaps unwittingly—I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt—affecting financial arrangements may disrupt a local authority's capacity to continue to provide for children with the greatest need. That may be a factor that can be identified in an evaluation of the pilot scheme.
There is also a need to study the whole issue of monitoring and the avoidance of fraud. There can be no doubt about the potential for fraud. Regardless of one's views of the desirability of the scheme, there will obviously be unanimity in your Lordships' House about the need to evaluate the scheme to ensure that, were it to be implemented universally, there was no avoidable scope for fraud.
There is also the issue of physical and mental safety and the quality of the monitoring of those who make such provision, which is funded from the public sector. I hope that the Government consider that to be an inevitable and valuable aspect of evaluating the pilot scheme. There is a whole range of reasons why that applies in the interests of the most vulnerable children and those who may be at risk of having their current level of provision cut. I refer in particular to those with special needs and to those at greatest risk.
From my experience in local government and from contacts with colleagues in Scotland I know that there are many unique cases. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that it may be sufficient for children to have two to two-and-a-half hours of nursery education perhaps three days a week. That may apply as a generality. As chair of an education committee I have come across cases in which the mother is suffering from a terminal illness. All too frequently those in local government are involved in cases in which there is a query about a non-accidental injury or there is a problem in the home. There must be flexibility and the ability for a child to be taken into nursery education for a longer period, in particular to an environment where the adults and the child know each other. Such times are extremely stressful.
All those aspects must be monitored and evaluated. The Government appear to be confident that the scheme will be a total success. The Minister says that there will be only gainers and no losers in the government scheme. Surely, therefore, it would be reasonable for the

353
Government to accept a full evaluation in order to ensure that that confidence is fully borne out by experience.
5 p.m.
Lord Goold: My Lords, as regards the timing of the pilot scheme, we must remember that there will be continuous assessment, as is the case in relation to all education issues in Scotland. I fear that as a result of political dogma there will be those who will deliberately try to obstruct the pilot schemes. Certainly there will be lack of co-operation.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is not in his place today. He felt considerable frustration at the opposition that was expressed during the committee meeting in Glasgow. He referred to the condemnatory tone of the proposals. During the Select Committee he addressed representatives of CoSLA, the EIS and other teaching organisations. He said:
"This is an opportunity surely presented to you to improve the situation by a proper assessment and monitoring of the pilot scheme. Can I have some assurance from you that you are looking forward to the pilot scheme, not as an exercise in self-justification for your criticism and condemnation but with a view to trying to arrive at some kind of objective agreement on the operation of the scheme and its success or failure?".
The noble Lord received no such assurance from any of the organisations.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is a leading and distinguished figure in the Association of County Councils. She knows what she is talking about and noble Lords will always listen to her on this subject with great respect. However, apart from the problems mentioned by my noble friend Lord Goold, it will not be possible for the pilot scheme to assess all the broad issues which will take time to develop as the voucher scheme expands. Surely the pilots are designed to discover the wrinkles in the detail of the scheme and iron them out. The pilots will be important in that respect and account will be taken rapidly. However, some of the broad issues which the noble Baroness mentioned cannot be taken into account in the pilot schemes.
One of those issues must be children with special educational needs. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has been able to read the evidence and the replies that the Minister gave to the Select Committee and in Committee. Those replies and the printed information that we have received suggest that local authorities will have a large measure of flexibility in the funding of their nursery provision. Only £1,100 multiplied by the number of children currently in local authority education will be topsliced from a local authority's budget. That will be returned to the authority while the parents send their children to its nursery schools. The rest of what the authority spends will still be available, including extra provision for children with special educational needs.
That is how the situation appears at present but whether it works out properly will emerge only as time goes on. I believe that it will, and it is important that it
354
does. I do not believe that it is a proper subject for a limited pilot scheme in a limited area where there are few such children.
Likewise, it will be difficult to ascertain from four pilots the extent to which parents who now pay 100 per cent. of the fees for private nursery school education will avail themselves of the voucher scheme. It seems likely that they will. If they do so that will, on balance, be of enormous benefit to rural areas because nursery schools which at present are only potentially viable, or barely viable, because insufficient children can attend are handicapped. If every child of four, where the parents so wished, was able to attend a nursery school, more schools would be viable in rural areas. That is most important in Scotland, in particular in Angus where I live and in the Highlands and the Borders. I do not know how important it is in the areas where the pilots are being conducted.
The amendment is not entirely about the importance of the pilot schemes, although they are important. Noble Lords opposite who do not want the voucher scheme and who are too fearful of it have tabled the amendment as a way of stopping the scheme in due course. The amendment would not be necessary if the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat Party were certain that they will win the next election because they have said that they will scrap the scheme. They indicated that by the way in which they voted in their attempt to wreck this part of the Bill. They do not know that they will be elected and they might have a change of heart if they were. Therefore, they have tabled the amendment as a failsafe mechanism so that they can, if necessary, stop the Bill by arguing that various aspects of the pilot schemes, which are in fact details, are major issues. The amendment probably has two purposes, one of which is at a rather deeper level than the other. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, given the untried nature of the voucher scheme, it is appropriate and necessary that it should be subject to evaluation and that the pilot authority should be evaluated. I give credit to the Government for setting up that evaluation. Indeed, the Government have put great store by the evaluation process. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, indicated, in Glasgow the Minister, Mr. Robertson, went out of his way to indicate that lessons would be learnt from the evaluation of the scheme. He said:
"Everything is up for review. The research and evaluation will be independently done".
He went on to say:
"The research that we have commissioned would be independent, the evaluation would be independent, and in light of that we will look at the entire workings of the scheme".
It is quite right that that is how matters should proceed.
But let us turn to the timetable for implementation. The pilot scheme will run in the year 1996–97 with the full scheme starting in August 1997. The Minister has been very helpful in providing us with a copy of the specification of the evaluation and there is much in that which is to the credit of the Government.

355
However, when we look through to the end of that specification, we come to a paragraph entitled "Timetable and Resources". It says:
"The project",
that is, the evaluation project,
"should start shortly thereafter—April, May—and should run for just over a year",
and this is the important part:
"with final reporting in August 1997".
It goes on to say:
"There will be need to have firm arrangements for interim reports at the end of each term of the system's operation".
But the final report on which a considered judgment can be made is dated August 1997. By then, the new school year will have begun.
How is it possible to learn from any of the mistakes; to sort out any of the glitches to which the Minister referred? How is it possible to carry out a proper assessment and review in the Scottish Office on the basis of the findings of the evaluation when that evaluation report will be due only in August, the very same month that the scheme is to be implemented nationwide? I am afraid that it is necessary for the Minister to make it clear how that process is to take place and how any changes and modifications which may be necessary can be implemented within, at best, two weeks if the report is published at the beginning of August and the schools return in the middle of August. Or is it perhaps that the cat is already out of the bag?
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, enjoyed that manufactured anger. He knows perfectly well that interim reports lead to a final report.
First, perhaps I may deal with the generality of the amendment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who support the amendment genuinely wish to see a rigorous evaluation and there is very little between us on that. My noble friend Lady Carnegy suggested that other motives may be involved; that is, somehow to delay or to put an obstacle in the way of the application of the scheme. If that is true, then there is quite a lot between us. But I believe that the Government share many of the concerns and objectives of those who spoke to the amendment in that we all want a first-class evaluation scheme.
Before I turn to the amendment specifically, perhaps I may deal with two general issues which were raised by noble Lords. The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. He referred to quality. I believe that I addressed the quality issue in replying to the previous amendment. But I remind the noble Lord that quality really is at the centre of our efforts behind the Bill and behind the nursery voucher scheme. The delivery of education can come in different forms. We recognise that there can be quality in the playschool situation and also in a more formal nursery school situation. It is for
356
parents to choose whether they wish to have the less formal playgroup or the more formal nursery school setting as a means of education for their children.
HMI will be responsible for quality. There will be no possibility of providers being approved under this scheme unless they have fulfilled the quality criteria, and we shall insist upon that. The evaluation will not concern itself greatly with that aspect. That is an aspect which will be pursued rigidly by the inspectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, brought all her experience to bear and raised a number of wide-ranging issues. I remind the noble Baroness—and, indeed, the House because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, raised this issue and I did not reply to it specifically on the last amendment—of what happens to those children who require special services or who have special needs. The moneys which authorities already spend on full-time places for younger children with special educational needs will remain untouched by the calculations which surround the voucher system. Therefore, we recognise that certain categories of children remain priority categories in terms of continued local authority provision. We have no intention of disrupting that in any way. That will be something which the evaluators will seek to identify. They will seek to assure themselves that children with special needs are in no way disadvantaged by the scheme.
Secondly, I shall supply the noble Baroness with a copy of the letter about the complex local authority finances and how they mesh with the financing of the nursery voucher scheme which I sent to other noble Lords who spoke in Committee. It may be of interest to her to read the explanation which is given in that letter.
In essence, we believe that where local authority provision remains the same as it was before, then local authorities will he no worse off after the introduction of a voucher scheme. However, it is our considered view and the view of some of the local authority watchers with whom we liaise that most if not all local authorities will benefit from the extra £30 million worth of purchasing power which is being introduced into the pre-school education market. Local authorities, especially in Scotland but across the UK, have a tremendous reputation for providing that education. In many instances, they are the main providers. Therefore, they will be the major recipients and beneficiaries. Nevertheless, I shall send the noble Baroness a copy of the letter which has been distributed to other noble Lords.
From an early stage, the Government have pledged to share the results of the evaluation of the voucher system's pilot year as openly and fully as possible. I should perhaps explain to the House that the evaluation of the pilot year is essentially being conducted at two levels. There will be a national evaluation conducted by an independent contractor appointed by the Scottish Office. The contractor for the evaluation will be appointed shortly and its work will be monitored by a research committee, including representatives from all three sectors of providers; namely, the public, private and voluntary sectors.

357
Throughout the course of the evaluation, we hope to arrange a number of conferences which will bring together providers, parents and other interested parties. In other words, we want to he totally open about the information which arises from the evaluation during the pilot year.
Those sessions will serve a dual function of informing the evaluation—that is, gaining responses from those who have an interest—and allowing an early dissemination of results. The proposal for conferences represents another demonstration of the Government's commitment to a thorough and open evaluation of all the workings of the voucher system. We are at one across the House as to the need for a thorough evaluation. We shall make available in the Libraries of both Houses any written reports of the evaluation, whether for these conferences or otherwise published, as and when they come forward. I hope that that addresses the central point of the amendment.
The work of the national evaluation will be informed and supplemented by local evaluations conducted in each of the four pilot authority areas. Indeed, one of the prerequisites that the Government set for councils' participation in the pilot year was a commitment on their behalf to a thorough local evaluation. While the pilot authorities will take the lead in their respective evaluations, we have encouraged them to involve other providers and interested parties in a manner similar to that proposed in the national evaluation.
So far as concerns the national evaluation, we made it very clear in the specification, as many noble Lords will have seen—especially the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—that we require the results to be brought forward by the researchers as they arise and not left until the end of the study. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Goold pointed that out to the House in remarkably succinct language which I can hardly rival.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to the objective of ironing out the wrinkles as the scheme progresses. That is an extremely important part of the exercise—that is, the continuous assessment of the scheme—as is the fact that the interim reports will bring to light and predict some of the major conclusions both on the generality of the scheme and, indeed, on all the minute details regarding the workings of the scheme. Therefore, although there is but a short time between the end of one school year in the early summer and the mid-August start of the next school year, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that the fact that one has received interim reports throughout that school year will mean that one is moving a long way towards one's final evaluation at the end of that school year.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has been in both academia and local government for long enough to know the value of continuous assessment and interim reports. I do not believe that is as doubting and cynical as he suggests. The early dissemination and availability of findings will enable us—and, indeed, everyone else—to reflect any conclusions of the evaluation in the system's national implementation from August of next year.
358
Finally, more specific questions were asked about the exact agenda of those who will be carrying out the evaluation. I can tell noble Lords that those concerned will be looking at the impact of vouchers on the provider market. They will also be looking at the volume, the type and the distribution of places which are prompted by the voucher scheme. Further, they will be looking at parental views, the views of those who have been providing and also the views of those who will be tempted to provide for the first time because of the increase in demand. We shall gain a very clear idea of the enthusiasm which comes through parental choice.
In essence, we shall be looking at the entire workings of the scheme, except for the quality aspect. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that we believe that the assessment of quality is best done by those who are experts in quality assessment—Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I hope that my response will be reassuring to those who have tabled the amendment. We want to achieve exactly the same objectives as they do. We want the information to be available in the Library of this House and we want the assessment to be continuous. On that basis, I believe that the amendment is not strictly necessary.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have heard a great deal in this debate. However, what it really comes down to is that the Government are saying that such a requirement is not needed because they intend to work terribly hard to try to get it right, as best they can. I do not doubt that. I suspect that no one wants such a scheme to go wrong, least of all the Government. The idea of laying the scheme before Parliament is a rod for any government's back, no matter what their colour, if something goes wrong. In that sense it is not party political.
If a government of a different colour—or, indeed, a combination of colours—happened to be sitting on the Benches opposite when the scheme was working well and such a requirement came through, they would have to support it. Indeed, how could they possibly risk that level of public humiliation? However, if those Benches were occupied by the present occupants, then in the event of it going wrong they would have to answer.
As regards quality assessment, what fails and what passes, one presumes, having heard the great list of the activities that the Government propose to carry out, that they will have a rough idea of what constitutes failure and what constitutes success. Therefore, that aspect of the matter does not count. The fundamental point is that we are discussing a new scheme: it is new, it is different and it is going down a new path. By indulging in such pilot schemes, the Government have accepted the fact that nothing is certain. For example, with a pilot scheme you are testing the ground and experimenting. However, the important point about experimentation and tests is that they go wrong occasionally. Indeed, sometimes you fail and experiments go wrong. All the amendment proposes is that a report of the scheme should be debated before Parliament. Surely there is nothing wrong with that suggestion. In the circumstances, I feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Berkeley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nathan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sempill, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Healey, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Ailsa, M.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chorley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ashboume, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Balfour, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Courtown, E.

Berners, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Blaker, L.

Cross, V.

Boardman, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brookes, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elibank, L.

Cadman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Elton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carnock, L

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Goold, L

360

Goschen, V.

Northesk, E.

Granard, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Gray, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Palmer, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Holderness, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Howe, E.

Pym, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlings, B.

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rees, L.

Kintore, E

Rennell, L

Lane of Horsell, L.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E

Renwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Leigh, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lindsay, E.

Selborne, E.

Long, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lucas, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lytton, E.

Slim, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

McConnell, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stockton, E.

Mackay of Gashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Mersey, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Middleton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swansea, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Teynham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mountevans, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Munster, E

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Wharton, B.

Nelson, E.

Wise, L.

Norrie, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.34 p.m.
Clause 24 [Grants: requirements]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Delegation of functions]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Disclosure of information]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Interpretation of Part II]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Amendment of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 29, line 11, at end insert—
("(cc) after paragraph 5 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Conflict of interest
5A.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where, whether before or during any meeting of the appointment committee, any member of the appointment committee becomes aware that he or any person connected with him has (whether directly or indirectly)

361
a material interest in or relating to any matter to be or being considered by the appointment committee, he shall declare such interest and withdraw from the meeting during such consideration and shall not vote on any question relating to the matter.
(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall—

(a) require a member of the appointment committee to declare an interest or withdraw; or

(b) prohibit him from voting,

in relation to any matter where his interest exists by reason only of his being the head teacher of the school or a parent of a pupil in attendance at the school.
(3) Section 346(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (meaning of "connected person") shall apply for the purpose of determining whether a person is connected with a member of the appointment committee as it applies for the purpose of determining whether a person is connected with a director of a company; and for such purpose references in that section to a director of a company shall be construed as if they were references to such a member.
(4) The validity of any proceedings of the appointment committee shall not be affected by any failure to comply with this paragraph."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during Committee stage an amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, to extend the conflict of interest provisions set out in new Section 5A as inserted by Clause 30 to include an appointment committee set up under Schedule 2 to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. I commend both noble Lords for their wisdom in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I indicated that we were sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment and I undertook to bring forward a Government amendment to that effect at this stage. I reiterate my gratitude to the noble Lords for noting the importance of this issue.
Under Clause 30, board members and members of committees constituted by the board must declare any material interest they, or a person connected with them, have in relation to any matter being considered; they must withdraw from meetings where such a matter is under consideration; and they must not vote on any question relating to such a matter. These requirements also apply to any person entitled to attend and speak at board meetings by virtue of Section 5 of the 1988 Act. The only exception from the requirement to declare a material interest is an interest which arises solely from membership of the board as a parent or a staff member.
Where an education authority intends to appoint a head-teacher, a deputy head-teacher or an assistant head-teacher to a school, Schedule 2 requires the authority to set up an appointment committee comprising nominees of the education authority and the school board, where there is one. For posts below head-teacher, the appointment committee also includes the head-teacher.
An appointment committee is not constituted by the school board and as such is not caught by the provisions of new Section 5A(1), with the result that the conflict of interest provisions do not at present extend to appointment committees. This amendment would extend those provisions. It relates to Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act because that schedule contains the legislative provisions relating to appointment committees. The only exception
362
from the requirement to declare a material interest is where such interest exists by reason only of being a head-teacher of the school or a parent of a pupil in attendance at the school. It is only necessary here to mention the head-teacher as other staff of the school cannot serve on an appointment committee.
At Committee stage an amendment to extend the new conflict of interest provisions to appointment committees was described as both important and sensible, both by myself and, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I therefore commend this amendment to the House and hope that, with the interest that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has shown in this matter, it will be welcomed by all sides of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a question about this amendment. The amendment is extremely welcome and is necessary. I have not been able to give my noble friend notice of the question and I hope it is not too difficult to answer. New Section 5A(4) states:
"The validity of any proceedings of the appointment committee shall not be affected by any failure to comply with this paragraph".
What does that mean? Does it mean that if someone fails to declare an interest and fails to withdraw he carries on regardless? I do not quite understand the provision.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I was aware that the noble Baroness had been involved in discussion in Committee. She made some very good points.
I am very grateful to the Minister for taking up the point that I and, I believe, my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford raised. I do not recollect giving the Minister a chance to clarify further the point raised by the noble Baroness. I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. What would be the reprimand for someone who did not declare an interest? Is that included in the Minister's amendment?
I am perfectly happy with the response to the points I raised in Committee. I have given my interpretation of what I believe the noble Baroness sought. I may be wrong in that, but she may be able to clear the matter up and give the Minister a chance to reply more fully.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that was my concern. If the validity of the proceedings is not affected if someone does not declare an interest, that is slightly strange. It means that someone votes not having declared an interest. I am not happy about that. Is that what the provision means?
There is another point. If the people who declare an interest suddenly withdraw, reducing the committee numbers to fewer than a quorum, the appointments committee cannot proceed. My noble friend will probably tell me that this insertion follows other clauses in other legislation. If so, there must be a good explanation of these points.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been extended to the amendment by both my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I shall give my noble friend a short answer now, and promise to follow it up with a longer

363
answer in writing between now and Third Reading but with sufficient speed so that should any adjustment need to be made there will be time to make it.
The intention of subsection (4) is that the appointment is valid even if it is discovered that an interest which should have been declared was not declared.
With that answer, and the promise that I shall write to my noble friend on the matter and follow it up between now and Third Reading should a revision need to be made, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I suggest that my noble friend considers the issue. It is possible to rig a committee. I hate to say that, but having spent some time in local government and having been instrumental in setting up arrangements for appointments committees which avoid such a thing, I do not think that one should be too innocent about the matter.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I said that I would do exactly that. I shall look at the issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 30, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—
("5. In section 32(10)(a)(ii) of the Finance Act 1991 (definition of qualifying course of vocational training) for the words "Scottish Vocational Education Council" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Qualifications Authority.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply replaces a reference to SCOTVEC in finance legislation with a reference to the SQA. It is consequential on changes made to Section 32(10) of the Finance Act 1991 by Section 144 of the Finance Act 1996 which received Royal Assent on Monday, 26th April. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Damages Bill [H.L.]
5.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Assumed rate of return on investment of damages]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("account") to end of line 13 and insert ("in exceptional circumstances").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was one that I heralded in my speech on Second Reading.
Clause 1 of the Bill deals with an issue that has been a subject of recent argument in the courts. It will be considered in the Court of Appeal later this year. The courts reduce awards made to victims, to compensate them for their future loss of earnings and the cost of care, to take account of the fact that they receive compensation in the form of an immediate lump sum which can be invested. To make an accurate reduction for this accelerated payment (as it is known) the courts must apply the best possible estimate of the rate of return that victims will earn on their investment. If the assumed rate is too high then the victim will have been undercompensated. If it is too low a rate he will have been overcompensated.
For a number of years there has been a general assumption by the courts that they should use an investment rate of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. so as to make the appropriate discount. However, there is gathering concern that the appropriate rate of return on investments is lower than 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. so that victims are being significantly undercompensated.
The percentage figure of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. is taken to have been laid down by a 1979 decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, and by a 1970 decision before that. The figure may have been right for its time though that is questionable, but obviously should not be regarded by the courts as an invariable prescription for all time. When this issue comes before the Court of Appeal later this year it is to be hoped that a more realistic rate will be set.
Clause 1 of the Bill confers a power on the Lord Chancellor of the day to set by statutory instrument a prescribed rate of return that the courts will be required to take into account in future cases. That is sensible. It will provide for a fixed rate, but with the flexibility to change the rate as and when necessary.
It is important to have a fixed rate on which parties to personal injuries litigation can rely. This saves costs and court time. Without a fixed rate both sides have to advance expert evidence in favour of their preferred rate. Practitioners in this field are very conscious of that. In a recent personal injury case, the combined cost to both sides of presenting expert financial evidence to establish the appropriate investment rate was about £15,000. We must be ever mindful to frame our laws in a way that does not encourage unnecessary cost in litigation.
However, I recognise that there may be exceptional cases where it is appropriate for the court to apply another rate. But those cases are exceptional and the legislation should recognise that.
As currently drafted, Clause 1(2) provides that, notwithstanding the existence of a prescribed rate, the court may apply a different rate of return,
"if any party to the proceedings shows that it is more appropriate in the case in question".
We consider this provision to be too wide. It is likely to have the effect in practice of undermining the benefits that flow from the certainty of having a prescribed rate.
The amendment is simple. It provides that the scope for departure from the prescribed rate should be limited to "exceptional circumstances". This formula is commonly used in legislation and the courts understand the restrictive intent underlying its use. It would operate as a disincentive to unnecessary and costly expert evidence and argument why the prescribed rate is said not to be appropriate in a particular case. The point of the amendment is that the prescribed rate will generally he appropriate. A party should be able to invite the court to depart from the prescribed rate only if the circumstances of the party's case are truly exceptional. I beg to move.
Viscount Chelmsford: I have no interest to declare in the amendment, but I should advise the Committee that my background is in the insurance industry and I am currently briefed by the Association of British Insurers.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is correct in suggesting that in the great bulk of cases the current rate is wrong. Because of the mix of portfolios arranged at the time the lump sum is used, simply to use the current rate for gilts would in the opinion of the insurance industry overcompensate.
The Lord Chancellor: To some extent, my noble friend is heralding a later amendment on the matter which we shall come to. The question underlying a good deal of the discussion is what is the precise philosophy. As I said in response to the Second Reading debate, I would in any event be anxious to see what the Court of Appeal decides before exercising the powers conferred under the Bill.
There is a good deal of agreement about the desirable result of the legislation: it is to try to simplify so far as possible the assessment of damages. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. Our aim is to avoid any unnecessary expert evidence and we have already introduced Section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 for that purpose. However, we should pause to consider what purpose a party might see for bringing in an expert or other evidence when the courts have, with or without legislative assistance, arrived at a discount rate which is accepted as reflecting the real rate of return on a plaintiff's investment of his lump sum in the generality of cases. Once such matters are established and accepted, I cannot see that it would be in the interests of either party to seek to introduce evidence that such a rate is not, after all, generally appropriate.
Clause 1 is designed to provide the courts with such guidance as may be necessary from time to time to take account of current changes and developments in the current economic climate and market conditions to achieve the element of certainty. It is obviously essential that the Lord Chancellor, exercising the power conferred by this section, should have the benefit of the widest possible consultation with those best able to advise. But even when that has been done, one achieves a degree of certainty, but there is a difference between a certainty as to what is generally appropriate and a rigidity which might oblige the court to apply what is acknowledged to be generally appropriate in a particular case where it was manifestly inappropriate and would lead to an unjust result.
366
It must be right to allow either party to draw to the court's attention some feature or features of the case before it which suggest that a different rate ought to be used in that case in order to arrive at a figure which would provide a more accurate reflection of the actual loss in that case. Where the case includes some feature which makes it appear wrong to apply what would otherwise be regarded as a routine calculation, that feature may or may not be regarded as an "exceptional circumstance". It would not be easy to define what was meant by an "exceptional circumstance" in such cases.
I agree that the phrase is common in the statute book. However, it may be that one such feature happened to appear in a significant proportion of the cases heard in one particular year. The factor that makes the statutory rate inappropriate may happen in many cases at one time and therefore, strictly speaking, the circumstances would not be exceptional but it would be perfectly apparent that the routine calculation was not appropriate. The court will have no difficulty in identifying those cases as they arise and there will be no encouragement for parties to digress by leading extraneous expert or other evidence in other cases. Clearly we could not in legislation identify and specify all the categories of case feature and which would influence the court in considering the application of subsection (2).
To take one example, the courts might consider the circumstances of plaintiffs to be affected by their own situation in regard to their assets. Someone with a large portfolio already might be willing to invest their damages less cautiously so as to produce a return larger than a plaintiff of more modest means could afford to contemplate.
The phrase that we used in the Bill refers to another rate being more appropriate. We are operating in a new area and I cannot foresee all the possibilities. Therefore, I prefer to adhere to what we have in the Bill. If a rate is fixed well—as I hope it will be—one would not expect a more appropriate rate to be fixed often. But, on the other hand, what must really be judged is the appropriateness of the rate rather than the circumstances which might be looked upon as exceptional. Circumstances which could suggest a different rate might occur in a run of cases where it could be hard to say in all of them that the circumstances were exceptional.
Obviously there is room for a difference of opinion on the matter, but I submit that the phrase in the Bill is the wisest at this juncture. As time proceeds, if that structure is used then a more precise formula might be advisable.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: If I may say so with respect, in his remarks the noble Viscount was anticipating Amendment No. 3, which I shall move, rather than this one.
I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I accept that this is a matter of fine judgment. I am not an enemy of flexibility for the courts. However, the criterion in the Bill in its present form—which is why I propose the amendment—is to my mind an invitation to any party to proceedings to try to persuade the court that a rate other than the prescribed rate is more appropriate in the circumstances of that party's case. That test can

367
therefore lead to very fine arguments and expert evidence. A criterion of "exceptional circumstances" is, by contrast, a much stiffer test. It would require a highly unusual departure in a particular case from the generality of cases. Therefore, it would operate as a disincentive to unnecessary and costly legal argument backed by expert evidence.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that the arguments are finely balanced. The noble and learned Lord prefers the Bill in its present form and therefore he is ready to run the risk to which I have called attention. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("and the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, under the heading,
"Financial and manpower effects of the Bill",
it is provided as follows:
"The Bill's only likely effects on public expenditure are that any exercise of the power in clause 1 could affect the size of awards of personal injury damages against government departments, and that, under clause 6, ministers may accept secondary liability to support the primary obligations of public sector bodies".
In my respectful submission it is quite wrong that one should involve the Treasury as it is involved in Clause 1(3).
Clause 1 deals with the determination of,
"the return to be expected from the investment of a sum awarded as general damages for future pecuniary loss in an action for personal injury".
Subsection (3) provides that,
"Before making an order under subsection (1) above the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Government Actuary and the Treasury; and any order under that subsection shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House".
Allowing a potential defendant to advise on a factor that affects the amount of damages he must pay is a startling and strange provision. If it stands, quite clearly justice will not be seen to be done. The Lord Chancellor is empowered to seek to fix the rate of return on investments to be used in the calculation after consultation with the Government Actuary; and the Government Actuary is well able to undertake without assistance from the Treasury his actuarial task, which is somewhat similar to that undertaken by actuaries in insurance companies which issue life and pension policies.
I suspect that the Treasury has been included in the clause because it is usual, as I understand it, to do so if expenditure of public money is involved. But damages payable by a government department is not public expenditure in the usually understood sense.
At Second Reading I asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor a question on this matter of which I gave him advance notice. I therefore had the
368
benefit of his reasoned reply. Among other things he said that the Treasury had, among other expertise, expertise,
"in relation to … forecasting … which is essentially what lies behind the power in Clause 1".—[Official Report, 29/4/96; col. 1410.]
But we are not involved in forecasting. We are not looking into the future. The actual rate of return at the moment of the calculation is what is required. That is what is done, day in, day out, when there is a purchase, for instance, of an annuity.
It looks wrong, and is wrong, for the Treasury to feature in the way that it does in Clause 1(3). I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I contribute only this observation. At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained that the reference to the Treasury came from the draft Bill annexed to the Law Commission report. So it does. But having reread the Law Commission report, I could not find anywhere any justification for the inclusion of the reference to the Treasury in the draft Bill. It may be that the Law Commission thought it self-evident, but it was not evident to me.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I, too, look forward to the noble and learned Lord's explanation as to why the Treasury is included. It occurs to me that it is possible that the Treasury could have market-sensitive information which it might be relevant for a Lord Chancellor to know: why, for example, a return on a particular security might not be a useful guide for a particular rate to be prescribed. I am not sure about that. However, I certainly welcome the opportunity by way of this amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain the thinking behind the inclusion of the Treasury.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The words "with the consent of the Treasury" or "after consultation with the Treasury" appear in measure after measure. They are practically always unnecessary. They are unnecessary here. The internal machinery of government takes care in every case that the Treasury is consulted about any matter that may involve expenditure.
The Treasury has a number of officials, some of whom are specifically earmarked to departments and are in close daily touch with departments. They are invariably consulted during the drafting of any measure, including regulation, and will rapidly intervene if there is any Treasury interest. In this case, it appears that the words are not only unnecessary but have given rise to considerable disquiet as expressed in this debate.
On many, many occasions all governments have been pressed to omit from statute these and other unnecessary words. Their only valid, and valuable, purpose is to provide employment for parliamentary draftsmen, their secretaries and typists and the printers of parliamentary proceedings and in due course the statute. No doubt in the end that is a substantial body of employment, but it is utterly wasted and unnecessary and is a waste of money. The Treasury should itself get rid of the

369
provision. It clings to these words because it believes they are an extra safeguard against departments rushing wildly ahead and incurring expenditure without consent or consultation with the Treasury. The words are quite unnecessary. I am very glad that this matter has again been pinpointed by means of the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
The Lord Chancellor: If my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale is right, it will not matter whether this amendment is given effect to from the point of view of the ultimate result. It is that aspect of the matter that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will allow me to intervene. He is quite right. It makes no difference in the actual result. But justice should not only be done but be seen to be done.
The Lord Chancellor: Precisely. If it is right that the Treasury should be consulted, it is right that that particular aspect of the matter should be public rather than swept under the table, as it were, because the provision is withdrawn from the Bill. If accepted, the argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale would lead to the view that the Treasury would be consulted in any event, even though that did not appear in the statutory provision.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps my noble and learned friend would be kind enough to give way. I do not accept that it would be right for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Treasury when the Treasury is a defendant and likely to gain in accordance with the advice he gives. I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor would be the first person to recognise that one does not seek the advice of someone who is parti pris.
My point is much more fundamental than purely a drafting point. It is wrong that it is in the Bill, and it would be wrong if it is taken out of the Bill, to consult a potential defendant as to what he thinks is the interest he should pay on the damages that sooner or later he will be ordered to pay.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: That is precisely what I had in mind in suggesting that the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner would not at all be met by the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale because the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner is that it would not be right for the Treasury to be consulted.
I do not accept that point. But I certainly suggest that the matter is not one that is dealt with on the usual argument that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has put in a number of Bills with which I have been concerned and, I am sure, a great number of Bills with which I have not been concerned; namely, that whether the words are in or out, it does not make any difference because that is what in fact happens.
It is true that the Treasury would be responsible for securing the implementation of an award against a government department. As my noble and learned friend
370
pointed out, there is also the possibility of the Treasury being involved when Ministers accept secondary liability to support the primary obligations of public sector bodies in the sense that public expenditure might be involved in that connection.
In my submission, it would be perfectly right for the Lord Chancellor to consult with potential defendants. I should certainly expect to consult the insurance industry in any attempt to settle such matters and also to consult, as I do from time to time in connection with these matters, those who would be representing plaintiffs: trade unions representing plaintiffs and gatherings of professional bodies who represent plaintiffs from time to time. It would be for the Lord Chancellor to make the proper use of whatever advice or estimate he received. Obviously, in relation to this Bill a good deal of consultation has taken place. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Chelmsford will raise this issue later in a little more detail.
The Treasury has an expertise which is important to have in mind. As I said at Second Reading—I was obliged for the notice of the question and when I answered my noble and learned friend I did so on the basis of the notice that the question would be put to me—the reasons that I gave are perfectly good ones. The Government Actuary and his department is one repository of expertise but within the Government it is certainly not the sole repository of expertise on the subject of investment and money markets generally.
My noble and learned friend said that we were not concerned with the future but only with the present and determining a figure for the present. But we determine a figure which will rule so long as it is fixed under the Act until a new figure is put in. But the purpose of the figure is to help to determine the return to be expected from the investment of a sum awarded as general damages for future pecuniary loss. As I understand it, the theory of the law—my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—is that what the lump sum tries to do under the "pecuniary loss" head is to provide a sum which, coupled with the return which is obtained on it from investment, will compensate for the future loss which the plaintiff has. Therefore, there is a considerable element of judgment in relation to the future involved in this exercise.
It is true that one way of doing that is to accept the judgments of those who are in the market for index-linked government securities at any one moment of time. But the exercise is the exercise that I have indicated. That is what one is trying to do: obtain the best figure one can which will convert the pecuniary loss which has been determined as likely to accrue to the plaintiff into a capital sum, which with its interest and the capital itself will compensate the plaintiff over the years—it may be quite a long time—for that particular loss.
In my submission, the Treasury has an expertise in forecasting—there are differences of view about how great that expertise is, but undoubtedly it has the function of seeking to make such estimates—and it would be right for the Lord Chancellor to take account of it. I submit that the Lord Chancellor would be one

371
who would take into proper account those observations and representations from the Treasury. I have no doubt, as I said, that in fixing the rates a very wide consultation would be expected.
The complexity involved in the selection of rates should not be underestimated. One has only to look in the relevant section of the Financial Times to see the range of possible figures. As is explained in the explanatory notes to the actuarial tables published by the Government Actuary's Department, the published rates make no allowance for the incidence of tax on the income from a compensation award. Assumptions must also be made about the rates of inflation. Also, although swings may not be vast, there are fluctuations which can add to the complexity. Thus, I should certainly believe it right to look to the Treasury, among others, to advise me, and would consider whether it would be helpful here to specify other expert consultees.
I believe that it is perfectly right in the circumstances of this case for the Treasury to be consulted. The Committee will notice that the formula here is not the one to which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred in the first instance as the "agreement" of the Treasury. This is a consultation with the Treasury. It is true that it appears in the Law Commission Bill, probably on the view that it is self-evident. There is no detail at all supporting why the Treasury is mentioned but I feel that the reasons which I gave underlie that.
So I submit that it is perfectly right that the Treasury should be consulted, the rule-making authority having the duty of using the representations in the proper way and not simply on the basis that because one party to a potential action wants one thing, that is what should happen. In the light of that explanation, I invite my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ackner: The observation of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale that this provision has given rise to disquiet has in no way been negated. I ask myself why it gives rise to disquiet. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it perfectly clear that the Treasury is likely to have a stake in the way in which the specific prescribed limit is eventually worked out. If that disquiet is justified, then the disquiet concerns consulting the Treasury at all and it will not be removed by it being publicised, "We have taken it out because it looks better, but we propose to do exactly what we would have done if it had been left in." The disquiet would continue and justifiably so.
I should like an opportunity to consider in more detail the observations made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with a view to considering whether or not to return to this matter at Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, after ("Treasury") insert ("and in particular shall take into account the net return on any existing index-linked government security").
The noble Lord said: This is the second of the two amendments which I heralded on Second Reading. I regard Amendment No. 3 as a probing amendment to clarify the approach that it is intended that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland should take when setting the prescribed rate which courts will have to take into account when discounting a lump sum because of the "accelerated payment" element in compensation for future pecuniary loss.
On Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord said that he would consider what the Court of Appeal had to say on this issue later this year before setting the prescribed rate. That, I accept, is sensible. He also said that he would consult widely before setting the rate. That too is sensible. However, the Law Commission has already considered this issue and consulted widely on it. In its report, Structured Settlements and Interim and Provisional Damages, the Law Commission concluded that the appropriate rate was the net return on an index-linked government security. Paragraph 2.28 of the report states:
"We share the views of the majority of those who responded to us, that a practice of discounting by reference to returns on index-linked government securities would be preferable to the present arbitrary presumption. A 4-5% discount which emerged from the case law was established at a time when index-linked government securities did not exist. Index-linked government securities now constitute the best evidence of the real return on any investment where the risk element is minimal, because they take account of inflation, rather than attempt to predict it as conventional investments do".
We on this side of the Chamber—I have said this before—are anxious to ensure that any under-compensation of victims should not continue. We would therefore like to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Government's current view on the specific Law Commission recommendation that the prescribed rate should be based on the net return on index-linked government securities. I beg to move.
Viscount Chelmsford: I regret that the insurance community does not agree with the Law Commission on this point. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that the most appropriate discount rate is the one that most accurately matches the investment return available in the commercial markets for prudent and wisely-managed investments.
The courts to date have consistently held that a rate of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. is appropriate and that rate is derived from considering the rate of return available on a balanced portfolio of investments, including equities—a "balanced" portfolio. The insurance industry believes that it is unrealistic to use such a low discount rate as the 2.5 per cent. which is the index-linked rate of today. It has three basic reasons for suggesting that.
First, there is the analysis carried out by the stockbrokers Barclays de Zoete Wedd in January this year. It shows that the real return available on index-linked gilts is less than half that available on equities. Index-linked gilts have under-performed both cash and conventional gilts. They also do not feature in an optimised portfolio run for UK assets over the period 1983 to 1995.

373
Secondly, independent financial advisers indicated that they would not recommend investment of a large lump sum—that is to say, several hundred thousand pounds—only in index-linked gilts. That is simply because, with a prudent investment strategy and with minimal risk, a much greater rate of return can be achieved on the investment. Typical advice would be to select a spread of equities, gilts and with-profit investments.
Finally, there is the Court of Protection. That is a body which exists to approve investments made on behalf of persons under a disability—for example, minors or mentally incapable persons. Advisers to the Court of Protection indicated that they generally invest in a balanced portfolio of assets. As much as 70 per cent. of that might be in equities. Of the remainder only a small fraction is generally placed in index-linked gilts.
In summary, therefore, the proposed amendment fails to take account of the higher rates of investment which can be achieved with a minimal risk to the investor; that is, the accident victim. And using the lower rate will also lead to higher lump sum awards which the insurance industry believes amount to over-compensation. Incidentally, any such increase will be passed on in increased premiums to all policyholders, especially to motorists and employers.
Lord Meston: I cannot help feeling that the exchange of views which the Committee has just heard—with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, on one side and the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, on the other—will encapsulate the debate which will be the subject of pending appeals. The plaintiff will be arguing that he must be properly compensated and protected; the defendant will argue that prudence is not the same as excessive caution.
My only contribution is to point out that the Bar Council, in its response to the Law Commission's consultation paper, favoured the reference to index-linked government securities, which undoubtedly provide good, fresh economic evidence. The Bar Council concluded that in most cases no better guide existed. It said that a discount rate should be based on the ILGS return.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for what he said at the outset of his speech on the amendment. The purpose of setting a rate to be applied generally is to obviate the need for evidence in as many cases as possible, as we discussed in relation to Amendment No. 1. On the other hand the courts are fixing damages in relation to rights of action which accrued some time before and usually are covered by contracts of insurance which operated at that time.
When the court makes a change in the law, if it ever does, it will have retrospective effect because the court is dealing with something that happened in the past and is seeking to compensate. There is no doubt about the principle of law involved; that is, that the court is seeking to award a sum which will compensate the plaintiff for, in this case, the pecuniary loss which is the subject of general damages. The law therefore is clear
374
enough in its general principle. As usual, the application of that general principle to the circumstances of a specific case may involve difficult questions.
The difficulty in relation to an Act of Parliament is that it can only properly operate retrospectively in exceptional circumstances. The normal rule of statutory enactment that I have been accustomed to seeing followed is that one does not make retrospective alterations. Therefore, it is extremely important for this power to await the decision of the Court of Appeal on the basis of the present law in the light of the investigations that have been done by the Law Commission over the past year or two to which I referred at Second Reading. I would aim to try to get out of that ultimate decision taken in relation to these cases a principle which would guide one as to the rate that one would take.
There is no doubt that other rates should be considered. It is not just one. The amendment says,
"and in particular shall take into account the net return on any existing index-linked government security".
The exact return depends a little on the other terms of the security. That is not unique. Therefore, there is more than one. The amendment seeks to take into account the net return. I certainly would be intending that we take that into account but I should also like to know what else is regarded as important. For example, it may well be that a balanced portfolio would have only a portion of such securities in it and that a wise adviser would think that, if a substantial sum was being invested for the purpose of giving a return and in total, along with the return, compensating the plaintiff for future pecuniary loss, that investment would include things other than index-linked government securities. So the estimate would have to try to take account of that.
This is a quite complicated exercise. My approach is that it would be right to take into account what the Court of Appeal says is the correct approach to this matter, put into it such information as we have from time to time as to what these various elements would produce in the way of a return and then try to average it over the total of a typical portfolio. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, on the basis that I would wish to take account of all the information available to me—I am sure that this would be true of the Lord Chancellor of the time, as this is to be done from time to time—and also consult widely the interests of plaintiffs and of defendants. I am sure that the Bar Council would figure among those properly consulted probably on both sides of that boundary.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We have, on the one hand, the opinion of the Law Commission and, on the other hand, we have the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, who, if I may say so without any discourtesy, dealt a very full hand and acknowledged that he represents the views of the insurance industry. I propose to consider the noble and learned Lord's response and whether this is an issue to which we should revert at Report. We have but one opportunity to legislate. We have to legislate now regardless of when

375
the Court of Appeal gives its decision and regardless of when, if there were an appeal from the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, your Lordships' House gave the final decision on this matter.
This is a modest amendment because its effect, as I think the noble and learned Lord acknowledged, would be no more than that a mandatory relevant consideration for him to take into account in prescribing the rate would be the net return on index-linked government securities, which for my part I am sure is the best evidence of the real return on any investment where it is intended that the risk element in the investment should be minimal. The noble and learned Lord would not be governed by that consideration. I think it would give much confidence if there were written into the Bill an acceptance that the noble and learned Lord should have regard to that which the Law Commission advises him is the best guide but which he would have a discretion not to apply if he thought that there were other overriding considerations indicating a different rate. Nonetheless, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provisional damages and fatal accident claims]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 13, at beginning insert ("as was intended to compensate him").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment to correct an error which crept into the final preparation of the Bill. It is not absolutely essential, but the original draftsman intended to have it in and regrets that it did not appear in the final version. I think it adds to the clarity of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Meaning of structured settlement]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 41, after ("value") insert (", including adjustment in respect of the reasonable costs of financial advice sought by the plaintiff on the investment of the award").
The noble Lord said: I nearly needed a structured settlement myself as I walked very casually into your Lordships' House some five or 10 minutes ago believing, as I was led to believe, that the business of the Committee stage of this Bill would not be taken before seven o'clock. I have partially recovered and therefore propose to move this amendment but with the courtesy of apologies to those who moved previous amendments and to the noble and learned Lord that I was not present at the very beginning of the Committee stage.
This is a worthwhile amendment. Your Lordships will well know that the costs of investigating potentially structured settlements or of advising an accident victim
376
on the investment of a lump sum by way of damages can be a very significant sum, particularly in the case of a young severely injured victim who receives an award of perhaps £500,000 or £1 million, which will need very careful husbanding over many years to ensure it produces sufficient income for the victim's ongoing needs and does not run out in the lifetime of the person concerned.
I understand that conventionally it has been accepted that any fees payable to the Court of Protection which invests damages awards for patients are recoverable from the defendant as part of a claim, but there is no similar convention or statutory provision which applies to the cost of investment and financial advice incurred or likely to be incurred by a plaintiff in other circumstances. Indeed I understand that there have been conflicting decisions of the courts in this respect. Given that these costs are incurred by a plaintiff accident victim only because of his or her injuries, it would be entirely logical to make statutory provision that the reasonable costs of investment advice should be recoverable from the defendant tortfeasor. The Bill could provide an opportunity to tidy up this anomaly. That is why I move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that our dinner hour must have started early this evening because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, noticed that it was expected that this particular matter would be dealt with at that time. However, the Scots are so expeditious that the Education(Scotland) Bill was dealt with extremely quickly. I hope that the Scots involved in this matter will show the same expedition.
I do not completely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to put in a matter as regards the relationship of investment advice to structured settlements because it is primarily to avoid the need for a capital investment in respect of the periodical payment element that this particular arrangement is made. I suspect that the amendment may have been intended to have a somewhat wider scope than this particular situation. Where it appears in the Bill means that it has very limited scope. I am not aware of any reason why a structured settlement under which the periodical payments are adjustable to take into account the cost of subsequent financial advice taken by a plaintiff should not in fact attract the same protection as settlements without that feature. Neither can I see any reason why a settlement should contain such a feature because one of the major benefits of structured settlements for a plaintiff is that he is not to be concerned with investment matters and that aspect of his award. He will not be investing an award because the settlement is tailored to provide the income and the capital needed to meet his particular requirement.
Indeed, the Committee may consider that this amendment anticipates that the negotiations for a structured settlement may have gone somewhat wrong if this provision were to be required. The noble Lord may be glad to know that the position as regards the cost of financial advice in relation to the settlement of damages as a whole, and not structured settlements, is one of the matters now under consideration by the

377
Law Commission in its examination of the law of damages. It will be covered in a forthcoming consultation paper. As the Committee knows, the work that we are dealing with in this Bill is only part of the total, and the Law Commission is looking at quite a number of heads that ought to be considered in this regard. I fully anticipate that this particular subject matter, not in relation to structured settlements, but generally, will be the subject of its consideration. I hope that, with the encouragement that the matter will be looked into thoroughly and will be the subject of a Law Commission recommendation, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may feel able not to press the amendment at this juncture.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that the Committee will not think that I have been unduly subtle since that is a quality I have never possessed. I was of the opinion, and the noble and learned Lord has confirmed it, that had I tried to deal with this matter under the general head of damages I would have been ruled out of order and very properly so, because this Bill deals with structured settlements and not with the general issue of damages.
I have had the opportunity of raising the matter. With his usual courtesy, the noble and learned Lord has told me that it will be considered by the Law Commission under the general head of damages. Therefore, I hope that I have at least pointed the way. I ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this section, the funds held by an authorised insurance company to provide payments from an annuity purchased from that authorised insurance company pursuant to a structured settlement may be held by that authorised insurance company as part of a pension annuity fund.").
The noble Lord said: The encouragement in this Bill of structured settlements has been widely welcomed. The Government had already taken steps to reduce the tax burden so that the flow of income received by a plaintiff from annuity-based arrangements is not subject to income tax, nor any other taxation, in the hands of the recipient. That has the benefit of reducing the gross cost to the defendant. This amendment seeks to deal with one aspect of structured settlements where tax still impinges and where, although it is not widely appreciated, there is still a burden on defendants.
The majority of structured settlements are provided by one or more annuities purchased by the defendant's insurer from a life office to provide regular income for the plaintiff, tax free. However, the income from which those payments are made is liable to tax before it reaches the plaintiff because life offices must maintain annuities for structured settlements as part of their life annuity fund, which annuities are taxed at 20 per cent. That tax burden has therefore to be incorporated into the overall lump sum required to fund a structured settlement. That imposes a higher burden on the defendant and may be a disincentive to an otherwise desirable solution to a particular case.
If annuities can be maintained by life offices as part of their pension annuity fund, the 20 per cent. tax on income would not arise. I understand that life offices would have no problem in segregating such an annuity within the pension annuity fund and I suspect that there would be a fairly minimal difference to the revenue. Having said that, I am conscious that this amendment may be thought to trespass on the financial privilege of another place and, therefore, I emphasise that at this stage it is only a probing amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this amendment. I had not been able to recognise precisely the term he had in mind. I have consulted with the Association of British Insurers on the matter. I understand that it is normal practice for insurance annuities to be covered by an insurance company's pension fund, although in some circumstances it may be covered by the long-term fund. However, as far as I am aware companies do not operate, nor have they asked to operate, special pension annuity funds. In any case, this differentiation is immaterial because in the event of a failure liabilities arising from both the long-term and pension funds would be covered by the Policyholders Protection Act.
However, having listened to the noble Lord this evening, I anticipate that he is asking for the treatment given to funds which arise under pension arrangements which enjoy special tax privileges on investment. That is clearly a Finance Act-type provision. Therefore, I will not be in a position to deal with that aspect of the matter if some special tax relief is wanted, not only in the hands of a recipient, but also in the basic funds which are used to provide it. That is a different matter.
The obligation of the annuity provider is to provide it out of whatever fund is considered appropriate. There would not be a need for an allocation. The tax treatment of pension funds which are derived from, for example, the self-employed arrangement, leads to a fund derived from the original taxpayer. The taxpayer is allowed to put in money which is earmarked from that stage and it enjoys certain benefits. The annuity which has to be provided is not of that character exactly. As I say, my consultations so far have not produced any real basis for this measure, but I understand what the noble Lord says. He would like some further tax privilege for some fund as yet not completely identified.
Lord Meston: I had thought that the amendment was proposed as the logical way of taking forward the overall immunity from tax of structured settlements—in other words, that the impact of tax should not have to be a consideration either in the mind of the plaintiff or his advisers or in that of the defendant and his advisers and insurers. I understand the reasoning behind the answer that has been given by the noble and learned Lord. The objective of the amendment was to find some way, artificial though it might be, to reduce the overall cost of structured settlements. I am conscious that this trespasses into the area of taxation, but it is a matter on which I wish to consult further. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

379
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Guarantees for public sector settlements]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 27, leave out from ("designated") to end of line 29 and insert ("by regulations made by the Minister and subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be aware that Clause 6 deals with guarantees of public sector settlements. In subsection (3) it is provided:
"The bodies in relation to which a Minister may give such a guarantee shall, subject to subsection (4) below, be such bodies as are designated in relation to the relevant government department by guidelines agreed upon between that department and the Treasury".
The purpose of this amendment is not to leave it simply to guidelines but to ensure that the relevant Minister has power to designate and Parliament has publicly the right to deal with it by a resolution that comes before both Houses. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of Clause 6 is to facilitate the use of structured settlements. Ministers are given this new power so that there will be no technical difficulties preventing them from guaranteeing self-funded structured settlements offered by public sector bodies for which their departments have responsibility. It is given only to allay the concern of some plaintiffs' advisers that unless such backing can be put in place they will be failing in their duties to their clients to ensure the absolute security of the arrangements being made for the clients' future needs. That is a conscientious attitude and very proper, although I believe that it is unnecessarily cautious. The Committee will be aware of the reasons why such a guarantee would never in practice be called upon. It could be called upon only in the highly improbable event of the public body for which the department had responsibility not having the funds to meet its legal obligations or ceasing to exist without provision being made for its legal liabilities.
While it is true that such settlements are most likely to be relevant in the health sector where it is not difficult to identify those bodies likely to be offering settlements, the Government fully accepted the Law Commission's advice that this provision should have the potential to cover other sectors where public bodies might face personal injury claims which could to the benefit of the claimant sensibly be settled in this way, provided that his advisers could recommend the settlement as being fully secure. There are very many public bodies where this might be the case, albeit perhaps only very occasionally, and certainly not on the scale seen in the health sector. We considered very carefully how those bodies should be identified and reached the firm conclusion that the best way of doing this was by administrative arrangements between those departments which might be concerned and the Treasury. Once the Minister gives a guarantee, that is the security. It would be clear that the involvement of the Treasury as watchdog of the public purse would ensure that there could be no inappropriate use of the power. We regarded that as a sensible safeguard.
380
We also considered that it would be right to make provision for scrutiny by Parliament on a regular basis of the potential liabilities under and any payments which might have been made pursuant to guarantees by each department which had used the power. We concluded that, with these safeguards in place, it was unnecessary and undesirable to adopt any more cumbersome procedure. The Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers looked closely at this provision and was satisfied that it was a purely administrative procedure.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will agree that his proposal adds unnecessarily to the arrangements that have been put in place. Subsection (7) is the provision which requires public scrutiny. The only important matter from the point of view of the plaintiff is that the Minister should give the necessary guarantee. Parliament will be kept informed as to what guarantees have been given by subsection (7). Of course, Ministers are accountable to Parliament at all times for their actions in the public arena. In effect, it is the same as agreeing to a settlement. That is not subject to regulation. If a Minister agrees to settle an action, he or she can do so. This is part of the settlement of an action to which the Minister has agreed to give his or her guarantee in the circumstances required. We have provided these additional administrative safeguards to cover the situation.
While I am very glad to consider any proposals that may be an improvement, strictly speaking this is probably an additional administrative or regulatory burden which is not necessary in the circumstances of this case to secure adequately the plaintiff's interests, on the one hand, and the interests of the public as taxpayers, on the other. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I owe it in respect to him to consider what he has said when I read it in Hansard tomorrow. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) This Act does not apply where the cause of action arose before this Act came into force.").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 8 assumes that the Bill as currently drafted is passed and that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor instructs the courts to use a rate of return equal to the current index-linked gilt edged rates. A larger sum will be needed initially to achieve a lifetime award than is currently necessary by discounting at the rate of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. Put another way, a lower discount rate means a smaller adjustment for the

381
investment return and therefore increased compensation. This increase can and will be taken into account when setting premiums for future policies.
However, insurance companies have many thousands of claims in the pipeline awaiting settlement. These claims will arise under policies issued in the past. If the compensation due in these cases were to be increased by this legislation the industry could not charge any further premium to reflect that increase. That would be inequitable. That is the effect of the Bill as currently drafted. Under Clause 8(3) the legislation comes into force two months after it has been passed. Pipeline claims will then be assessed under the new rules. This is legislation with a retrospective impact.
Insurers believe that the impact can be eliminated largely by ensuring that the new rules apply only to accidents and claims which occur after the Bill comes into force. This will provide certainty for all concerned: plaintiffs, defendants, insurers and their advisers. My amendment offers this solution.
Initial consultation within the insurance industry shows that the retrospective cost is at least £200 million for motor insurers alone, although a figure of between £500 million and £ I billion is probably the truer cost to the insurance industry as a whole. Even if the amendment is passed, the industry will still pay larger amounts on current policies which produce claims after the Act incepts without any chance of further amendments. Although they accept that, they ask that there should not be retrospective legislation in respect of claims which have already occurred or still await judgment. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My only observation is that it could work the other way: in pending appeals the court could decide that a low rate of, say, 3 per cent. was appropriate and the Lord Chancellor in formulating a prescribed rate under the Bill, if enacted, could decide upon a higher rate.
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: It must be correct that, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, this could operate either way, depending upon how the power was exercised. That is the problem to which I referred earlier which troubles me about how precisely to go about this and why I wish to wait until the Court of Appeal, which is not in any way affected by the statute on this aspect, has decided what is the right way to go about it. When I said the Court of Appeal, I was intending to include the remote possibility that someone might think that it was not final on this matter and that a final judgment should come from the House of Lords. Assuming that the decision were appealed, I should think it right to wait for that.
The amendment would affect the whole of the Bill. I do not believe that it would be necessary for the purposes that my noble friend has explained to do more than apply it to Clause 1. I believe that the industry would be in favour of structured settlements coming in as soon as possible. They are of course in already, but there is a slight doubt about competency and that is settled by the Bill. So this applies to Clause 1 only.
382
However, in relation to Clause 1 it poses a difficult question which I sought to address somewhat tangentially earlier. If the settling of the rate were to cause a general increase or general decrease—either way—it would be in the nature of a retrospective interference with the ordinary course of development of these claims.
It may well be that the court—the court has been asked to do this from time to time—could decide that the previous rate of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. is these days unrealistic, notwithstanding Lord Diplock's commendation of it, and that a new rate should be taken as being more realistic to achieve the aim which I understand to be the aim of the law; namely, to compensate the plaintiff for the loss which he or she has suffered. If the courts did that, it would raise the total of damages which insurers might thereafter have to pay. That would not be Parliament doing it; it would be the court doing it. That is the difficulty. I believe that the aim of the power should be to try to arrive at the figure that the courts would think the right figure at the present time. Therefore, it should apply not only to causes of action accruing after this date.
This is the most difficult aspect of the matter. It applies whether or not there is a fixed rate. Even the original Law Commission proposals had this problem attached to them. I have put forward the best solution; namely, by this power I would be seeking to approximate as closely as possible with what the court says is the proper level for the purpose of not altering the level but of merely making it easier for the future to reach that level without the necessity for detailed actuarial calculations.
The other possibility of course is to apply the amendment to Clause 1 only and then to leave it, as it were, to the Lord Chancellor to set a rate which might not reflect the existing rate but some rate which he thought was better—either up or down—than the existing rate. As I said, that is not what I believe to be the right aim in this matter, which raises a difficult question. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment and consider what I have said about it to see what is the best way forward.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down or the noble Viscount answers him, could I ask the noble and learned Lord, since he has mentioned actuarial calculations, why it is that Section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 has not yet come into force? I had a personal interest in that because I happened to move the amendment which the noble and learned Lord kindly accepted.
The Lord Chancellor: Similar considerations apply in respect of that provision as apply in respect of this. It may not be perhaps so clear, but obviously a similar problem arises. I am anxious not to involve myself, or anyone else for that matter, in Parliament retrospectively altering the basis upon which damages are assessed in respect of causes of action that have already accrued. On the other hand, Parliament is entitled, as I see it, to make procedural improvements in current cases where the substantive rights are not affected. In so far as it is

383
just an improvement in the procedure, that is all well and good, but there is an underlying feeling in some quarters that both Clause 1 and Section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act, which the noble Lord suggested on an earlier occasion should be put in place—it came out of this but we put it in a little in advance—could affect basic substantive changes in the level of damages, and I need to try to avoid that.
Viscount Chelmsford: We have had an interesting reply from my noble and learned friend. I should like to think about all that he has said. I distinctly heard him say that he did not wish to damage the insurance industry through retrospective legislation, and that is the point about which the insurance industry is concerned.
384
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that a low rate of return means a higher award. I thought that I heard him say the opposite. He is nodding his head. We shall undoubtedly want to study what has been said today and possibly consult the Lord Chancellor further, because we are all trying to achieve the same end and we are not sure how to reach it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Transport Policy for Scotland
  Transport Policy for Scotland
  Forestry Consultation Procedures
  Forestry Consultation Procedures
  Higher Education: National Committee of Inquiry
  Higher Education: National Committee of Inquiry
  NHS Supplies Authority: Corporate Governance
  NHS Supplies Authority: Corporate Governance
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Drugs Strategy
  Drugs Strategy
  Women on Remand: Bail
  Women on Remand: Bail
  Prison Repairs and Maintenance Cuts
  Prison Repairs and Maintenance Cuts
  Gender Dysphoria in Prisoners
  Gender Dysphoria in Prisoners
  UN Human Rights Committee: Reports from NGOs
  UN Human Rights Committee: Reports from NGOs
  Oftel/DTI Dialogue
  Oftel/DTI Dialogue
  Privatised Industries: Regulators' Accountability
  Privatised Industries: Regulators' Accountability
  Privatised Industry Reports: Discussion by Parliament
  Privatised Industry Reports: Discussion by Parliament
  Privatised Industries: Appeals against Regulators
  Privatised Industries: Appeals against Regulators
  Government Computer Systems: Software Modification Costs
  Government Computer Systems: Software Modification Costs
  Morocco: Fisheries Agreement Cost
  Morocco: Fisheries Agreement Cost