Sitting of 22 May 1996

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

  Adjournment of the House
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me to open the debate. My purpose this morning is to draw attention to a grave injustice and to secure for its victims the humane ministerial response they crave. I hope that the Leader of the House will assist them, as I know he will want to do if he can, by asking the Secretary of State for Health for a helpful statement to incorporate in his reply to this debate.
  Some wrongs are so patently clear that we ought not to have to campaign to put them right. One of the most glaring today is the unmerited extra suffering inflicted on people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C by NHS treatment. They were prescribed under the NHS—3,100 of them—contaminated blood products to correct the severe bleeding that people with haemophilia have to endure.
  Hepatitis C attacks the liver and is potentially life-threatening. Current medical opinion is that up to 80 per cent. of those infected will develop chronic liver disease. Of these, some 20 per cent. will develop severe liver problems such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. More than 50 of those infected by contaminated NHS blood products have already died and the death rate is accelerating.
  Deaths caused by "new" Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease— CJD—cases are running at the rate of five a year. That is fewer than the deaths from hepatitis C caused in the past year by NHS treatment. In the case of CJD, there is no suggestion of NHS involvement; but if those infected with hepatitis C by contaminated NHS blood products had received even a thousandth of the media attention given to the CJD cases, there would be an insistent public demand for Ministers now to meet their plea for help.
  This huge tragedy in the haemophilia community dates back to before 1986, when heat treatment was introduced to end the contamination of NHS blood products. But by then there had been mass infection among them with hepatitis C. In recognition of the scale of the tragedy, the Haemophilia Society launched a campaign in March 1995 for financial and medical help for those infected.
  It is much to the credit of this House that there were right hon. and hon. Members of every party who immediately pledged their support and, as the Leader of the House will know, more than 260 Members of Parliament have now signed my early-day motion backing the campaign. Anyone who looks at its list of signatories
  210
  will see that the issue is treated by the motion not as one between right and left in this Chamber, but of right and wrong. Of very special help in promoting the motion has been the active involvement of the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—who co-chairs with me the all-party group of Members of Parliament now assisting the campaign—and of my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). I want to emphasise here that no one could possibly have done more to promote the cause we have espoused than the hon. Member for Hendon, South.
  To sustain its campaign, the Haemophilia Society recently published the results of in-depth research into the problems and needs of people who were infected but are not yet seriously ill. The report, sent to the Department of Health, documents the damaging impact of hepatitis C not only on individuals but on whole families. It focuses on medical, social and financial problems and makes frightening reading. In case study after case study families are seen trying to cope with sickness, loss of income, loss of jobs and loss of independence. Individuals with the disease, while trapped in an uphill struggle to maintain their families, have to live day by day with what they know could soon become a terminal illness.
  One of the most urgent needs now is financial help to loosen the vice of reduced earnings and increased costs. That is why the Haemophilia Society is calling urgently for cash grants from the Government for those infected and the dependants of those who have already died.
  The society's plea does not, however, stop there. It seeks funding for appropriate treatment and counselling as well as clear guidance from the Department of Health on the management and treatment of hepatitis C. Again, more research by the Government is requested. While £1 million has been put aside for research into the prevalence, transmission and natural history of the virus, the Haemophilia Society also wants to see research into treatment therapy, more particularly combination therapy.
  Other pressing needs are for a public education programme to explain the facts and dispel the myths about hepatitis C; and for the funding of recombinant clotting factors to replace plasma-derived products that caused not only the hepatitis C infection but the HIV infection among people with haemophilia. It is emphasised by the society that recombinant products are free of the risk of blood-borne viruses and would thus exclude any third tragedy for the haemophilia community.
  The call for help from those with hepatitis C has to be seen in the context of what was done to assist the 1,200 people with haemophilia who were infected with the HIV virus by NHS treatment. The hepatitis C infection took place at the same time as the HIV infection. The cause was the same: contaminated blood products used in their treatment. The effect can be equally deadly. Yet those infected with hepatitis C and their dependants now receive nothing from a Government who provided £70 million in financial support for those infected with HIV and instituted a hardship fund—the Macfarlane fund—to give continuing support. The Government accepted their moral responsibility in the case of HIV. Now they have the same responsibility in the case of hepatitis C.
  The fate of three brothers says it all about the depth of the injustice to the 3,100 people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C. All three brothers had

  211
  haemophilia. Two were infected with HIV by NHS treatment and the other with hepatitis C. All have subsequently died from the infections. The brothers with HIV received financial help from the Macfarlane trust and so were able to make some provision for their families. The brother who died from hepatitis C went to his grave having been denied financial help. He was thus unable to make any provision for the future well-being of his family. All three brothers became terminally ill. All died as a result of infection through NHS treatment, yet only two received help. For anyone to call that fair or even tolerable is to bark not just up the wrong tree, but in the wrong forest.
  It may be argued that compensating the people infected with hepatitis C would take money away from patient care in the NHS. But in the case of HIV the payments made to those infected came from contingency moneys and this is what the Haemophilia Society is asking for now in the case of hepatitis C. It simply wants the terms of reference of the Macfarlane trust to be extended to include those infected with hepatitis C. Its claim is an extremely modest one measured against the pain and suffering inflicted on those for whom the contaminated blood products were prescribed and their families.
  While representatives of the Haemophilia Society have been given a sympathetic hearing at a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Government have still to respond to its report about the damaging effects of the contamination on its victims. But Ministers can no longer claim not to know what needs to be done and it is now their bounden duty to act. If they will not do so and the campaign for recompense has to go on, then go on it will and with renewed urgency until justice is done.
  9.44 am
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, we need to be reassured that the Government fully appreciate what the European Court of Justice has done, is doing and will—unless stopped— continue to do to the powers and laws of this justifiably proud nation state.
  At last, the extent of the powers that we have allowed the court to have is being brought home to us all. We are to pay £30 million in compensation to Spanish fishermen who took and used British quota through the simple device of buying British-registered ships, which this British Parliament specifically said should not happen when we passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. We are threatened with an absurd 48-hour limit on the working week, which nearly all of us will have to follow despite the Prime Minister's specific and conceded opt-out of the social chapter at Maastricht. The ban on our worldwide export of probably the safest beef in the world is said by our European partners to be in accord with powers vested in them by the treaty of Rome, which they expect to be upheld by the European Court of Justice, which overwhelmingly supports the European Union against the nation states throughout Europe, not only Britain.
  It is now becoming clear, although the matter does not receive much coverage in the media, that we have acquiesced in the creation of a power-hungry mechanism that appears programmed to destroy our national
  212
  sovereignty widely, deeply and permanently. This is not the thing we thought it was, and it is certainly not the thing we expected or wanted it to be when we voted to join, and when we voted to stay in, the Common Market.
  We were told in the judgment of a court case in 1992:
  "As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member-States but also their nationals. The essential characteristics of the Community Legal Order which has thus been established are in particular its primacy over the law of the member-States and the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the member-States themselves."
  That is news to most of us.
  Of course we knew when we joined, and when we decided to stay in, that we had surrendered some sovereignty to a trading bloc, and we knew and accepted the need for a court to ensure that there was an even application of Community law and to protect the nation states from abuse of power by Community institutions. But we did not realise that we were subjecting ourselves to a court that practised what the former warden of All Souls, the distinguished lawyer Sir Patrick Neill, called "creative jurisprudence"—interpreting conflicts expansively instead of restrictively, as our courts are accustomed to do.
  The European Court of Justice has been steadily interpreting the treaty of Rome so that it is made to say what no one thought it said. The reason is that it has been acting less like a court of justice and more like a court with the political mission of political union. The court set out its new status in the passage to which I have already referred. The role of the court has changed: it used to operate in "a limited field", but it is now operating in "ever-wider fields". The European Court of Justice believes that the treaty has empowered it to become the engine of a federated super-state, a united states of Europe to be served by a supreme court. The purpose of a supreme court is to serve the written constitution of a state. It has become the powerhouse of that united state.
  Sir Patrick Neill QC, in an address to the European research group—which is led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer)—said:
  "A court with a mission is a menace. A supreme court with a mission is a tyranny."
  That prompts the question: do we need such a court? The European Economic Area treaty achieves free movement of goods and services, competition and deregulation without the need for a supreme court. The general agreement on tariffs and trade functions without the need for a supreme court. It is enough to have a simple procedure for settling disputes.
  It is no surprise—with the philosophy of a supreme court to serve the constitution of a political union operating over and above nation states—that the European Court of Justice, which consists mainly of civil servants and academics from different political cultures and traditions, has been overruling our courts. It has been telling our courts what they must do and it has even been trying to overrule our democratically elected Parliament. Like pac-men, the European Court of Justice has been busy gobbling up the powers of nation states.
  How has that position been developing? I shall give some examples. First, the European Court of Justice has altered the powers allocated to it—it operated in "limited

  213
  fields", but it is now operating in "wider fields". Secondly, the court has said that the treaties make rights and duties directly applicable to individuals without any need for national laws to authorise them—there was nothing about that in the treaties. Thirdly, it has ruled that a treaty has to be interpreted not merely according to the wording of its provision, but by reference to what it considers to be the spirit of the provision. That is dangerous and we pointed out that reliance would be placed on the preamble, which is a process that we do not accept in this country. We had long debates about Maastricht in the Chamber.
  Fourthly, the European Court of Justice has held that directives, which the treaties do not make binding, must also have direct effect without the need for legislation to be passed by national legislatures. Fifthly, it has invented an action for damages against any state that is impertinent enough to fail to implement a directive—there is nothing in the treaties about that. Sixthly, the European Court of Justice now asserts a power to limit the retroactive effect of its judgments—again, there is no such power in the treaties.
  Seventhly, the European Court of Justice is not satisfied with all that law making, and it is hungry for more power: it has extended its jurisdiction so that it can review the legality of decisions made by the European Parliament— there is nothing about that in the treaties. Eighthly, the European Court of Justice now allows the European Parliament to challenge the acts of the Council of Ministers—if that is not changing the law while pretending to interpret it, I do not know what is. As a result of that, the powers had to be enshrined in the Maastricht treaty.
  Ninthly, the European Court of Justice has expanded its jurisdiction to rule on the decisions of the body that decides on association agreements between the European Union and other states, such as Turkey—there is nothing about that in the treaties. Tenthly, it has decided that it could assist in criminal investigations by national courts— there is nothing about that in the treaties. In 1992, it decided that national courts could be allowed to declare Community actions valid, but that they could not declare Community actions invalid. And so it goes on.
  It appears that we must now be bound by a retrospective law, contrary to our traditions, and that we must pay ship money to those who, by any test of common sense, are not entitled to it. If we do not act, that will continue to go on and on.
  What can be done? The Government's White Paper recognises that change is necessary, and I suspect that it has the complete support of every hon. Member.
  The few Europhiles in the Chamber and in the country often say that the Euro-sceptics—who overwhelmingly want to see Britain remain in the European Union; there are very few Euro-sceptics who want to see Britain pull out of the European Union—are a minority. That is rubbish. The Euro-sceptics are an overwhelming majority not only on Government Benches and, I suspect, on Opposition Benches, but in the country at large.
  There will be support for the Government's White Paper recommendations. There is reference to the functions of the court being further improved, to judgments giving cause for concern and to the European Court of Justice interpretation sometimes going beyond what was intended. The White Paper suggests that
  214
  damages should be only for serious breaches, that retrospectivity should be limited and that time limits should be introduced for the bringing of cases. It suggests that an internal appeals procedure should be introduced, subsidiarity clarified and procedures streamlined.
  But limiting the expansion of powers is one thing; we need to cut back on the current powers of the court. On 24 April, the Prime Minister said to the Institute of Directors:
  "I can tell you … I have no intention whatsoever of going down the route to a federal Europe."
  On 11 May, the Prime Minister told the Scottish party conference:
  "Yes, Britain must be a part of Europe and a partner of Europe, but a Europe of nations, not a united states of Europe, not a federal Europe. Once again I make this pledge: while I am Prime Minister, if others should opt for such a Europe, Britain will not be part of it."
  Hon. Members will be heartened by those statements and their application to the European Court of Justice. We look forward to the memorandum that will set out in detail the proposals laid down in the White Paper. However, we must go further than the Government envisage. We should be able to see which judges are being too political or are acting in the national interests of their country, so the court's proceedings and the judges' reasons should be published. Why is that not being done already? We should require judges of the European Court of Justice to be more than just civil servants and academics. They should have experience as judges in their countries—only four out of the 15 present judges have such experience.
  We should ensure that European law is no longer directly applicable to individuals and businesses within the European Union unless the nation states so legislate. Such a rule would prevent the European Court of Justice from extending European Union competence without the consent of the nations. If that extension is not halted, we shall not prevent the march towards a federal Europe to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so opposed. The European Court of Justice must be denied all legislative functions. We must amend the 1972 treaty—by agreement if possible—to restrict the court's powers and to stop future expansion. We must do all that we can to ensure that the powers of the nation states are restored.
  A great deal of work must be done in order to restore Britain's powers. Harsh conclusions must be drawn not just by lawyers, but by politicians. The agreement of our European partners—who are rooted in different legal cultures and have different political aims—may not come easily, and action by Britain alone may put at risk our membership of the European Union. However, it is clear that the British people are angry about the loss of national power and control. They require their democratically elected representatives to do something about it, and the political party that acts to protect national sovereignty will be more likely to benefit from their gratitude.
  There is no clearer starting point than limiting the pac-man tendency of the European Court of Justice. Before the Whitsun recess, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give an assurance that the Government are contemplating precisely that sort of action.
  10.1 am
  Ms Glenda Jackson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) began this morning's debate

  215
  by raising a matter of injustice. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has spoken—I thought somewhat unconvincingly—about restoring power to nation states and reducing the influence of the European Court of Justice. I, too, wish to raise a case of gross injustice but, regrettably, it concerns an area where injustices are the norm rather than the exception and where the majority of people are desperate for the services of a free court of justice.
  I refer to a case involving my constituent Adefolahan Mokuolu, who is a British citizen. On 23 April, he visited Nigeria for the first time and he was abducted from his father's home in Anthony village, Lagos, by members of the Nigerian special security forces. He has been held virtually incommunicado from that date, at what I believe are the forces' headquarters at 2 Park lane, Apapa. An appalling case becomes doubly so when one learns that my constituent is 13 years old.
  When my constituent's mother alerted me of the incident on 9 May this year, I immediately contacted the Nigeria desk at the Foreign Office, and the officers were extremely helpful in contacting consular officials in Lagos. I also alerted the acting high commissioner at the Nigerian high commission in London, Mr. Okeke. As yet, I have received no positive response from him other than confirmation that he sent a copy of my fax to headquarters in Lagos.
  My constituent was born on 1 March 1983 at St. Mary's hospital, Hackney. He attends a school in St. John's Wood. He is passionate about football. He is a British citizen who was on his first visit to Nigeria. He loved the country. He met his mother's relatives for the first time and he enjoyed the company of a large, extended Nigerian family. The Nigerian Government argue that, because both of his parents are Nigerian citizens, my constituent has dual nationality and they have therefore twice denied British consular officials access to him. That is absolutely appalling.
  On the first occasion that British consular officials presented themselves at 2 Park lane, Apapa, the special security forces denied that my constituent was being held. On the second occasion, consular officials arrived at the same time as one of the uncles of my constituent who had taken food to the boy during his incarceration. Access was again denied to British consular officials, and my constituent's uncle was warned that if he made any attempt to approach those officials, his life would be in danger.
  When I inquired of my constituent's mother why she thought that her son had been abducted in that heinous manner, she said that it was because his father is the cousin of a previous Nigerian President, Major-General Odasanja. It is totally unacceptable that a 13-year-old boy who probably has no interest in the politics of his own country—the United Kingdom—could be deemed to be interested or active in the politics of Nigeria. It is also totally unacceptable that he is still being held virtually incommunicado.
  On 16 May, the boy's uncle was allowed to see him. I have since heard that the special security forces are feeding my constituent, who has his own room, and I understand that they are washing his clothes. However, no one is allowed to see him without a guard being present.
  216
  It is not acceptable that a 13-year-old British citizen, who has been raised as a British citizen and who regards Britain as his home—which it is—should be incarcerated in that way. I am grateful for the assistance that I have received from the Nigeria desk and the Foreign Office. I have alerted the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to the conditions in which my constituent is being held.
  I felt initially that British consular officials in Lagos were not responding as energetically and persistently as I desired. However, they are now pursuing the case. I appreciate the difficulties faced by all consular departments in attempting to deal with a regime that has little or no regard for human rights or civil liberties. I urge the Leader of the House to make even stronger representations to his right hon. Friends, that the case be placed at the top of the list for action by consular officials in Nigeria. Representations about the case should be made not only to other Commonwealth Governments, but to our European allies.
  When I received information that my constituent's uncle had been threatened by the special security forces and warned not to attempt to contact British consular officials, I was doubtful as to whether it was wise to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. We are a long way from Nigeria, but it would be entirely possible for that brutal regime to punish my constituent's relatives if it so chose. Therefore, I attempted to obtain as much impartial advice as I could.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who put me in touch with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association secretariat. I cannot speak too highly of the assistance that it gave me in contacting other members of the Commonwealth and introducing me to expatriate Nigerians. They all advised me to speak out in the House and alert hon. Members to the gross abuses that are being visited upon a British citizen of such a tender age, who is so far from home and on his first visit to that country. I am sure that everyone will find the painful story that I have related this morning both shocking and unacceptable.
  I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure me that every effort will be made by the Foreign Office and consular officials to restore my constituent to his home in the shortest possible time. His mother, Mrs. Christine Mokuolu, flew out to Nigeria last Sunday so that she could be closer to her son. As yet, I have no news that she has been allowed to visit him, but I sincerely hope that that will be the case—and that such pressure as can be brought to bear on the Nigerian authorities will ensure that Mrs. Mokuolu and her son will be allowed to return to their home as soon as possible.
  10.9 am
  Mr. David Nicholson: I want to raise two unfinished pieces of business before the House adjourns for the spring bank holiday recess. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recall that my speech last Thursday on the beef crisis was—for reasons that I perfectly understand— terminated mid-sentence by you, as I was reflecting on the consequences of the ban on British beef for our relations with the European Union. Happily, I not only have the opportunity to return to that subject this morning but do so in the light of the important statement yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  217
  Nye Bevan said 40 or 50 years ago that Britain was an island built of coal and surrounded by fish. If he had been more of a countryman, he might have said also that it was a nation of beef eaters, and coal, fish and beef have dominated this Parliament well beyond the point of representing the interests of the communities immediately affected. When we dealt with the coal issue four years ago, I received several hundred letters from my constituents, many of them Conservative supporters, even though there is not a coal mine anywhere near Taunton or Somerset. That response reflected the fact that coal was a traditional industry. Similarly, my constituency is landlocked but my constituents have a considerable interest in the way in which this country appears to have been done down over the handling of the common fisheries policy.
  Concern about the beef industry extends far beyond the people in farming or the food industry, who are most affected. The public realise that, even though we are about to enter the third millennium, our traditional industries are still established sources of British strength and economic power. When my speech was terminated last Thursday, I was about to reflect that the sole casualty of, in part, the beef ban would be support by Conservative Members and the public, particularly in the countryside, for Britain proceeding in the foreseeable future to European monetary union. The point would be crudely put that, if we cannot trust our European partners to take account of our interests in such a limited matter—but important to us—as the beef industry, surely we cannot allow Europe's collective thumb to be placed across our economic windpipe.
  My view is reinforced by arguments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has used in private and in public as to the difficulties inherent in a speedy, and perhaps botched and limited, monetary union; by the impressive article in The Times yesterday by Professor Nöolling, who served on the Bundesbank council between 1982 and 1992; and by not only small firms—which have always been aware of the risks to this country of proceeding to monetary union and a single currency—but larger companies.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have been unjustly accused in the press of dithering in respect of the beef crisis. I said yesterday to my right hon. Friend that the Government have exercised great patience with our European partners. British Ministers wanted time and again to let our European partners resolve the issue by diplomacy and negotiation. Our hopes have been raised at least six or seven times, only to be dashed a day or two later. I understand the legal restraints on Britain taking trade or financial reprisals, so I welcome yesterday's statement as being within the bounds of law—and it seems from today's reaction that it will have a suitably disruptive effect on European Union procedures over the next month. That will give our partners a considerable incentive to resolve the matter in a sensible and civilised way. It was clear yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition was uneasy about how to respond.
  Some people argue that the intentions expressed in yesterday's statement will make matters worse, but I do not agree. If it does make matters worse, that will be largely up to our European partners. If they settle in for a long siege, so be it. They must remember the strong political feeling engendered in this country over the past
  218
  eight weeks in addition to the existing discontents with the European Union—one of which was spelt out this morning by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in his impressive and scholarly speech. Fisheries policy is another. I find that, in my constituency—and I suspect that my hon. Friends have similar experiences—supporters who have worked hard for Conservative Members of the European Parliament and for the European cause in the past are joining the ranks of the most critical.
  Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in today's Financial Times that the European Parliament's administrative budget has risen from 596 million ecu in 1994 to a proposed 934 million ecu in 1997—an increase of 56.7 per cent? Does not my hon. Friend regard that as grossly extravagant and demonstrating that there is no desire in that organisation to control costs?
  Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and leads me on to my next point.
  Our European partners must not only take account of indignation with the way in which our European partners have handled the beef issue over the past few weeks, and of strong support for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but of the facts that the UK has for years run a sizeable deficit on trade with Europe in food and drink, and on wider trade; that we pay more into the European Union than we get out of it; and that the UK pays more in than any other country except Germany. Those financial points, in sheer cost, must be taken into account as we proceed with these matters.
  A couple of days ago, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, claimed in a speech that a spate of xenophobia is rushing through the Conservative party and that the Prime Minister is exploiting that xenophobia. My hon. Friends must speak for themselves. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is xenophobic—I certainly am not. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a majority of EU countries backed our attempt to end the ban on beef products. That does not exactly seem like the fruits of xenophobia to which the leader of the Liberal party referred.
  We welcome the help that France has given us in recent days, following the highly successful visit to this country of President Chirac. He made an impressive speech to both Houses of Parliament in the Royal Gallery; I did not agree with every word of it, but given that France and Britain have had a long rivalry, it was a friendly speech too. Of all the countries in the European Union, France and Britain are the most similar in terms of history and tradition. But that similarity often produces intense competition, politically, militarily, economically and commercially. The pressure in France to lift the ban on British beef derives from the fact that the French want to buy it and thus have an interest in importing it.
  Moreover, the French people and, increasingly, French politicians are as suspicious of federalism and centralisation in Europe as we have become. In 1992, before the difficulties arose with the Maastricht treaty debate and before the French referendum, a group of mayors and other dignitaries from a part of Normandy— les sept villages rln Vexin—that had been hotly disputed

  219
  by England and France in the days of King John came to my constituency, to North Curry, for a twinning ceremony. During the celebrations, one mayor, speaking of the Maastricht treaty, told me that the French expected the English to "stop this sort of thing". For a long time now, that has been our experience in the European Union. People in other countries dare not put their heads above the parapet but expect us to fight their battles for them.
  A colleague told me the other day that, at the time of the Maastricht treaty, he met a group of doctors in France and asked them what they thought of the treaty. They said that they were against it. My colleague asked whether they had made their position clear. "Oh no," they said, "if we did that, the Government would cut off all funding to our organisation." Of course the Government at the time were the socialist Government of President Mitterrand.
  So this country does not need to resort to xenophobia, because even in this commercial matter of beef we increasingly find that we have allies in Europe.
  Mr. John Carlisle: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of twinning, he might like to comment on a case highlighted in this morning's paper. A village in his county, near Wellington, is expecting German visitors next week as part of the twinning process. The Germans are insisting that they must not be served British beef during their visit. As my hon. Friend represents that county, I am sure that he shares my anger and disappointment at the Germans' attitude to what should be a friendly visit.
  Mr. Nicholson: I was coming to the Germans. I will look into the matter; it is outrageous that they should refuse to eat one of our healthiest and most staple products. I gather that the German players who will take part in the international football tournament here in a few months' time are insisting that the beef they eat be imported from Germany. They are not prepared to eat ours—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Before the hon. Gentleman takes off on a flight of fancy, I might point out to him that most national football teams take their own chefs and food with them, for a variety of good reasons. The eating habits of a football team are often reflected in the way the team plays on the pitch—which is probably why our football team plays crap.
  Mr. Nicholson: I defer to the hon. Gentleman's greater knowledge of the subject.
  On Radio 4's "World at One" programme on Monday, there was an interesting discussion of the Germans and how they differ from other Europeans. They are obsessed with health. Perhaps that might be justified by cartoon depictions—and sometimes the reality—of Germans on the beach. But it is their obsession with health that has led them to adopt their extraordinary position on British beef—and on German beef and on all kinds of meat. It has caused them considerable problems along the way.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we had been a little more obsessed with health in the early 1980s, we would not be faced with the BSE problem now?
  Mr. Nicholson: Like many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman cannot extricate himself from the warped thinking which has led his party to contribute so much to our continuing national difficulties on this matter.
  I want to issue three cautions in this debate. First, I urge Ministers to make it clear—the Prime Minister did yesterday, but the point must be repeated over and over again—that we are interested not just in lifting the beef products ban, which accounts for only a few million pounds' worth of exports, but in a speedy and businesslike timetable for lifting the ban on the whole beef export trade, which is worth about £500 million.
  Secondly, Ministers must be absolutely clear in their own minds what they plan to do following the intentions announced yesterday. There is no need to broadcast the details continually, which is why the Prime Minister was wise not to respond specifically to some of the questions asked yesterday; but there must be no backsliding. If we do not get fair treatment, we must act accordingly.
  Thirdly, Ministers must not use the European row as a figleaf to cover up deficiencies in the way the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the bodies aligned with it sort out the problem in the United Kingdom. I refer of course to the beef cull. Yesterday hon. Members representing the south-west received a briefing from the south-west branch of the National Farmers Union. I ensured that my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Members for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), had copies with them yesterday on the Front Bench when the statements were being made. The briefing does not make easy or happy reading. The leader of the Liberal party, whom I have on occasion criticised, referred to the deficiencies affecting the abattoirs in the south-west, whose throughput has been halved in the past few days, apparently because of the need to bring another abattoir on stream in south Wales.
  These problems need sorting out. I know that the Leader of the House heads a Cabinet Committee on this matter, and I stress to him that if, when the House returns after the recess, we are still encountering the same sort of difficulties as farmers, abattoir managers and others have faced in the past week, Conservative Members will strongly criticise the officials concerned, and we will draw our own conclusions about the control and responsibility being exercised by Ministers. I hope that those warnings are heard.
  The second unfinished matter to which I shall refer relates to the Housing Bill. My right hon. Friend will recall that the debate on the homeless provisions of that Bill was attenuated the other week and that I raised the matter at business questions. The issue has interested many of my constituents who are not and do not expect to be affected by homelessness or homeless provisions. That demonstrates the ability of the British people in general, and my constituents in particular, to take a reasoned interest in matters that do not directly affect them-—whether it is in the interests of the country or the interests of compassion and the decent treatment of others.
  The changes in the legislation that is now in the other place should be clear and justifiable and should not penalise people who have no alternative but to seek help from local authorities or housing associations. It is a complex matter and I was not proposing to oppose the Government's measures—I wanted to clarify them and debate them.

  221
  I feel strongly that young people in particular should live at the family home, if that is possible. We have to use our existing housing stock more effectively rather than consistently building on green-field sites, whether for owner-occupation or for housing associations. I am aware of much stronger resistance to such housing development than existed in previous years. On Monday, the Western Daily Press devoted a full page to housing developments on green-field sites being earmarked for major housing expansion throughout the south-west—in Somerset, Wiltshire and Dorset. Those developments will encounter considerable difficulties as they go through the planning process.
  Some young people clearly cannot live with their parents, but they should not always expect to be housed by the public sector if they come to Taunton, which is a major railway and road focus, to Somerset or to the south-west. The south-west seems to attract many young people—possibly as part of the traveller cult or because the area is so attractive. I do not believe that that can be justified by economic factors as unemployment levels in the north and the south have drawn closer in recent years. We no longer have a pattern of people moving from unemployment black spots in the north to fill job vacancies in the south. That is regrettable for those of us who live in and represent the south, but it is an economic factor that also has certain benefits.
  I make those provisos to assist Ministers in proceeding with the Bill. Local people deserve suitable priority on housing lists, which should not be interrupted or replaced by the pressure of so-called homeless people from elsewhere. At the same time—as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration during our brief debate on the matter—I appreciate that in my constituency, and no doubt elsewhere, there has been an unsatisfactory provision of private rented accommodation which means that the presupposition in the Bill that homeless people should first be housed in the private rented sector should not always be followed through too rigidly.
  I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has agreed to see me and one or two of those involved from Taunton Deane borough council and from the local office of Shelter who have been extremely helpful to me.
  I have long wanted to revive the private rented sector. I lived in quite satisfactory private rented accommodation in London from 1966 to 1976. However, I realise that the private rented sector—particularly the traditional little old lady who rents out rooms in her house—has declined over the past 20 years, partially because of Government policy, and that although it has revived somewhat, it is predominated by absentee landlords owning bed-sitters that are not always satisfactorily managed and do not always attract satisfactory tenants into the neighbourhood. We need to get those matters absolutely right before the Bill proceeds finally into law.
  I emphasise that public concern for decent treatment for homeless people is greatly met by the Government's rough sleepers initiative, which has been successful in London and has been expanded into other centres all over the country. It requires proper co-ordination between central Government, local government and various voluntary organisations.
  Most homeless people do not just have the problem of absence of a secure home. Many of them have been involved with drugs or alcoholism or come from disrupted
  222
  homes. There is work for all organisations involved in helping those young people—whether they are voluntary or social organisations or simply provide housing. I would like it no longer to be necessary for such young people— I saw them again last night in the west end of London— to have to sleep rough and beg. We all regret that the cult of begging is increasing, and it is not justified. I would like those issues to be challenged by further successes for the rough sleepers initiative in London and elsewhere.
  10.36 am
  Mr. Don Dixon: I shall intervene briefly in today's adjournment debate to raise my constituents' objection to the proposed privatisation of the Port of Tyne authority. Before I do so, I should say to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) that Nye Bevan did not include beef in his famous statement about being surrounded by fish and living on coal, because many of the people he represented could not afford to buy beef.
  The fact that I am raising an issue during a Wednesday morning Adjournment debate brought about by the Jopling changes does not mean that I agree with the Jopling changes. I opposed them when they were introduced, I am still against them and I certainly do not condone them. In my view, the implementation of the Jopling recommendations and the clean feed to Members' rooms has made the Chamber virtually redundant. However, I shall not press my views on the Jopling recommendations, bearing in mind that the senior salaries review committee is still sitting.
  Privatisation is raising justifiable fears in my constituency. I do not believe that the proposals are in the best interests of my constituents or of our region, and they are opposed by the Port of Tyne authority, local authorities in the area and many of the port users.
  Having been born within a thousand yards of the banks of the River Tyne and having spent most of my working life working in shipyards there, I should draw the House's attention to the importance of the port of Tyne.
  The River Tyne once had a shallow entrance that became troublesome as ships steadily grew in size during the 17th and 18th centuries. The Tyne improvement commission was established by an Act of Parliament in 1850. Its task was to carry out such schemes and works to make the river safe and accessible for modern ships, and to provide facilities for increasing seaborne trade.
  In the first 20 years, the commission had 50 million tonnes of spoil removed from the river. Anyone who knows anything about rivers will realise the scale of dredging for that amount of spoil. The Tyne improvement commission's works have proved to be far-sighted. When it laid its plans, virtually all the vessels using the port were sailing craft of less than 1,000 tonnes.
  Today, the Tyne regularly accepts ships of more than 45,000 tonnes in dead weight, and dry dock vessels weighing up to 100,000 tonnes. Indeed, hon. Members may have seen on television last night the giant 80,000-tonne bulk carrier Solitaire being taken to the Swan Hunter shipyard. That will provide some work for those who were made redundant when Swan Hunter unfortunately closed some time ago.
  The commission built the Northumberland dock and the north and south piers. Within 50 years of the setting up of the commission, the port as we know it today was

  223
  mainly in place. The commission continued to manage and improve the river as an engine of economic growth until 1968, when it handed it over to its successor. The Port of Tyne authority was set up under an Act of Parliament as a trust port to control the facilities that were previously operated by the commissioners.
  The earliest trade on the River Tyne was in grain and forest products from the low countries, Scandinavia and the Balkans. Those areas are still important today, but the port's interests now also extend to the far east, Australia, south-east Asia, India, the middle east, Canada and the Americas—in fact, all over the world. The port regularly handles valuable metals, vehicles, offshore equipment, foodstuffs, machinery, clothing, chemicals, oil, scrap metal, and, of course, coal.
  Last year, the port exported more than 1.8 million tonnes of coal and coke, and of course we sent Andy Cole to Manchester United. The port also exported more than 28,000 tonnes of chemicals, 180,000 tonnes of grain, 175,000 cars and other vehicles and 316,000 tonnes of general commodities. Its cargo handling facilities dealt with exports and imports in excess of 3.7 million tonnes. With its royal quays in North Shields, the port of Tyne provides the most northerly terminal on the east coast for passengers using sea routes to Scandinavia. Last year, more than 360,000 passengers and almost 60,000 cars used the port.
  The port of Tyne is now one of the most efficient and flexible ports in Europe, and is engaged in a further investment programme to increase its capacity and quality of service to port users. In the past 12 years, the Port of Tyne authority has invested more than £45 million in berths and equipment. That investment has been complemented by facilities built by port users and industrialists in the area. The port authority has played a major role with developing agencies such as the Tyne and Wear development corporation and others to attract investment and new industries.
  The port of Tyne has large capital reserves. I am informed that trading produces a current annual profit of £5 million from a turnover of £15 million. It has no outstanding debts. Such healthy figures are likely to make the port attractive to asset-stripping bidders. We are used to asset strippers in my area. In fact, on the riverside of Jarrow, a statue of Charles Mark Palmer looks over the River Tyne. Charles Mark Palmer set up the old Palmers shipyard, which at one time employed more than 10,000—mostly skilled—men.
  The asset-stripper Shipbuilding Security Ltd. was set up by shipbuilders, shipowners and merchant bankers in the 1930s. It came to Jarrow, decided to close Palmers shipyard and sell off the assets, and placed a 40-year embargo on the building of ships. So we have experience of asset stripping, and are concerned that it might happen to the port of Tyne if some company comes along with an asset-stripping bid. Purchase by another port is also possible. That would of course mean rationalisation of the port's services, and the port of Tyne could again lose out.
  I am also informed that the proceeds of any privatisation would go to central Government. As the port of Tyne was formed as a result of locally generated investment in trade and by local subscriptions, such a process would be an unfair extraction of regional
  224
  resources by central Government. There has been a decline in the export of coal and coke—between 1990 and 1995, it fell by more than 600,000 tonnes—so there is a great need to invest in new facilities.
  A recent example of such investment is the construction of the Nissan car handling facility and container sites. The capital resources of the Port of Tyne authority are needed for further investment on that scale. Privatisation could lead to a reduction in developments, mainly because the maximising of profits in the short term could replace longer-term development as the priority of any new owners and shareholders.
  Originally, a number of trust ports were to be privatised by the Government, including Dover. I believe that even Vera Lynn became involved in the public outcry about the proposed privatisation of Dover, and it was dropped from the scheme. One wonders whether Government policy is determined by such public outcry. If Vera Lynn had sang about fog on the Tyne instead of bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover, perhaps the Government would have changed their policy and dropped the port of Tyne from their privatisation scheme.
  Since such privatisation will pass through the House by means of a negative resolution, this may be my only opportunity to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. I appeal to the Government not to privatise the Port of Tyne authority. It is important to the revitalisation of our area, it is doing a good job, and it should be allowed to get on with it.
  10.45 am
  Mr. John Carlisle: The House will have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), recognising that, because of his position in his party, he has little opportunity to speak. I found his speech informative. I know the port of Tyne. Indeed, in the halcyon days when I did a proper job before I entered the House, I used to ship a great deal of grain from the port. He is right to bring the very important subject before the House.
  Other ports that have been privatised and have taken the private capital from the process, which the port of Tyne desperately needs, have been extremely successful. I personally hope that the port of Tyne goes down that road, but I bow to the superior knowledge and wisdom on the subject of the hon. Member for Jarrow.
  On a somewhat grey May morning, when the House is about to adjourn for what I think is known as the spring recess, one's thoughts turn to summer. Hopefully, it will be a summer of sunny days, strawberries and cream at Wimbledon, cricket at Lords and elsewhere—indeed, the test series starts later this week—and holidays and pleasure for most people. Regrettably, residents in parts of my constituency look forward to summer with a somewhat different attitude and some misgivings. Inevitably, in parts of my constituency, as in parts of many others, the summer brings an invasion of one of the greatest scourges of modern time: the new age traveller or gipsy.
  There is nothing romantic about such people, despite the fact that they hide behind a fairly romantic title. The House will know that very few, if any, people would have any objection to those who choose a nomadic form of life that is honourable and respectable and goes back many generations—not only in this country but throughout the

  225
  world—on the basis that Romany families and the genuine traveller or gipsy, as he was then known, is part of our history.
  Regrettably, that romantic image has been shattered by several hundred and possibly thousands of people who decide basically to opt out of society and the responsibilities which the majority of the population abide by and accept, to follow a way of life that is an infernal nuisance, especially during the summer months, to those in and around the countryside and, unfortunately, also in our towns.
  The travellers are, on the whole, a dirty and aggressive set of people with strong criminal links. They present a health hazard when they arrive on a site and leave a rather worse health hazard when they go. They are scroungers in the worst sense of the word, in that they willingly take every state benefit available to them, and, indeed, to other citizens. They are probably the most uninvited of guests whom no one would wish to see in and around his area.
  A constituent, Mr. Armstrong, wrote to me last year when we had a particular problem in Luton. His words are worth recording and will, I am sure, strike a chord with hon. Members on both sides of the House. Mr. Armstrong writes:
  "We are all very disturbed by the recent High Court ruling regarding 'travellers'."
  I shall come to that matter later. Mr. Armstrong continues:
  "It is all very well claiming rights but in having rights there are also obligations. Also someone has to pay for rights and it would seem that 'travellers' avoid the liability of making any payment.
  They contribute nothing to the wellbeing of an area—quite the reverse. They cause disturbances, always leave a mess behind and usually cause a health hazard by using some part of their area as a lavatory. They regard the land as theirs by right and have been known to tell residents to 'get off our"'—
  there is now an expletive which I am not allowed to repeat—
  "'land.' After they have left, the local authority has to clear up the site at the council taxpayers' expense. If they want rights they should pay for them."
  These people are a trouble when they come and a trouble when they go. Only last year, in a very respectable part of my constituency—all parts of my constituency are very respectable, but this area may be a little more genteel than others—it fell to the local vicar to act. Here one can perhaps applaud some of the Church's actions, which it has been difficult to do over the past few years. He got together a band of helpers to clear up the mess that the travellers had left adjacent to people's homes.
  At 10 am on Saturday 22 July last year, the vicar and his friends circulated in the Bushmead area of my constituency a leaflet which urged people to
  "join us at the tractor and trailer on the common."
  The vicar offered free refreshment vouchers for the first 50 helpers and—this is the rub—the leaflet said:
  "Gloves will be provided … This may be a dirty and hazardous job. You may help clear up at your own risk."
  These people are enjoying the protection of the law and, possibly unwittingly, of local authorities. They are an enormous nuisance to our constituents. This is just the time of year when they begin to arrive. We have already had problems with them in the Luton area, and I am fearful that we shall suffer a further invasion during the summer months.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend assisted me with my speech by giving an example from my constituency. Perhaps I can assist him with his speech by giving another example from my constituency.
  Last week, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset county council passed various provisions to assist new age travellers in Somerset. It was attacked by Conservative opposition councillors who said that it would make Somerset a honeypot for travellers because no other county council—most county councils in the area are Liberal Democrat, Labour or jointly controlled—has taken such measures. My hon. Friend may like to reflect on that point and relate it to begging and to the housing matters that I raised earlier.
  Mr. Carlisle: Indeed. My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge. He represents an area that has suffered more than most from new age travellers. Around Stonehenge, there have been raves and all that goes with them, to which I shall refer later. My hon. Friend is right to point out to the House that there are local authorities, controlled by the Liberal Democrats or, in my case, by Labour, which seem to wish to give comfort and succour to these people, much to the distress of nearby residents.
  The travellers cost us an enormous amount. They know about the state benefits and they insist on taking them. In my hon. Friend's area, they travel in such numbers that they take with them experts on social security who know exactly which benefits are available. Indeed, things have come to the point that officials from the local benefits office often visit sites, ensuring that travellers claim the rights to which they believe they are entitled. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had long experience in the Department of Social Security. He will know only too well the problem I am talking about.
  New age travellers also cost local authorities and individuals an enormous amount in terms of legal fees, which run to several hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more, throughout the country. They cost the council time and resources in removing them and removing the mess. They cost the local taxpayer an enormous amount in terms of police costs because in most cases, the police are involved when the travellers arrive. There is also the enormous cost of clearing up the damage and mess they leave once they have gone.
  Some might say that these travellers are almost above the law. I must tell my right hon. Friend that I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that, although we passed the massive Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, part of which had the specific purpose of dealing with this problem, the guidance from the Department of the Environment does not reflect that fact. I have discussed this personally with the Ministers involved. The Department's attitude has been tolerant rather than, as it should be, somewhat vindictive.
  In recent correspondence, my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency talks about genuine travellers and how local authorities must be reasonable with them, especially in terms of not harrying them too much to leave if their vehicles have broken down and allowing them time to mend them. Every right-thinking citizen fully understands that that is just one of the many and varied methods these people use to prevent others from moving them. I must confess that I am somewhat disturbed to hear the Government almost giving these people help and succour.

  227
  The travellers also seem to be protected by the courts. Recent High Court decisions, which are referred to in the letter from my constituents, the Armstrongs, which I quoted earlier, gave the travellers greater protection and prevented local authorities, in some cases, from ridding their areas of this nuisance. In a recent case, Lincolnshire county council's decision to try to remove travellers was overturned in the High Court. The travellers also enjoy protection under the Children Act 1989, under education legislation and under housing legislation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) mentioned.
  One begins to realise that for some travellers, it is not a bad life. People opt out into a caravan or vehicle of some sort and park on somebody else's land in the full knowledge that they will be able to stay there almost as long as they choose. Their children will have every protection under the law in terms of education and health care. If members of the tribe—I think that that is probably the best description of them—are expecting a child, heaps of help is given and no one can touch them.
  In certain areas, according to reports, police forces are very reluctant to act, both because of the costs involved and because they know that, whenever these people arrive, there will be trouble. In many cases, that involves physical violence against officers of the council who try to move the travellers on and against individuals who remonstrate with them about their behaviour, often in their own gardens and on their own land. The police have been somewhat reluctant to go forward—possibly, again, because Home Office guidance has not been as strong as it might be.
  All that has happened since the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is that local authorities are now hiding behind the statement that—since the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was repealed, whereby authorities were bound to provide sites for gipsies if they were a problem in their area—there is very little they can do about the problem, because they cannot move them on to sites.
  The trouble in my constituency came to a head last year, to such an extent that a petition of 1,200 names was presented to the council to try to ensure that some action was taken against the gipsies. Bollards were erected in one area to prevent them from going on to private land, but they had to be removed because of a right-of-way problem during a local by-election. Obviously, a way was then open for them to go in.
  The estimate of cost to the Luton council taxpayer last year was £60,000. I think that that was an underestimate of what we had to pay to move the gipsies on, and in getting rid of them altogether.
  The cost of such actions to private landowners is considerable. It costs up to, and probably exceeds, £2,000 in legal fees to go through the proper process to get people off land on which they have absolutely no right to stay. Not the least cost is the misery and fear that those people cause to nearby residents, who are unfortunate enough to live in areas that have wide and open fields beside them, which would normally be an asset to their property. They now live in fear that travellers will appear, usually during the summer months, to make life a misery for them.
  The travellers are almost above the law. Some two or three years ago, I was faced with a similar problem in another part of my constituency. I objected to them being
  228
  there, and, on behalf of my constituents in the village of Harlington, said that I did not think that they were in a suitable place for a site. As my hon. Friends may know, my language then was perhaps somewhat extravagant, because I was cross and angry on my constituents' behalf.
  I received a letter from the Commission for Racial Equality stating that I was stirring up trouble, and asked whether I would appear at a magistrates court about a week or so later to answer those charges. That was in relation to a Member of Parliament performing his duty on behalf of his constituents, who perhaps unwittingly expressed his opinion outside the confines of this place.
  Fortunately, the Commission for Racial Equality dropped the charges, which were then taken up by the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis that I should be prosecuted because of those—I thought somewhat mild— remarks suggesting that the gipsies should be driven out of my constituency, into a land I do not know where. Luckily, after various police investigations—costing an enormous amount of money to them and legal fees to me—the case was dropped. Again, perhaps that gives the House an idea why some might feel that those people are above the law.
  That is where the problem lies. As I said earlier, we quite rightly passed a massive Act in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which, among many other excellent measures, was designed to try to prevent the problem of raves, hunt saboteurs and gipsies. We have had problems in my area with raves. I think that the Act, on the whole, has worked quite well, and there has been some control over those.
  On hunt saboteurs—I talk as an unashamed supporter of field sports and as a member of the British Field Sports Society—there is no doubt that the Act has been a considerable bonus to those of us who enjoy country sports. The hunt saboteurs' activities have been considerably reduced because of the Act. On gipsies, however, I must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the action in overturning the 1968 Act and giving local authorities new powers has been a complete disappointment.
  The 1994 Act has brought its own problems, such as problems of identification: one must now identify people to get them moved on. Apart from saying that their name is Smith—which in Luton is, of course, almost an unusual name, with so many friends now of ethnic origin—as most of them do, identification is extremely difficult.
  There are also difficulties with changing numbers of people, now that magistrates' warnings must be laid at the foot of individuals rather than at the foot of groups of people. Once one individual receives a court order, and possibly moves on—but, in many cases, stays and waits his full time—others move on to the same site. There are obviously difficulties there.
  There are difficulties also with police action. The police have been told to use their powers in a discretionary manner. Local authorities are inevitably asking the police to back them up, because those people are often vicious and violent, and the public need to be protected from them. There are dangers to council staff who are asked to go on to those sites to ask people to move. They ask them to move in as civil a manner as they can, while receiving abuse, and sometimes physical intimidation.
  There are also difficulties with the Act in that it allows fines of up to £1,000, which of course are totally laughed at by those on whom they are levied. I tell my right hon.

  229
  Friend the Leader of the House that, in his consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, he must point out to him following this debate that, under section 77 of the 1994 Act, there are many and various difficulties. Local councils across the country are now saying that this law is defective in terms of their needs. A recent survey of the Association of District Councils showed that 89 per cent. of councils thought that the law was inadequate, ineffective and "poor" in addressing their problems.
  There are now, of course, difficulties in that designated areas have ceased. In Luton we have one designated area left over from the old legislation, which is still not full but is available for gipsies to be moved on to. The difficulty now is that local authorities are almost saying, "Perhaps we should have more designated areas because of our problems and the ineffectiveness of the law." That, again, is causing problems.
  Again reflecting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, that response is a cop-out, which Labour-controlled councils are beginning to go for. They are saying, "We have this problem; therefore, we will designate another area and have another site in the town." The difficulty then is: where does that site go? Inevitably it must go into an open space; and, wherever it goes, there will be a problem. Labour-controlled authorities are not standing up to the problem, and are not being strong enough; but, obviously, I have some sympathy with the difficulties that they face.
  My own council is now boasting that it will shortly be proposing a new site, and other local authorities are watching it to see what it will do. If the Labour-controlled council in Luton puts another site into the Luton area, there will be massive resistance—quite rightly so—from the constituents. Again as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, Luton could become a honeypot for those who feel that they have nowhere else to go, because that is the life they have chosen. It will attract more travellers into the town rather than to dissuade them. I think that the Labour-controlled authority is totally wrong on this issue, and massive opposition is building up in the constituency against it.
  Today, my message to the House and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—and, in turn, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment— is that this law has not proved effective. The Department has promised that it will examine the law and monitor its effectiveness. It is a fact that it is not working. Some of the guidance and advice that the Department has given is flawed, and it has not taken the strong attitude that I believe the majority of Conservative Members want— bearing in mind that most of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was vehemently opposed by Opposition Members, a fact which must never be forgotten when they boast about how effective they are on law and order.
  There is no doubt at all that this law is worth re-examining. The attitude of the police needs to be re-examined, on the basis that they seem to be almost reluctant to act in these cases. They must go in not with velvet but with iron gloves to sort out the problem. I think that council action has to be re-examined, particularly in cases in which Labour-controlled councils, such as that in Luton, are hiding behind the law, putting in extra sites and making it attractive for those people to carry on their way of life.
  230
  I fear that the problem may get worse as the summer wears on, and we must remember that the victims of this sorry tale are the people—our constituents. I told my constituents at a public meeting the other day that, in addition to the power of the ballot box—they elect their Member of Parliament—they have the power to lobby that Member of Parliament and their local councillors to try to rid their area and, we hope, the country of these unwanted people. We must look carefully at the laws we have passed, and strengthen them with some force.
  11.9 am
  Mr. John Spellar: I shall try to observe what I understood to be the custom in these debates and make a fairly brief speech on one or two urgent matters that require the attention of the House. There is little Government legislation to debate but there is certainly much unfinished business to be considered.
  The first matter that I wish to raise will, I believe, be dear to your heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it relates to an incident in Yorkshire as reported in today's press. It involves Mr. and Mrs. Milnes, whose car was wheelclamped and removed. They were told that it would cost £450 to have it returned and an extra £20 for each day that payment was delayed. The total now seems to have risen to £1,000. Such licensed robbery and banditry has been allowed to continue for far too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has been investigating incidents in the Digbeth area of Birmingham, where cars are left on empty sites to entice unwary parkers whose cars are subsequently clamped—sometimes even with their owners in them.
  Let me make it clear that I am not talking about clamping by the official authorities in London of cars parked on the street but about off-street clamping carried out by private operators, many of whom are extremely dubious. The penalty being imposed by such operators— £95 to have the car released and £450 to have it returned after it had been towed away—is way in excess of those imposed under the law for illegal parking on the street. Furthermore, clampers are acting as judge, jury and enforcer. In many ways, the word "enforcer" is apposite.
  The Government's delay in acting has been scandalous. It is more than three years since the Home Office finished its consultation on clamping on private land. The Minister of State, Home Office has continued to dither and delay and will not propose a solution, despite the fact that, since a ruling by the Scottish High Court four years ago, private wheelclamping has been illegal in Scotland. That has not led to a breakdown of parking controls. The Home Office should introduce legislation urgently so that companies such as LORE clampers based in Leeds are no longer able to intimidate decent ordinary citizens.
  Another matter that has come into focus this week and requires urgent legislation is the funding of political parties—in particular allegations made at the weekend of donations by Serb business men to the Conservative party. In the previous four Sessions, I have introduced a private Member's Bill to try to regulate the funding of political parties. My most recent attempt was on 19 April and it is a fairly modest proposal. It would ban foreign donations to political parties and provide for a register of donations of more than £1,000. Had the Bill been law, The Sunday Times would not have had to make inquiries about

  231
  donations; it would have been able to read the register and ascertain who had been contributing to the Conservative party.
  The Government's reluctance to introduce legislation or, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) yesterday, to refer the matter to the Nolan committee must lead us and right-thinking people outside to believe that, if those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear, the Conservative party must accordingly have a good deal to hide and a good deal to fear. I have written to the Leader of the House, asking for parliamentary time to be made available to debate my modest proposal, which would be regarded as quite unremarkable in most other western democracies.
  I refer now to the continuing saga of the millennium exhibition. I do not want to get involved in the basic question whether there should be a major millennium exhibition, but, as the decision has been made, let us consider the choice of location. The final choice was narrowed down to two possible locations—Greenwich in London and Birmingham.
  Birmingham has the experience of operating a large site—the national exhibition centre—and handling huge numbers of people. It had a site available and ready for construction. It also has the personal infrastructure in the form of NEC staff, and equally important—possibly even more important—the transport infrastructure. Birmingham is situated at the junction of Britain's motorway network and has an international railway station and a major and expanding airport. Birmingham also had the group, Imagination, draw up plans for the exhibition. The plans were so good that, when the Government decided to take the scheme to London, they asked Imagination to take over the running and planning of it.
  All those factors should have weighed in favour of Birmingham yet it was decided that the London bid should have priority, even though it was unclear where the London funding was to come from. The Birmingham scheme was properly funded but there was great uncertainty about the London scheme—a fact bome out by events as company after company has bailed out of funding the scheme. Indeed, extension after extension has had to be given to London while it tries to get its act together.
  The only conclusion that reasonable people can come to—especially people in the midlands—is that the decision was made by the cultural establishment, based on its unremitting metropolitan bias and its refusal to consider sound, sensible and workable schemes outside London because it does not want to travel to Birmingham or elsewhere.
  I suspect that the decision was also related to the long-term ambitions of the Deputy Prime Minister to expand London along the estuary. We witnessed another example of that bias in yesterday's report by the Select Committee on Transport, which examined the possibility of an estuary airport for London instead of considering the expansion of regional airports.
  The millennium scheme is now in crisis. The months are ticking by but not one sod of earth has been turned. Indeed, construction cannot start until the Greenwich site has been decontaminated. The time scale crisis is partly the result of the Government's lack of forward planning
  232
  and their not making decisions sufficiently early so that there was time to get the construction under way. Incidentally, the same appears to be happening with the commemoration of the bicentenary of Trafalgar day— preparations will be put off until the event is upon us.
  The problem is that Greenwich was the wrong choice and we have daily proof of that. The Millennium Commission should recognise that it has made a mistake. It should not, as reported in the press, be talking petulantly about scrapping the scheme. Instead, it should be talking about giving the project to the one area that will bring it in on time and make it a success—Birmingham.
  Finally in this connection, there is some uncertainty about what will be done with the millennium exhibition buildings on the Greenwich site. In Birmingham, such buildings would become part of an integrated NEC. It would do much for Britain and for areas outside London if the correct choice was made.
  The midlands is also home to a considerable section of the Sikh community, which has made an enormous contribution to the industry and commerce of this country. That community will shortly be remembering the appalling attack by Indian security forces on the Golden temple in Amritsar. It will be an opportunity for them to express their deep concern at the continuing abuse of human rights in the Punjab. Such abuse consists of disappearances, torture and the arbitrary arrest of citizens and the removal of their civil rights. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should raise this issue with our Commonwealth partners in the Government of India, and must state our belief that human rights should be restored as soon as possible.
  11.19 am
  Mr. John Marshall: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), who suggested that the millennium celebrations should take place in Birmingham. As a Member representing a London constituency, he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with him. London is a mecca for tourism, and if the celebrations are designed partly to attract people from other parts of the United Kingdom and from overseas, London is a far more logical choice than Birmingham. In 1951, the then Government decided to hold the Festival of Britain on the south bank rather than in the midlands.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Marshall: On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman and I form a holy alliance. We represent the city of London, our tourist capital. If the celebrations are held in London, they will be of great benefit to the whole country. I suspect that if they were to be held in Birmingham, they would receive much less support from the people of this country and from overseas.
  Earlier this week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development had to revise its economic forecasts for this year and next year. It pointed out to the people of Europe that the provisions of the Maastricht treaty were squeezing growth out of the economies of continental Europe, particularly those of France and Germany, which are obsessed with creating a single currency by 1999.

  233
  Britain is in the fortunate position of having the strongest economy in western Europe. We can look forward to good growth this year and next year, and the Bank of England has confirmed that the Government's inflation targets are being achieved. We have much lower unemployment than other European countries, and we have received significant inward investment. That is not due to some accident of history.
  We can all recall the magic words of Jacques Delors during the Maastricht discussions, who forecast that the fact that Britain was exempt from the social chapter would act as a magnet for inward investment. I do not often quote the former President of the European Commission with approval—nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), the Whip on the Front Bench— but on this occasion he was 100 per cent. right. If we were to reverse the policies that attracted companies to the United Kingdom, we could say goodbye to inward investment, low unemployment and the rapid economic growth that is enabling the Government to improve our social services.
  Earlier this week, a number of hon. Members were able to meet the parents of an Israeli, Zachary Baumel, who went missing in Lebanon in 1982. His parents have no idea what has happened to him, although there are suggestions that he is still alive. Surely any parent has a right to know after 14 years what has happened to his or her son. Some of us have met the mother, brothers, wife and daughter of another missing Israeli, Ron Arad, who was captured nearly 10 years ago. He will shortly have spent a longer time in captivity than the duration of the first and second world wars. It is surely wrong that any prisoner of war should have to spend 10 years in captivity without being allowed to send or receive letters for most of that time.
  When Mr. Arad was captured, his daughter was a year old. What sort of people prevent a young girl from seeing her father between the ages of one and 11? What sort of captors prevent a prisoner of war from receiving letters? What sort of people prevent a man from being with his wife for 10 years? What sort of people prevent an elderly mother from seeing her eldest son? That is what is happening in the middle east to the Arad family and to the parents of Zachary Baumel.
  It is ironic that Israel kick-started the release of western hostages in the middle east by allowing many Palestinian prisoners to leave prisons in Israel and go to other countries, but Israel has received no reward for that humanitarian act. The parents of the Israelis who are missing in action do not know what has happened to their sons, who may still be alive. Some believe that Zachary Baumel is alive, and there is evidence that Ron Arad is still alive.
  When Mr. Arafat visits Britain shortly—no doubt to ask for money—the Government should ask him to provide information to the parents of the missing Israelis. The failure to do so is an international scandal and a fundamental denial of human rights.
  The most pressing problems facing the United Kingdom are the low education standards, achievements and—in some places—expectations in our inner cities. In London, many children aged 11 have a reading age of nine. Education is the escalator of opportunity that allows children from deprived inner cities to live, work and use their talents to the fullest elsewhere. If the education
  234
  services in inner London fail to give children the basic building blocks of a decent education—the ability to read, spell and add up—we will fail a whole generation. The late and unlamented Inner London education authority failed to provide those building blocks. The results for inner London that have been published, thank goodness, by the Government show that it is a national scandal. I hope that the Government will continue their policies of ensuring that the basics of education are taught.
  If we do not teach the basics of education in our primary schools, it will make it almost impossible for the head teachers of secondary schools to enable children to develop their talents fully. Everyone supports the Government's policies to make secondary education more diverse, and everyone welcomes the announcements made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, but it is essential that we examine the basics of education in our primary schools to ensure that children are not deprived of their basic right—the ability to read, write and add up.
  An issue raised at Question Time on Monday, which will no doubt be raised from time to time, is the problem of the legal aid fund. Under this Government, expenditure on legal aid—[Interruption.] I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is about to leave. Expenditure on legal aid has risen from £100 million to about £1.5 billion. Many of us are concerned that the legal aid fund is providing funding for cases that should not be funded by the taxpayer.
  For example, in what is known as the Sony case a German resident sued Sony in the British courts over a patent dispute. The German had no intention of living in this country or paying a deutschmark in British tax, but he received £500,000 in legal aid from the British taxpayer. Some hon. Members will have seen in the Daily Mail on Saturday that an old Etonian received £200,000 in legal aid while suing Clifford Chance, a well-known firm of solicitors.
  Many of us are concerned about the fact that worthless cases are being financed by the taxpayer. Many of us are concerned about the fact that overseas residents can obtain money to fight cases in British courts when they will never pay any British tax. Many of us are concerned about the fact that the legally aided party in a civil case has an advantage over the other party. It is, after all, extremely rare, when a legally aided litigant loses a case, for the legal aid fund to pay the costs of the successful party. That is unfair: one party knows that the case can continue and he will not have to pay anything towards his costs, while the other knows that if he loses he will pay the other party's costs, and if he wins he will have to pay his own.
  I believe that, when the legal aid fund backs a case and that case is unsuccessful, it should then pay the costs of the successful party. At present, we are placing an unfair burden on those who are fighting legally aided litigants.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with all that. May I go now?
  Mr. Marshall: I wonder what the fee will be for my hon. and learned Friend's opinion.
  Mr. James Couchman: Substantial.
  Mr. Marshall: I fear that my hon. Friend may be right.

  235
  It is traditional for one or two local issues to be raised in debates such as this. Let me mention some that are of concern to my constituents. One is the London fire and civil defence authority's recommendation that fire cover in the capital should be reduced, although its finance director has told it that its reserves of £27 million are too high. Surely it is wrong for the authority—dominated as it is by the Labour and Liberal parties—to recommend a reduction in fire cover in London, and in my constituency in particular, when it has been told that its reserves are too high. Those reserves should not be stashed away, no doubt in an attempt to produce a lower council tax rate in election year in London; they should be used now, to provide fire cover for my constituents and those of other London Members.
  Let me raise two more local issues. One concerns the future of an institution called College farm—an oasis in north London that is deeply loved by my constituents and those of other Barnet Members. It is visited by many thousands of children and others each month, but the Department of Transport has decided that it is surplus to requirements. I hope that, when he decides its fate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will heed the representations of thousands of my constituents and thousands of other people in Barnet, and the campaign run by the Hendon and Finchley Times, and allow the farm to remain a farm rather than being sold for commercial or residential development.
  Finally, let me briefly raise an issue that concerns many residents of the London borough of Barnet. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to learn that I refer to developments at Edgware hospital. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) for the way in which he has led the parliamentary campaign. He has tabled a parliamentary question on the issue, which is to be answered on 6 June.
  Barnet health authority has suggested that the minor accident and treatment unit that it wants on the site should operate for only 12 hours a day. I feel that that proposal should be re-examined. It is unacceptable to the people of Barnet, to those whom I represent and to people elsewhere that there should not continue to be a medical presence at the hospital to deal with all the cases that currently go to the accident and emergency department. Hon. Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) will want to return to that issue when the House reconvenes in June, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be able to give the people of Barnet good news rather than bad.
  11.34 am
  Mr. Tony Banks: I was waiting for the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) to get round to the Schleswig-Holstein question. Next time he wishes to raise 10 issues, perhaps he will bring out a little book and we can all buy it when it is duly remaindered.
  At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman referred to the choice of London as the millennium site. As he rightly supposed, I agree with him about that, but the way in which the choice was made does not befit the
  236
  millennium and the way in which we should celebrate it. The Greenwich site still looks like a bomb site; no wonder hon. Members representing constituencies outside London are complaining so bitterly. I might point out to the hon. Gentleman that, if we had had a strategic authority in London, all the dithering over the development of the site would not have happened—but we shall return to that anon.
  I wish to raise two issues. The first relates to the vexed problem of Norway's resumption of commercial whaling yesterday. Early-day motion 889, which appears on today's Order Paper and has so far been signed by 143 hon. Members from all parties, refers to Norway's decision to slaughter some 425 minke whales, as well as an unspecified number for what it refers to as scientific whaling purposes. That decision was made in defiance of the International Whaling Commission. Norway declared a unilateral resumption of commercial minke whaling in 1993, but the IWC rates the minke whale as a protected species. Minke whales are migratory creatures, and they belong to us all; they certainly do not belong to Norway.
  I will not tax the House by describing the method of destruction, but a penthrite grenade is fired into the body of the whale and then explodes, releasing a huge volume of gas and inflicting enormous pain and suffering. When the whales do not die swiftly—within, say, 10 seconds— Norwegian whalers finish them off with large hunting rifles. That is barbarous, and it is scandalous that it should done by a neighbouring country with which we have close relations. When I raised the matter during business questions, the Leader of the House said that he would protest, or at least pass on the comments that were made—not just my comments, but those of all 143 Members of Parliament—to the Norwegian authorities. I hope that he will tell us exactly what he has done.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend has pursued this matter diligently, both here and in Strasbourg, where Mrs. Brundtland, the Norwegian Prime Minister, boasted that half the whales had died instantly. We pointed out that the other half had not.
  Mr. Banks: That, too, was an all-party attack on Gro Harlem Brundtland, which resulted in her complaining to the then leader of the Labour party that she had been attacked by a fellow socialist. I feel ashamed to describe Gro Harlem Brundtland as a socialist—particularly one who goes around the world boasting of her green credentials, and saying that Norway is at the cutting edge of environmental and ecological concern. That is rank hypocrisy, and I cannot wait to tell Mrs. Brundtland so again next time our paths cross.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), very appropriately, raised the question of how long it takes whales to die. Whales are sentient beings—sensitive creatures with a social grouping system. They have feelings, many of which we do not fully understand. We should be studying these marvellous creatures, not slaughtering them for whale meat and blubber, much of which ends up on plates in Tokyo. It is unnecessary, and it is done mercilessly.
  Let me inform my hon. Friend that, in Norway's 1995 catch, according to Norwegian records 62 per cent. of whales were killed instantly, 11 per cent. were still alive after 10 minutes and 4 per cent. were still alive after

  237
  15 minutes. The average time for death was three minutes 24 seconds and the longest recorded time was nothing less that 43 minutes and 20 seconds. Unfortunately, in many cases, the whales were pregnant, so the infant was killed as well as the cow. It is monstrous that that is being done by a European nation—or by any nation. The strongest possible protest must go out.
  What is the result? According to the Norwegian figures, the 1995 catch resulted in the landing of 327.5 tonnes of meat worth 10 million Norwegian krona, which is about £1 million. All that suffering for £1 million—it seems monstrous.
  I raise that matter because the plenary session of the IWC takes place in Aberdeen on 24 June. I hope that as many people as possible will be there to protest against the Norwegians' conduct and defiance of the IWC. They must be in no doubt about the intense anger throughout this country—not just in Parliament—about the way in which the Norwegians are flouting the international whaling convention.
  The second issue relates to dogs. Yesterday, the Prime Minister cried havoc and unleashed the dogs of war. I found many aspects of that surreal. The one thing about declaring war and delivering an ultimatum is that one must ensure that one has an escape route, and I do not think that the Prime Minister has. I do not intend to go into the matter too deeply, but it seems entirely appropriate to me that we should go to war over semen; it is an appropriate thing for a Government of onanists to go to war over.
  I want to concentrate on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was a rotten piece of legislation. It was passed in haste. I remember standing in this very spot to warn the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who has now moved on to other things. The warnings were ignored. Everything was done in a rush. There was a public reaction, we legislated in haste and we are now repenting at some leisure.
  The operation of the 1991 Act defies common sense and denies normal and compassionate treatment for animals and human beings alike. We all know why it came about—because of the attacks by pit bull terriers. Section 1 of the Act defines a pit bull terrier, but it is a confused definition. At times, one does not know what such a terrier is, as so many crosses are involved. Under section 10(3), dangerous dog activity might merely be threat or intimidation. No actual damage may be inflicted on a human being, but the Act can be brought into operation if someone feels intimidated by a dog. The Act is confused and imprecise.
  Court cases are costing an average of £10,000 and an enormous amount of police time is involved. None of that makes sense. The courts have no discretion on sentencing, other than to order the destruction of the dog. We should not be proud of that. The Act has taken any discretion on the part of magistrates away, which does not seem fair in law and certainly is not fair to the dogs and their owners. It has resulted in appalling cases of suffering and heartache for dogs and owners. I know of thousands of examples of the way in which the Act has operated, but I shall give only two.
  The first example relates to Mr. Bates and his dog Otis. In 1992, the police stopped him on the motorway—there was a dog in his car. The court decided that Mr. Bates' car was a public place. He appealed, but the High Court
  238
  also decided that it was a public place and that Mr. Bates should have had a muzzle and a lead on the dog while he was driving. That shows the level of absurdity that we have reached under the Act. He appealed and went to the European Court, but was turned down and Otis was destroyed on the same day as the IRA exploded a bomb in docklands. That was an absurd case, and the legislation is absurd.
  The second case is still before the Home Secretary and concerns Jessie—an inoffensive, toothless dog, thought to be suffering from motor neurone disease. When Jessie was found by Southwark Crown court to be a type of pit bull terrier and condemned to die in June 1995, she had never put a paw wrong. When she was brought before the court, the judges removed their wigs in case they frightened her. In court, she limped pathetically and dragged her left leg because she is lame. Indeed, there were tears in the court room. That was the last time that her owner saw Jessie and it was a painful scene for anyone to behold.
  Jessie had accidentally been lost in Hyde park when her owner, Mr. O'Brien, had had an argument with his girlfriend and they had gone their separate ways. The dog is suffering from paralysis of the lower limbs and clearly needs to live out what is left of its life in some sort of comfort, but is still on dog death row. People have been writing to the Home Secretary about the case. Even though a destruction order has been made under the Dangerous Dogs Act, it does not state when it has to be implemented, so Jessie could be allowed to live out what few days she has left. The Home Secretary can make a judgment and could even exercise clemency if he so wished.
  I hope that when the Leader of the House sums up, he will tell us what he can do about that case, as I think that today is the last day for any form of appeal or stay of execution to be allowed for Jessie. It is a pathetic case and it demonstrates that if we legislate so rapidly, we are likely to make big mistakes. I am sure that the Leader of the House will find that there is agreement for amendments to the Act on both sides of the House and that those could be passed very quickly indeed. There is good will on both sides of the House on the matter, and I hope that he will give us an opportunity to demonstrate that good will, because he will be thanked not just by hon. Members, but by dog owners and dog lovers throughout the country.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: A number of hon. Members have referred to the millennium location at Greenwich. I want to add my support. I am not a London Member of Parliament, but my constituents look forward to that improvement of the Greenwich site, which has good access to the entire country, as it is close to the Blackwall tunnel and the motorways connecting to it to the north and south. The site is of particular interest to my constituents as it is right alongside the River Thames, so there will be river access for tourists and those visiting from central London. More important to me, there will also be direct river access from the port of Gravesend in my constituency.
  The House should not rise for the Whitsun recess without considering the over-government of the people of Kent and of so many other counties. This weekend, we read of the Labour party's national policy forum in Manchester, which decided to impose regional

  239
  government on England without even the benefit of a referendum. For my constituents in Kent, that would mean yet another tier of government—this one located at the far end of Surrey, in Guildford. For Kent people, that would mean more politicians, more bureaucracy and more tax.
  In many ways, this country is already one of the most over-governed in the world. We have the European level, the fount of power here at Westminster with its adjunct in Whitehall, the county councils—in our case, county hall, Maidstone—the borough councils—in our case, the borough of Gravesham—and the rural parish councils. The Labour party is proposing to add a regional government, based in Guildford.
  Ms Janet Anderson rose—
  Mr. Arnold: I will not give way as I want to press on with this argument.
  A quick calculation shows that that means that Labour proposes six levels of government. The result will be paralysis, complexity and a field day for lawyers. I shall briefly consider each level.
  The beef ban has shown the European level at its worst. The morass of bureaucracy and committees in Europe has impaled it well and truly on a meathook from which it cannot escape. Despite the best scientific advice to the European Commission, which has assimilated it and put proposals to the standing veterinary committee, the committee cannot get off the hook. It has imposed all sorts of disastrous restrictions.
  What sort of voice do we have in Europe? This is the most serious crisis to affect the people of Kent for many years. Kent has many beef farmers and other people who are involved in trades linked to the beef industry. We have not heard a squeak from the two Labour Members of the European Parliament who are supposed to represent Kent in Strasbourg. They have said nothing either in Strasbourg or in Kent. They are too busy enjoying the gravy train that Strasbourg seems to have become.
  We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) of the consequences for the British people of European policies. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) gave chapter and verse on how the so-called European Court of Justice is steadily extending the powers of European institutions way beyond what was envisaged in the treaties that were signed and approved by the House. The European level is costly, bureaucratic and a drag on my constituents.
  At county council level, my constituents resent the remote county hall in Maidstone. This year, the Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition that runs it has imposed a 5.6 per cent. increase in council tax—way above inflation. What have we got for that increase? There has been no such increase in the resources available for schools and the council conducts trench warfare against Kent's numerous grant-maintained schools. Rural roads are inadequately repaired; potholes and ruts such as we have not seen for many a year are appearing because the Lib-Lab pact does not give that a high enough priority. There is also the shambles in the road programme, but I have not the time to consider that now.
  240
  Gravesham borough council, no doubt under instructions from its Labour party headquarters, had to raise its council tax despite the fact that it did not need any more money. My constituents may be interested to learn that its reserves contain £1,000 for each of the 37,000 households in the borough. Yet it had the gall to ask my constituents for an increase in their council tax. Finally, there are the parish councils, which I strongly support because they are in many ways closest to the people, the most directly responsible and the least expensive.
  Despite all those levels and the paralysis, the Labour party wants to impose regional councils on England. How would that affect my constituents? A regional council would be run from Guildford, miles away on the other side of London. We already resent that so many local government services are run from county hall in Maidstone. The idea of Guildford is a joke.
  What will regional councils do? We have not been told, because the Labour party does not tell us the details of its policies. It has not got round to deciding what services such councils will provide. Will they take powers from borough or county councils? Will they run the schools or colleges from Guildford? We have an excellent college— the North West Kent college of technology, which is doing well under local autonomy. Would they suddenly decide to run that from Guildford? Would they manage the roads from there?
  Will regional councils take control of the local NHS? I congratulate the Government on dismantling tiers of government in the NHS. In the past few years alone, we have got rid of the vast top-hamper of the regional health authority at Bexhill, with its masses of bureaucrats who used up money. We have got rid of the district health authority with its bureaucracy at the Darenth park site. Has anyone noticed that we have lost those tiers of the NHS and therefore been able to redeploy the money to care for the health of our constituents? No one noticed them go any more than people noticed when the Greater London council went. People no longer have to watch the antics of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but no services for the people of London disappeared.
  We know that the Labour party favours reversing the NHS reforms, even though we have local management through the NHS trusts and power is in the hands of the GPs, who serve the public either through fundholding practices, which have been a great success, or by purchasing through the health authorities, in my case from West Kent health authority, which respond to GPs' needs. I do not think that a new NHS tier at Guildford would do anything for my constituents except absorb vast sums of money that would otherwise go into their health care.
  We have not heard from the Labour party what regional government would do, but we can be sure that it would have a full set of councillors who would exercise Parkinson's law and create more bureaucracy and interference. What would it cost? Of course, the Labour party will not tell us. It would be immensely expensive, but it will not say how it will pay for it. Will it be by an additional levy on the council tax or a purchase tax on local people? How will it raise the money? It will not say, but we know that regional government imposed by the Labour party will mean more tax or the diversion of funds away from education and the social and other services that we want.

  241
  I do not believe that the people of England want regional government—we already have too much government. Why then, does Labour propose it? It is because of its rash proposal for an assembly for Scotland, which would involve more politicians and a tartan tax. That proposal is important to the House because Scotland is consciously over-represented here. If there were an assembly in Scotland, there would be no justification for that over-representation. Indeed, there would be a strong argument for under-representation. The Labour party will not face up to that fact because, to get a majority in the House, it would depend on Scottish Members. We have had no response to the West Lothian question raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Labour is imposing regional government on England to offset the West Lothian question.
  Labour's plan is not new—it has been a long-term plot. In responding to that and the problem of having six tiers of government, the Labour party set the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to work to knock out as many county councils as he could. On two separate occasions, speaking for the Labour party at the Dispatch Box, he proposed the abolition of Kent county council. The trouble is that he did not speak to his party about it. The Labour party group on Kent county council spent £1 million of council tax payers' money to fight the abolition proposal. Gravesham borough council's Labour party did a spectacular U-turn to oppose it. I suspect that it opposed abolition of the county council because it never expected to run either council; it runs them now, and two Labour leaders into one council does not go.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tried to get rid of Kent county council and failed. He had to report to the party leadership that he had failed, but Labour will go ahead anyway; if it has to impose six tiers of government on the people of Kent and elsewhere in the country, it will be happy to do so. Labour originally said that it would do so with the proviso that a referendum be held before any regional council was set up in England.
  I understand that, over the weekend, Labour has backed away from the referendum proposal, and we do not need to look far to see why it did so, because regional councils in England are immensely unpopular. We understand, from reports in the press, that the deputy leader of the Labour party has said that Labour should go ahead anyway and impose regional government.
  My constituents would give a clear answer. They would say no to another layer of politicians, no to more bureaucracy and no to more tax to pay for all that. The general election will give them the opportunity to say no emphatically to Labour.
  12 noon
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has the solution in his own hands. The gist of his speech was that Labour policies are unpopular and Tory policies are popular. The remedy is simple—that he meets the Prime Minister and suggests that he holds an early general election, so that we may discover what the public think.
  The hon. Gentleman, being a shrewd lawyer, has the sense not to do so. Presumably, one of the reasons why he made a lengthy speech was that he realises with nostalgia that he will not be with us much longer. That is one of the things that will no doubt motivate him in the few months remaining to him.
  242
  I want to speak about three aspects of public sector decision making in my constituency. Although I do not expect the present Government to be around for much longer, they can do a great deal of damage in the time that remains. One aspect concerns the railways, one concerns the Post Office and another concerns the health service.
  I would have spoken of this with anger some time ago, but this week no one who cares about institutions in Britain feels anything but sadness that the great national asset of our rail network has been sold by the Government. That asset was acquired by a Labour Government after the war, not for reasons of dogma, but because it was obviously in the national interest that a rail network should be planned nationally, and it was ludicrous to try to pretend that one could have competition in a rail network in the way that one can with ordinary consumer goods.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest. For at least three generations, my family has made a living working for the railways, and I remember how proud my father was when the railways were taken into public ownership in 1948.
  When I think of the money spent on privatisation— £287 million on reorganisation costs within British Rail alone, reducing the network to 100 different individual companies—I think of what might have been done if only a fraction of that money had been spent on services locally, regionally and nationally. Why, four years ago, did British Rail remove the InterCity network link between Telford and London? Why could it not have spent a fraction of the costs of privatisation on electrifying the line from Wolverhampton through to Shrewsbury?
  One would suppose that decision making in the rail network was fairly simple, but let me take an example of the lunacy of what has happened to the rail network. For some months, I have been trying to find out about the improvement of access for people with disabilities to Wellington railway station. I still have not discovered who is responsible for ensuring that disabled people have proper access to a specific railway station. Is it Railtrack? Is it the train operating company? Is it the franchising director? Is it the Government? Who is it? The answer is that we have returned almost to the bad old pre-grouping days—almost pre-1923, not even pre-1948—when everyone was in competition and no one was clearly responsible for crucial services such as access for disabled people.
  The Government have taken another bad decision related to the railways. Why do a Government who claim that they want to transfer freight from road to rail act contrary to that claim in the one area where they have power to take decisions—defence transport? The Ministry of Defence has been closing rail links to defence depots at an alarming rate of knots, including that to Donnington depot in my constituency. That Government Department is obviously taking decisions to transfer freight from rail to road, because it is closing the rail links, at a time when the Secretary of State for Transport is saying that it is crucial to move more freight on to the railways.
  I have found those aspects of rail decision making bewildering, and I have no confidence that the newly privatised rail network will make any development in those crucial areas.
  I now move on to my second point. Although I may be being unfair, because the decision has not yet been made, for some months it has been mooted that Post Office

  243
  Counters Ltd. wants to close Wellington post office. As one would expect, that has met massive opposition from Wellington town council, from Wrekin district council, from myself and from my colleague and friend Peter Bradley—the prospective Labour parliamentary candidate for the neighbouring new Wrekin constituency. Despite the opposition, all the signs are that Post Office Counters will go ahead and close the post office.
  What does that tell us about whether the postal service should exist in the public interest to serve the public good or be operated on the basis of private interest and private gain? I know which answer my constituents give to that question—they have given it loud and clear, but I fear that Post Office Counters will not be listening.
  Finally, I wish to mention the fact that, despite a massive public campaign to establish a consultant maternity unit at the Princess Royal hospital in my constituency, the Shropshire health authority has failed to acknowledge the strength of the case and the fact that the structure and distribution of the population of Shropshire have changed. The new town of Telford, which I am proud to represent, has been growing and expanding, and needs a development in key medical areas—and a consultant maternity unit is one of the most important I can think of. I have no confidence that the health authority is logically considering the needs of the whole county, and especially not those resulting from the growth of Telford.
  Those three public sector areas—the railways, the Post Office and the health service—are all crucial to the livelihood of the people we represent. I have drawn attention to four bad decisions taken by the Government in those areas—decisions that they will start to regret when they face the electorate at the next general election.
  12.7 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Briefly, I endorse the points that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) just made. I also mention the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right to seek the amendment of the Bill. It is unjust and flawed, and can be costly and brutal. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that the Bill should be amended. The only thing that prevents it from happening is the Government's unwillingness to confess that they made a serious blunder.
  I shall briefly mention two matters. The first concerns national health service pensions. Constituency experience has led me to believe that there is a continuing injustice. A person retiring from the national health service early on health grounds may expect to receive a pension, but that person must prove that there is no prospect of recovery. In pursuing a specific case, I learned from the National Health Service Pensions Agency that that was the requirement, but at least the agency then spelled out that the employer must not lead the employee to expect that the pension will follow.
  I will not mention names, because I have not consulted my constituent—nor is it appropriate yet. In my constituent's case, the trust that employed her said that it had not led her to believe that she would receive a pension, but she was able to give me a document showing the estimate of the pension that she would receive if she
  244
  accepted termination of employment, as she did. That is an injustice. I suspect that it has happened before, and it needs to be examined.
  I refer also to hedgerows, which I have long sought to protect. Hon. Members with an interest in this matter were persuaded not to pursue private Members' initiatives, because the Government took power to introduce regulations to protect hedgerows in 1994. However, it is now 1996, and patience is running out.
  We need progress in this area, if only to resolve the continuing and historical problem of hedgerows that are already lawfully protected under the 4,000 private Acts of Enclosure that were passed by Parliament before 1840 and which have never been repealed. We need to resolve this matter. I take it that, when a test case occurs—as is likely in Yorkshire shortly—the Government will consider its implications.
  12.10 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: This morning there have been only 12 Back-Bench speeches, which is somewhat fewer than normal. A number of themes have emerged in the speeches of hon. Members, including beef and the siting of the millennium exhibition—four or five hon. Members referred to these issues.
  I was not present in the House yesterday during the statement on BSE, but I read Hansard this morning. We have a major catastrophe on our hands, as I am sure the Leader of the House is aware. Farmers have been damaged, farm supplies have been damaged, the value of farm land has been damaged, the road haulage industry has been damaged, auctioneers have been damaged, meat manufacturers have been damaged, butchers have been damaged, consumers have been damaged, and taxpayers will be damaged. All because of what?
  On 20 March, two Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and made statements on the same issue. Clearly, the Government did not undertake an analysis of the risk of the statements. The Ministers told us that people were dying, perhaps as a result of the transfer of BSE from cattle. What did they expect the reaction to be? The Government did not consult our European partners or the farm industry before the statements were made.
  The Government's policy on BSE is unclear. Following the initial statements, we were told that no cull was planned, then we were told that a cull was planned, then the number of cattle to be culled was planned, then the age of the cattle to be culled was in dispute, and now we have learnt that 67 per cent. of the known BSE cases in cattle were born after the feed ban came into force. There has been confusion from the day that the two Ministers made their statements. There have been continual statements, and a lack of clarity in the Government's policy.
  The Government have flatly refused to talk about the fact that British beef was banned by the United States in 1987–88—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was interviewed on the "Today" programme this morning, is an exception. A change in the European ban will not alter the American ban. We have not heard a succession of Ministers claiming that the Americans are being unfair.
  This morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the American ban at least twice. He is quite right—he knows the game plan. It is to use this issue—which is of the Government's making—to turn the country to its side

  245
  by being anti-European. Hon. Members should forget the beef issue—it just happened to come along. It will not work. The farmers do not agree with the Government's current policy.
  This major problem is affecting a whole range of people in this country. It may be argued that not all Members of Parliament represent farmers. However, there is a connection to the beef industry in all constituencies— there are consumers, taxpayers and suppliers. The factories of Birmingham are still manufacturing goods and equipment used by farmers. The road haulage industry is also being affected. We have a major catastrophe on our hands, because no one in the Government analysed the potential risk and consequences of the two statements.
  The millennium exhibition was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and by the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). I will have to tread delicately, but I think that the result was 3:1 in favour of the millennium exhibition being in London. I shall try to redress that imbalance slightly. Without wishing to abuse my position at the Dispatch Box, I believe that the millennium exhibition should be held in the midlands.
  The millennium exhibition is moving towards being the major 1990s example of a breakdown in the accepted standards of conduct of public administration in this country. Massive public funds are involved—at least £200 million—from the lottery fund via the Millennium Commission. I say to London Members—regardless of their political persuasion—that, if it was desired to have a major exhibition in the capital city, why was the issue ever raised and why were invitations ever issued to any site in the country to put in a bid to launch the exhibition?
  There were 61 applications for 57 sites, which were reduced to two in London, one in Derby and one in Birmingham. At that point, it could have been said that the exhibition would be held in the capital, but that was not said. Last December, when the two full applications were received—one for Greenwich and one for the national exhibition centre—the rigging of the system started. Imagination, which put in the bid for the NEC site, did not submit a bid for the Greenwich site to start with. It was later asked to do so, because it was clear that its plans were superior.
  The real problem arose on 28 February, when the Secretary of State for National Heritage said that the exhibition would go to Greenwich, subject to the money being put together by Sir Peter Levene's team by May. It is now May—there is no money, and there is no scheme. We are running out of time. London is clogged and the Greenwich site is a shambles—it is unclean and unhealthy. The City of London has shunned the issue, business has shunned the issue and leading entrepreneurs have shunned the issue—only the spiv element of British society is left. Do we want the spiv element to fund this massive exhibition? Of course not.
  The London-based Government and the London-based Millennium Commission are biased against any initiatives from the regions and provinces, to the extent that leaks have emerged to the effect that, if the exhibition is not held in London, it will not be held at all. The country should have a millennium exhibition. The NEC management has shown commendable professional skill, and, even though there is a prima facie case for a judicial
  246
  review, it has not sought one. The NEC remains available to carry the exhibition for the whole of the country, as it is quite clear that it will not be a success at Greenwich.
  I ask the Leader of the House to comment on the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about haemophiliacs. I cannot go into the detail, but hon. Members know that there is a major unfairness—to put it politely—in relation to people suffering from hepatitis C and people suffering from HIV as a result of contaminated blood products from the national health service.
  They should be treated the same. The House should decide this issue, not the Government. I believe that, if this issue were put to a free vote, they would be treated the same. It is unfair. It is a moral issue. There would not be any arguments about this across the Floor of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred to a 13-year-old British citizen who is incarcerated by secret police in a Commonwealth country—albeit one that has been suspended for the time being, but I presume that it wants to get back into the Commonwealth's good books. Foreign Office Ministers are not jumping up and down about this issue. I am not knocking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because, when I deal with cases, the consular officials in London do a good job.
  Pressure must be exerted on the Nigerian Government to ensure that the 13-year-old British-born British citizen returns home as quickly as possible, goes back to school and is with his family. I hope that the BBC World Service will make use of my hon. Friend's speech to shame the Nigerians into doing what any civilised Government would do to redress something that should never have happened.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), in one of his rare contributions, talked about the Port of Tyne authority's fight against forced privatisation. We do not know whether the changes will be beneficial in the long term. However, my hon. Friend referred to the huge contribution that the authority makes to his local economy, and that should not be affected by a Government who seek to privatise everything that moves. The case must be examined on its merits. If it is found that the authority should continue to exist, my hon. Friend's argument should be accepted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West referred to the scandal of the private sector wheel-clamping companies and the Government's failure to introduce legislation three years after first considering the matter. There are problems all over the country—it is not confined to any one area—where the spiv element are seeking to make a quick buck. In some cases, cars are left in prohibited areas as decoys to encourage other people to park there and be taken to the cleaners. That is totally unacceptable behaviour.
  12.20 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have lost count of how many of these debates I have replied to in my capacity as Leader of the House in the past four years. I thought that today's debate began a little slowly. My usual practice is to avoid saying much about anything as there is not enough time, but today I thought that I may have to make up time.

  247
  Therefore, I went to the trouble of securing a copy of the intergovernmental conference White Paper so that I could read from it as much as proved necessary in order to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). However, I am once again in the position of having to rattle away and say as much as I can before the debate concludes at 12.30 pm.
  I turn briefly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I shall not revisit the millennium issue. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of abusing his position on the Front Bench, but no one is in any doubt that he represents a midland, rather than a London, constituency. However, London Members of Parliament also put their oar in this morning, so they can continue the dispute between them.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he was not present yesterday to hear the statement about beef. That was clear from his speech, because he repeated the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, whose performance has received the reverse of rave reviews in today's newspapers. The Leader of the Opposition got it wrong. The hon. Member for Perry Barr has no doubt read the Hansard report, but I shall remind him of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said.
  My right hon. Friend made it clear that his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture spoke to Commissioner Fischler before the statements were made to the House. He went on to point out that the issue was leaked in a Labour-supporting newspaper on the morning of 12 March. He said:
  "We spent hours that morning discussing the matter with scientists"—
  I can vouch for that, because I attended those meetings—
  "before doing what he"—
  that is, the Leader of the Opposition—
  "would have condemned us for if we had not done—coming straight to the House to report on precisely what was happening".—[Official Report, 21 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 103.]
  If the Government had sat on the information for any great length of time, the hon. Gentleman would have made the worst kind of rabble-rousing speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box accusing the Government of a cover-up, of failing to provide information and of misleading the public. I shall not listen to too much more about that.
  I turn now to some of the other issues upon which hon. Members have invited me to comment. I turn particularly to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who raised the issue of haemophiliac patients who contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products before the heat treatment began in the late 1980s. He appropriately paid tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) in that area. I am familiar with that tragic problem, as I was Minister for Health for part of that time.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows—and was kind enough to acknowledge—that there is little that I can add this morning to the comments made on earlier occasions about the difficulties that the issue presents. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), met representatives of the Haemophilia Society in March to describe the action that the Government are taking.
  248
  There are continuing discussions about developing good practice in the treatment of those patients and ensuring that they have ready access to treatment centres. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will examine carefully the right hon. Gentleman's comments, as well as those of one or two other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton read out a formidable list of charges, as he saw them, against the European Court of Justice. I think that I counted 11.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: There were 14.
  Mr. Newton: I am sorry, I have missed three. It was a lengthy list of charges.
  My hon. and learned Friend kindly adverted to the fact that the Government make clear in the White Paper— which I have already brandished in the House—their concern that the court's interpretation sometimes seems to go beyond the intentions of laws as framed originally. The White Paper sets out in broad terms the proposals that we expect to discuss at the IGC, and those matters are being worked up.
  My hon. and learned Friend said that a memorandum is due for publication, but he will understand that it is not sensible or practicable for me to comment on it this morning in advance of its publication. However, I am sure that his words will be examined with appropriate care.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) raised a matter to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr also referred from the Dispatch Box. In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I make it clear that the British Government are doing—and will continue to do—everything we can to assist with the case. The British High Commission is pressing the Nigerian authorities for access to Adefolahan Mokuolu on humanitarian grounds, particularly as he is a minor.
  I understand that the hon. Lady is in daily contact with the consular division on behalf of her constituent. The acting high commissioner raised the matter with the director general of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs only yesterday, and it undertook to investigate the situation. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do all they can to assist the hon. Lady's constituent who is in that awful position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) referred to the beef ban. I recognise the importance that he and his constituents attach to ensuring the smooth operation of the slaughter scheme for cows aged more than 30 months. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture made it clear yesterday that we are now operating at close to current capacity. I am sure that he will look carefully at my hon. Friend's comments about continuing problems in his area, and I shall ensure that he sees the piece of paper that my hon. Friend passed to me on behalf of the Somerset branch of the National Farmers Union. We are serious about ensuring the smooth operation of the scheme, but we should remember that it is a big task.
  My hon. Friend overcame the frustration of recent weeks by adding to a 10-minute speech about beef that he said was terminated mid-sentence and returning to a subject that he raised with me via a question on the Housing Bill. He has shown his usual ingenuity and

  249
  dedication to his constituents' interests, and I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my colleagues in the appropriate Departments.
  The most engaging speech from my point of view was delivered by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), the mostly silent former deputy Chief Whip. Somewhat ominously, he has moved to what I call the "trouble-making Bench" below the Gangway. I hope that is not an augury of future difficulties. The last time that he moved from the Front Bench to the Bench behind it— an unusual manoeuvre for a deputy Chief Whip—he suddenly burst into song, and denounced the Leader of the House for attempting to improve the procedures in this place. He made it clear that his views about that were unchanged.
  I hope that we shall hear more from the hon. Gentleman in the new, responsible role that he fulfilled this morning on behalf of the Port of Tyne authority. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government believe that the privatisation of ports produces more efficient, competitive and accountable operations, and offers greater opportunities to the people who work in the ports and benefit from their activities.
  I do not have time to elaborate that argument or to comment on any of the other speeches, much as I might wish. I will certainly make sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) are communicated to those of my colleagues who will be seeing the Norwegians at the international whaling conference.
  I have just about run out of time—I am not sure when that will happen. I will just try to complete this next sentence. I hope that everybody—not least you, Madam Deputy Speaker—has a happy holiday.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Order.

  Deregulation
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: It is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker— and an equal one to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster present to answer this debate. Normally, Adjournment debates are answered by a junior Minister, so to have a Cabinet Minister present is a delight, particularly as my right hon. Friend is well known for his interest in, and campaigning zeal for, deregulation.
  Deregulation is firmly part of the Conservative party's ideology and folklore, having been around for nearly 20 years. The 1979 manifesto commitments were concerned with freeing up the markets, creating less restriction for individuals and boosting an enterprise economy. The 1985 White Paper, "Lifting the burden", charted the deregulation course for the next decade. The message was simple:
  "The amount of regulation which new and established firms face acts as a brake on enterprise and the wealth and job creating process."
  By January 1994 a deregulation task force had been established, headed by none other than Lord Sainsbury. Contemporaneously, another White Paper, "Cutting Red Tape", was published. In addition to the deregulation task force, which consisted of dozens of committees and hundreds of captains of industry, a special deregulation unit was established within the Cabinet Office, employing 43 officials especially chosen for their deregulatory fervour. The cost was £1.3 million per annum.
  Parliament passed the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in 1994, and the Prime Minister threw his full weight behind the deregulatory initiative, saying that deregulation was at the heart of the Government's economic strategy. One year later, progress is at best disappointing and at worst deeply depressing. That Bill spent 16 hours and 11 minutes on the Floor of the House and another 92 hours and 56 minutes in Standing Committee. Among other things, it established the Select Committee on Deregulation—a fast-track system by which secondary legislation could be repealed, which has never been done before in the life of this Parliament or of this institution.
  In 1994, the Government promised that they would refer one deregulation order a week to that Select Committee. Unfortunately, 100 orders never materialised. Instead, we have had to be content with 25 orders to date. They favour people who want to go greyhound racing, to go dancing on Sunday—I have nothing against that—to change the length of the school day and to sell salmon on Sunday in open markets in Scotland, and they allow local authorities to use their pay-and-display parking meters more flexibly. The Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order 1996 saves private business £200 but—wait for it— cost £10,000 to draft and print. To achieve all that, the Deregulation Select Committee has sat 34 times for more than 50 hours.
  Deregulation has spawned an entire new layer of bureaucracy, created new buzz words and produced a new layer of Government. The Leader of the House, a Cabinet appointee and the Prime Minister are all concerned with deregulation—without it, some might not even have jobs. There is a deregulatory Minister in every Department.

  251
  Pamphlets, circulars, booklets and departmental reviews are churned out. Experts and advisers are to be found in local government, and even the Institute of Directors has deregulation advisers. The cost is enormous.
  The Select Committee is just one deregulatory initiative. Lord Sainsbury's task force, which has been taken over by Francis Maude, is another. The task force suggested that 605 pieces of legislation were ripe for repeal, and the Prime Minister added another 400. Of more than 1,000 measures identified, 643 have been repealed—but few have had the impact that Conservative Members would like. Comparing that figure with the 7,845 statutory instruments added to our legislation since January 1994 puts the matter in perspective. Admittedly, many of those instruments correct complicated or inadequate primary legislation such as the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Children Act 1989, but that does not explain the need for 3,243 new statutory instruments already this year.
  The volume is reaching such a level that it is impossible for Members of Parliament or Ministers to scrutinise them properly. Why, despite Parliament's intentions, and the commitment by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to deregulation—which I whole-heartedly support as a number one priority to help industry—is deregulation not happening? It is not an absence of intention or good will on the part of Ministers or officials, but a question of the long-standing culture and ethos of the country, whereby Ministers and Whitehall see their modus vivendi as passing bigger, better, longer and more complicated laws with cleverer and more experienced officials drafting, amending and improving them. The culture is not to repeal laws, reduce the volume of legislation, or cut the number of bureaucrats or red tape—although one would have thought from all the speeches and good intentions of Ministers that a great deal more was happening. Regrettably, there is a deep shadow between intention and action.
  The problem is in the public psyche, which has been conditioned to believe that rules and regulations solve problems, when they do not automatically do so. All of us receive letters from constituents demanding that we introduce new legislation. How often do Members of Parliament receive letters demanding the repeal of laws? The public have been conditioned into believing that they are better off taking less responsibility. They suffer from the illusion, and the erroneous belief, that life is better being hemmed in by a false sense of security created by additional rules and regulations.
  There are also the buzz words of safety, security and hygiene. One cannot change anything in legislation covered by those three words because they are sacrosanct and have a mystique with which nothing must interfere. If that perception is to change, rewards for goals achieved must be reversed. In future, civil servants should be promoted not for proposing and drafting new legislation but for finding a way of reducing the number of laws on the statute book.
  Deregulation is unachievable until the root cause of regulation is tackled, which means a culture shock of gargantuan proportions. Inaction in legislative terms must no longer be viewed as sloth, but as prudence. Ministers should be judged not by the number of statutory instruments that emanate from their Departments but by
  252
  the paucity of legislation coming from their offices. If the Government's aim is to lift the burden off the backs of the people, a stick and carrot approach must be introduced—a carrot for those who implement deregulation and a stick for those who do not.
  Consider, for instance, the deregulation order—one of the 25—on building certificates. It is said that the saving to business will be £68,000; but only recently it has emerged that there will be an additional cost of £350,000 for employing more local government officials to take over the administration. So the money saved to private business is simply transferred, six times over, to local authorities. The stick should have been used in this case.
  The cost compliance assessment is another example of the shortcomings in this process. The Government rightly insist that such an assessment accompany every piece of legislation, highlighting the additional burden on private industry imposed by the legislation. Unfortunately, the compliance cost assessment does not highlight the additional costs to Government and local government. That excellent idea—emanating, I think, from the Prime Minister—is thus defective because it deals only with the additional costs for private enterprise, not with those for the public sector.
  The culture Shockwaves must not stop at Dover: they must cross the channel to Brussels, from which directives, rules and regulations are spewed out at an alarming rate. The number of directives, to be sure, has declined, from 66 in 1993 to 19 this year, but the number of rules and regulations has otherwise continued at nearly 1,000 a year. They are so dispatched that most manage to avoid scrutiny by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers or Westminster Members. Commission officials are using a procedure that denies every Parliament in Europe the opportunity to challenge the Commission's official view. Bureaucracy in Brussels has found a device in the treaty of Rome enabling it to erode the fringes of our lives, but with no accountability.
  That is fundamentally wrong, and if the Brussels bureaucracy were not enough, our own officials compound the problem by hijacking European directives and adding burdens to them, going beyond the minimum requirements in the directives. The result is even more obligations imposed on those who live in Britain.
  Gold plating has been outlawed by Cabinet Ministers in terms similar to those used by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who pledged last November on the Floor of the House that he had a strict rule that no European legislation could be gold plated in his Department. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said something similar. What about all the gold plating that has already taken place? It has been going on for nearly 25 years. Why do we not pull out all those directives and remove the add-ons from them?
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have come in specifically to listen to my hon. Friend's speech. One of the core problems, surely, is that civil servants here and in Europe want to tidy up the process of democracy and get things running quickly and smoothly. Therein lies the problem with statutory instruments—the more quickly we ram them through this place, the less chance there is to consider them carefully. If people have the opportunity to examine them slowly and ask questions about them, there is more chance of their emerging in the right form.

  253
  Should we not try to change the system here and return to scrutinising more of the documents on the Floor of the House, to slow them up?
  Mr. Steen: I am all for anything that will stop this place becoming a county council and power leaking away to the Brussels bureaucracy. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for joining in this important debate.
  In answer to my parliamentary questions to all Government Departments suggesting that we remove the add-ons, Departments wrote to say that they could not even tell me how many add-ons there have been in the past three years, let alone the past 25, because the exercise could be done only at "disproportionate cost". Disproportionate to what?
  In the past three years, the Department of Trade and Industry has implemented 33 directives; MAFF has implemented 113. Surely, with our modern technology, officials could find out which of those directives have been added to. If they lack the time, what about using the 43 staff in the deregulation unit? They could be put to work on this important task straight away.
  A good example of the damage done by gold plating is a small oyster farm in my constituency which, for the past eight years, has successfully sold about 70,000 oysters a year. It has been vetted and approved by the local environmental health people from South Hams district council. The farm uses a system that recycles sea water— a system introduced by Captain Philip Gibbon, a well-known environmentalist who is hostile to pollution.
  The proprietor uses a system that is entirely consistent with the rules in the European Community's shellfish hygiene directive 91/492/EC. There are seven identical farms in the Netherlands which seem to operate successfully without falling foul of Dutch or EC law. The problem, therefore, is not the local health officers but the Government's officials in Weymouth, who are refusing to grant a licence to Captain Gibbon.
  The problem is further compounded by the lack of an appeal mechanism. During the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, I and other colleagues pressed for a local appeals mechanism. If officials and business men disagreed locally, there should be an appeal procedure in the local magistrates court, we argued. The Government opposed the idea; two years later, all we have is a consultative draft statutory instrument—yet another one.
  So Captain Gibbon has nowhere to go. He has closed the plant. Do we want to create small firms or close them? Ours, after all, is supposed to be the party of small business. Yet Captain Gibbon has been clobbered by regulatory initiatives and the zeal of MAFF officials. All he can do now is go—believe it or not—to the European Commission; or he can take up the suggestion of the Fisheries Minister and go to the Ministry with the chief environmental health officer of South Hams district council and MAFF officials, whereupon the Minister will try to act as judge in the case.
  Deregulation is just not happening in the way we were promised. It is proving much more difficult than we thought at first. A stick and carrot approach should be introduced: promotion for those who deregulate and demotion for those who do not. Let us get rid of private Members' Bills in their current form. What we want are
  254
  private Members' deregulatory Bills. Members in the new Session should be allowed to introduce only deregulatory measures, not new legislation.
  I also suggest a review of the gold plating on all the directives implemented here over the past 25 years. That should be done in the next three months by the deregulation unit in the Cabinet Office. Just as the Treasury approves all Government Departments' expenditure, the Cabinet Office must do likewise for all statutory instruments, directives, rules and regulations emanating from Government Departments. The Cabinet Office should vet every statutory instrument and should have a Treasury-like veto on deregulation. The Minister could make a great deal of progress in this area.
  Compliance cost assessments should include the additional cost to the public purse, not just that to the private purse. They should also list the numbers of additional officials and the cost of employing them incurred by any new deregulation measures. Above all, we must work for a change of culture, in Whitehall and at Westminster so that, with renewed vigour, we can tackle the blanket of red tape which continues to suffocate enterprise and unnecessarily to hold back our national economy.
  12.48 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on it. It is noticeable that, while Conservative Members take an interest in the subject of deregulation, not a single Opposition Member is here for the debate. We have noted not just the Opposition's lack of interest but even their hostility to the notion of deregulation, to the unit in the Cabinet Office and to the deregulation task force. We have an immense task before us, and I thank my hon. Friend for taking such a close interest in it.
  I sometimes feel like a remote descendant of King Canute. The tide of legislation—primary and secondary, European and domestic—keeps coming in, and one does one's best, with the help and support of my hon. Friend and Government colleagues, to stem it. As life becomes more complicated, we inevitably need more regulation, but it has to be better and simpler. When we introduce new regulations, we must take the opportunity of repeal.
  My hon. Friend rightly referred to the need for a change of culture. That change of culture must occur not only in Whitehall, but in Brussels. I shall have something to say about that in the remaining 11 minutes of the debate.
  My hon. Friend was right to stress the importance of small businesses and the impact of regulations on them as employment growth depends on small businesses. I have long believed that regulation should be a rhetoric-free zone. The devil is in the detail. It is boring, it is difficult and, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, it is very hard pounding, but it is essential work.
  I shall divide my remarks equally between a brief resume of what we have achieved so far and what we need to do. I note from the Order Paper that tonight we shall be asked to vote on three excellent deregulation measures resulting from the deregulation and contracting out procedure. My hon. Friend is right to say that we have laid only 26 such measures and 12 have become law so far, but more significant measures will be laid.

  255
  I commend the cheque truncation order, which will save the banking industry many millions of pounds by avoiding the unnecessary circulation of old cheques once they have been drawn, debited and credited to accounts.
  The compliance cost assessment procedure is working reasonably well. I take my hon. Friend's point about public sector costs and I shall look again at that part of the procedure. We have just published a new booklet on the other side of compliance cost—the risks and benefits to society of proceeding with legislation. I commend that new booklet to the House and I have circulated it to all Departments. In respect of all legislation—primary, secondary, European and Whitehall generated—we should be looking at the cost and the benefit and taking a deep breath and deciding not to proceed when Ministers are not convinced that there is an overwhelming case for proceeding.
  We are looking at statutory instruments ex poste—or after Ministers have approved them. I shall say more about that in a moment. In respect of Europe, I am going to Brussels on Tuesday, to the Internal Market Council, which will consider a resolution that I hope will commend itself to most countries. It instructs the Commission to adopt new policy procedures in respect of the impact of regulations on small firms and to reaffirm the principle of proportionality, and it urges the Commission to draw up directives that are goal based and not prescriptive.
  I am pleased that the Commission has adopted new procedures—before agreeing directives and proposing them to Councils of Ministers—on the principle of consultation, assessing the costs, improving the principle of the fiche d'impact system that has operated for a number of years—I believe, unsatisfactorily—and re-emphasising the need for subsidiarity, that is, not legislating in the first place if it is not necessary.
  I am pleased that, since November, when we began our campaign in Europe, we have reaped some modest fruits of that effort. We have achieved an exemption for unit pricing for small businesses. That is a small but welcome step forward. Following the Internal Market Council meeting on Tuesday, the Commission will set to work on codifying and simplifying blocks of legislation in respect of Intrastat—documents dealing with imports and exports in Europe—and construction products in an attempt to simplify the regulations to enhance Community trade. I hope that next year we shall simplify regulations on machine standards and food hygiene.
  We have published a new checklist for Departments dealing with gold plating. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that and I have to admit that he is correct. We are now looking to stop gold plating. My Department does not have the staff or resources—even with my 42 excellent civil servants—to go back not just 24 years to accession, but 700 years of statute law.
  I also have good news to report. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office announced the proposed new fire regulations. I am delighted to say that there is no gold plate on those proposed United Kingdom implementing regulations following the European directive. It has been a long, hard-fought battle involving proper discussion between all Departments, but we are not imposing measurable financial burdens on British businesses by implementing those regulations.
  Mr. Steen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievements with the new fire regulations. I know that he has fought long and hard and he has managed to put out most of the fires. If his Department does not have sufficient staff, could he not ask other Government Departments that have tens of thousands of officials to help? Each of his Cabinet colleagues could be responsible for looking at the past three years gold plating in the directives relating to their Departments.
  Mr. Freeman: Yes, I shall, but not necessarily in that precise way to that or time scale. It is important that we review what has happened in the past.
  Sir Donald Thompson: I admire the way in which my right hon. Friend has stuck to his task of deregulation, which often resembles wading through treacle. Perhaps one of his civil servants could make a list of our successes—telephones, airways and even lifts come to mind—to be circulated among our partners in Europe to show that deregulation really works.
  Mr. Freeman: I gratefully accept my hon. Friend's excellent suggestion. I had it in mind to produce something during the summer describing exactly what we have done so far and our plans for the future. I might consult my hon. Friend on its exact form and content.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Freeman: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me briefly to make progress as I would like to outline our plans. We need to review existing directives. I would single out the electromagnetic compatibility directive, which is causing many problems.
  I would like to lay shortly our model appeals order, which will be open to Departments to include in their own primary legislation so that we have a sensible procedure for appealing to tribunals. I take the interesting point made by my hon. Friend that there could be an anomaly in respect of his constituent's oyster farm. We are proposing a new procedure to appeal to tribunals, but not to magistrates courts. I believe that my hon. Friend's constituent has a right of appeal to a magistrates court under the food safety legislation, but only on a point of law and not on the merit of the case. So the debate has raised an important matter that I shall now review.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sitting next to him on the Front Bench, perhaps my right hon. Friend could pass on to him the suggestion that the House should have a better mechanism to slow down the process of debate, which is not good enough. If the statutory instruments procedure allowed for a further stage of consideration, that would help.
  Mr. Freeman: I take that point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it on record once again. I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will read the record of the debate and note that point.
  Let me deal with two final points, both of which are extremely important. The first relates to enforcement and the right of appeal—not necessarily in a legalistic sense— and to the problems of disproportionate enforcement at

  257
  the point of the consumer and how the average citizen is affected by an enforcement order or procedure initiated by a trading standards officer, an environmental health officer or a health and safety executive officer. We have in place, by following the procedures of sections 5 and 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, a mechanism by which one can ask the official for a written explanation of the procedures, but we should consider going further. I should like to consider carefully, possibly with the advice of my hon. Friends who take an interest in deregulation, how we can empower the citizen and give the citizen the right to raise quickly and automatically a concern about the method by which a regulation is enforced.
  On the flow of legislation, I am not convinced that we need a single conduit through which all statutory instruments flow in the Cabinet Office. That would be unwieldy, although I shall reflect on it. I would like all Departments to use the compliance cost assessment and risk assessment principles properly, and all Ministers to be satisfied in all instances of statutory instruments affecting business and industry that proper procedures have been followed.
  I should like to reflect further on the general procedures through which we handle statutory instruments. There are 3,000 a year, although probably no more than 1,000 affect businesses and industries. I am grateful to all my hon. Friends who, unlike Labour Members, take an interest in deregulation. I look forward to working with them.

  Motability
  1 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I make just one apology for bringing this matter back before the House—a very sad and belated apology to David Whitton, a remarkable, extremely bright and extremely principled campaigner for disability rights, who suddenly and tragically died quite recently. I apologise to David because, when he first contacted me about Motability—it seems a long time ago—I promised him that I would undertake to get Parliament to take action on what he believed was a quite unprincipled scam being perpetrated by a cartel of high street banks. He believed that the banks were exploiting many disabled people, the allowances made to them through the mobility component of the disability living allowance, and the public, because the scheme is centrally funded. I am very sad that I have not been able to honour the promise in David's lifetime, but it does not deter me in the slightest from continuing to pursue the matter until I am certain that it has been resolved in the terms that he would have wished.
  David's belief about what is wrong with the relationship between Motability the charity and Motability Finance Ltd., the private, for-profit financial arm, is very simple. He believed that up to £100 million which rightly belonged to disabled people had been inappropriately syphoned off by the banks into their private profits. I will explain how that might have come about.
  It is important to distinguish between Motability the charity and MFL the private company. Motability the charity encompasses a wonderful idea. I have no complaints about the way in which it is run. But there are major differences between the two bodies. One is that of scale. The charity has a turnover of £3 million, while MFL, the finance company, has a turnover of £375 million, assets of £1 billion and credit at any given time of up to £1.5 billion. I understand that MFL is the biggest car-leasing business in the world.
  I initially became aware of the matter through another campaigner for disabled rights, my constituent Mick Reynolds, who was in the bizarre position of being pressured by the finance company to accept a vehicle under the scheme which did not meet his needs and would have cost him more than a vehicle which did meet his needs and that he would have preferred. We fought a long battle to reverse that decision, during which he educated me about some of the things going on behind the scenes in MFL and introduced me to David Whitton. It was from there that my real education in the behind-the-scenes activities of Motability Finance Ltd. took off.
  All questions on the matter boil down to four basic questions: who controls whom; whether the arrangements between a charity and a private company offer the best deal for disabled people; whether excess profits and charges are being made; and whether the stranglehold of the banking cartel is corrupt and unaccountable.
  I have made a considerable effort to find out what is going on inside MFL, but its organisational structure makes a masonic lodge look like open government. I suspect that the House could find out more about foreign spy rings than it could about the internal goings-on in the Motability Finance Ltd. empire and how the firm manages public money.

  259
  There have been a series of internal reports on MFL and Motability, all of which have been undisclosed and have criticised the level of profits and the relationship between Motability the charity and MFL the private monopoly. The first report that I came across was one picked up by the accountancy firm KPMG, in which it suggested that the banks were making a 30 per cent. return on capital. That is more than double the rate of return of private car-leasing companies.
  When MFL was challenged, it said that the figures were notional and that the report was an exercise. Yet the exercise was conducted by KPMG on the basis of figures provided by MFL. If a company provides figures from which such a conclusion is drawn, it should accept the validity of the conclusion reached by a reputable firm of accountants.
  The second report I came across was commissioned by an equally principled and wholly praiseworthy civil servant, Simon Willis, who was seconded into the Motability scheme. He had the sense to bring in a company of charity solicitors, Birchams, which conducted a report on the way in which the relationship between the charity and the finance company was working. It made the most profound criticisms of that relationship. It said that
  "the Governors of Motability have no clear picture of the effective rate of return being earned by the banks or the current position on surpluses since MFL's accounts reveal nothing on these lines and the management accounts of the banks relating to the Motability scheme have never been disclosed.
  We consider it imperative that the Governors of Motability now require the banks to disclose the relevant accounts so as to provide a full picture of their trading position, profitability and accumulated reserves and surpluses. Without this information, the Governors are incapable of performing their duty to satisfy themselves that there are no alternative funding sources which could provide better value for money to Motability's customers."
  Birchams had no axe to grind. It is important to note that, having issued the report that it was commissioned to produce, it was immediately decommissioned; the rest of the processing of its report remains a mystery, having been handled internally within Motability Finance Ltd.
  The report commissioned by Simon Willis came on the back of an earlier and in many ways much more damning internal letter written by someone who ought to have known exactly what was going on in Motability—Alan Outten, who was not only a banker and a member of the board of directors of Motability Finance Ltd. for 15 years, but had been deputy chairman of Motability Finance Ltd. He said:
  "Some 2 or 3 years ago the banks reduced their gross margin to 1.5 per cent. gross, made up of 0.5 per cent. over cost of funds plus 1 per cent. profit margin … Somewhere along the line, MFL 'shifted the goal posts' without the agreement of the Charity, so that each bank received a flat management fee of £50,000 each plus an additional funding margin of 0.1 per cent.
  This change effectively increased the 'management charge' from a maximum of £600,000 to £1 million … It is surely an anomaly that the board of MFL should be paid £1 million per annum (and increasing) by the Charity for representing the interests of the banks, which are not consistent with the objects of the Charity."
  I suspect that that letter was one of the factors that prompted Simon Willis to call for the independent report by Birchams.
  Since that time, a further report has been commissioned. Schroeders merchant bank was asked to look at profitability levels within the company. Again,
  260
  I have been unsuccessful in getting a full copy; I have managed to get only an executive summary of the bank's report, but the bottom line is simple. Schroeders bank says:
  "The current margins, which were agreed in the autumn of 1993. appear now to be out of line with the market. The margins charged by the Partners should therefore be revised in the light of this benchmarking exercise."
  In practical terms, that comment amounts to a statement by Schroeders that the margins to which the banks have been working are probably twice as high as could legitimately be justified.
  There have been changes in the charging regime only as a result of public pressure from disabled people, from organisations representing disabled people and from campaigners in this House and in the other place who have sought to raise the matter in both Houses. Since the matter was raised, MFL has made a series of reductions, but all have!been designed simply to forestall further criticism.
  The whole structure of MFL is based on obsessive secrecy and obsessive control. The company has seen not only the Birchams report and the Alan Outten letter, but a letter sent by Simon Willis to the chairman of Motability pointing out his concerns about the extent to which a public charity was effectively owned by a private, for-profit company and about the fact that that company had no accountability to the charity or, ultimately, to the Government who fund it. In his letter to the chairman. Simon Willis said:
  "All suppliers to the scheme are subject to continual or periodic competition except the banks … Not only are they exempt from market pressures; the governors of the charity have repeatedly beer denied access to the partnership accounts which underpin the scheme's financing.
  The charity commissioners run an annual profitability study to determine the appropriateness of the profit margins … The 1992 study was shown briefly to the governors but all copies were then recalled. Among several recommendations which have not been pursued, it concluded that 'higher than envisaged returns appear to be being made by the Banks.' For some reason the 1993 study was not shown to the executive governors. I only saw it in draft and 1 seem to recall a surplus approaching £100 million and a return or capital of over 20 per cent. to the funding banks."
  That is not a picture of a charity being able responsibly to oversee its stewardship of the allocation of public moneys and to fulfil the goals of a laudable scheme which gives disabled people the mobility to which they are entitled.
  We are currently waiting for the report by the National Audit Office. I believe that the delay in issuing that report is probably a result of its having been nobbled. I am led to believe that there are aspects of the relationship between MFL—with its beneath-the-surface partnership accounts—and Motability that will not be allowed to be properly explored.
  Throughout this time, as the contingency funding is allowed to remain in the banks' hands and MFL is driver by the banks' priorities, I have had a constituent, Liz Carr. whose physical condition has changed dramatically since she acquired a vehicle. She now finds that she is unable to get a change in her lease to entitle her to a more appropriate and adapted vehicle because, she is told, adaptation funds are not there. The fact that some £100 million is sitting in an account somewhere else suggests that the funds are indeed there, but that moneys belonging to disabled people are not being allowed to be used in the interests of disabled people.

  261
  Although I said that MFL had not been unresponsive, it is worth bearing in mind its first response. The first criticism produced a remarkable change in the company. The chair of the company wrote back to the charity at the end of 1993 saying:
  "I am delighted to inform you that at the meeting on the 7th December there was unanimous support from the banks to make a donation to the charity of fifteen million pounds in March 1994, with a commitment to advance a further ten million pounds in March 1995."
  What a generous offer. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the company was giving back disabled people's money to disabled people, what troubled me most were the strings attached to the offer. The chair went on to say:
  "Given that such a donation will result in an initial insufficiency of reserves, it was also felt necessary that certain assurances should be sought from the charity."
  The most important of those assurances was that
  "the charity will not, without the partners' prior consent, seek to admit any other lessors into the scheme."
  Thus the terms on which money would be handed back was a guarantee that the banks would be offered a perpetual monopoly so that they could continue to milk a no-risk leasing scheme, using public money to provide themselves with comfortable private profits. That is a wonderful and unique example of public money being used to provide a banking cartel with money for nothing and perks for free. There is no way in which the Government—or Motability—can either test the value for money offered by the banks or renegotiate terms on the basis of clear knowledge of the charges being made. The current arrangements are untenable and unprincipled.
  That is not just my view; I believe that the Minister also takes that view. I am grateful to whoever it was who supplied me with a copy of a letter sent by the permanent secretary at the Department of Social Security. On 3 February 1995, he wrote to Gerry Acher, the vice chairman of Motability, saying:
  "My Secretary of State said that a monopoly could not continue unchallenged indefinitely".
  The permanent secretary also said that in terms of the requirements of the charity, it was important that three key issues were addressed. First, the charity must be able
  "to demonstrate that there is sufficient competitive pressure in the scheme to ensure that disabled customers are getting the best deal possible."
  Secondly, there was a
  "need to get a properly documented memorandum of understanding between the Department and Motability, and between Motability and MFL as soon as possible."
  Thirdly, the Comptroller and Auditor General had to be assured that
  "proper control is exercised in disbursement of public monies on both the direct DSS payments to Motability and the DLA money which funds the scheme."
  On this we have made little or no progress. Having raised the matter initially, I have started to get letters from distributors telling me of their embarrassment at knowing that they could offer disabled people better terms through other commercial credit organisations than through the leasing arrangements in which Motability Finance has a monopoly. In some of the examples that I have been given, interest rates of 20 per cent. APR were quoted: twice the rate that other finance organisations could have offered. In his original letter, Simon Willis made precisely
  262
  this point—that an array of banks and credit companies in the market place could be tested to discover whether the MFL banking cartel offers the best deal in the interests of disabled people. That possibility has been consistently thwarted, undermined and rejected.
  In one sense, I cannot blame the banks. They are in a position in which they are fishing for money in a barrel, and one can hardly blame them for wanting to continue fishing. But it is not an acceptable position, and neither disabled people nor the House can be expected to tolerate it.
  I ask the Minister to undertake two clear actions. I do not and will not go along with the line of inquiry that simply asks why this arrangement, which I believe is both crooked and corrupting, should have been allowed to continue for so long. I know that outside the House there is a great deal of speculation about the personal and corporate links between those who appear to have significant influence in the shaping of policy in Motability Finance Ltd. and donations that have been made over the years to the Conservative party, but that is for other people to explore.
  My reason for raising the matter in the House today is to ask for two things. I ask the Minister to instruct Motability to open up its options and to break the banking cartel's sense of ownership of the charity. The charity must be in a position to pursue its own priorities so that its destiny and resources are not at the behest of banks and so that it can, if it so chooses, test out the banks' offer against other possible sources of money. I hope that the Minister will give the House that assurance today.
  I hope that the Minister will also assure me that he will support another action that I have taken today. I have written to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee asking for that Committee to investigate this matter. I have been told that, behind the scenes, there is a great fear that Parliament will seek to scrutinise some of the completely unjustifiable terms on which the relationship between the banks and the charity has been allowed to continue. I have written to the Chairman of that Committee to ask it to investigate the matter so that there is a proper parliamentary investigation of what is going on. I ask the Minister to join me in supporting that approach.
  1.22 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) for raising this important subject for debate, which I am more than happy to answer. I am extremely disappointed that he has left me no time to deal with the points that he has raised, so I shall not bother to answer many of the points. If the hon. Gentleman does not give me sufficient time to deal with the issue properly, he cannot expect me to deal with it in a half-hearted fashion. He knows that the National Audit Office is dealing with the matter and that a report is expected soon.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South used it as a casual phrase, but he should be aware of its seriousness: simply to refer to the delay as being due to the likelihood of the National Audit Office "being nobbled", I think, means that he is accusing a public servant of being corrupt. It is up to him if he is content to leave that comment on the record, but that is what it

  263
  means. He is saying that if the NAO comes out and reports more or less along the lines that he has taken, fair enough, he will look at the report. If it does not, however, it is because a public servant is corrupt. If that is not what he meant, I urge him to take another opportunity, in due course, to make that very clear.
  As most hon. Members know, Motability was set up in 1977 with all-party support. The then Secretary of State invited the late Lord Goodman to consider how disabled people could use their mobility allowance to gain access to a vehicle on terms representing good value for money. Lord Goodman, with Lord Sterling—Motability's present chairman—approached the Committee of Clearing Banks for assistance. They then set up the financing scheme which the hon. Gentleman now regards as crooked and corrupting. I am sure that they would be disappointed, and that the previous Labour Administration would be disappointed, to be associated with the words used by the hon. Gentleman.
  As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South went on to say briefly, Motability has developed to become probably the most successful organisation of its kind in the world. It provides an opportunity for independent transport for hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise not have such transport. It is a shame that that aspect of the matter is not highlighted more often. Motability is a very large scheme. Funding has grown. The assets owned by the bank, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are the cars that people drive. As he will be aware, last year Motability achieved a significant milestone with the handing over of the 500,000th car. The Government therefore support the objective of the Motability scheme and acknowledge the very real benefits that the scheme can provide by allowing disabled people to become independently mobile.
  The custodians of the scheme must be the governors of Motability. The governors and trustees have very clear responsibilities in relation to the general administration of Motability's aims and objectives, as set out in its royal charter, and in controlling the various charitable funds at its disposal. It is for Motability to ensure that the suppliers of the scheme offer value for money. Motability is a registered charity and, as such, is required to deposit copies of its annual accounts with the Charity Commission and to comply with company and charity law. As a requirement of Government grant, Motability must also submit its annual accounts to the NAO and is open to scrutiny by the NAO.
  As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South knows, the NAO is currently preparing a value-for-money report concerning the Motability scheme. If Parliament subsequently wants to scrutinise Motability and its work, that would present no problem for Ministers or, I should imagine, for the scheme. If Parliament wishes to do that, it would be perfectly proper. Overall, however, the hon. Member is setting up a conspiracy theory and any evidence that comes to hand which does not back up that theory can be dismissed in one way or another. I find that disappointing.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific points, of which I shall be able to deal with only one or two. However, I shall deal with some of the basics.
  264
  Who is in charge of the scheme? According to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, it is the boss banks or something like that. The Motability scheme is a unique partnership between Government, the charitable sector and the private sector. Each partner in the scheme has its part to play. The governors of Motability have clear overall responsibility, as set out in its royal charter and articles of association, to ensure that the scheme operates in the interests of all beneficiaries.
  I should deal with the transparency of the scheme, because that is important. While not directly responsible for the operation of the Motability scheme, I am keenly interested that it continues to achieve the Government's objective for the scheme: the provision of personal transport, for those who qualify, at terms which represent good value for money for the disabled customer. We are united in putting the disabled customer at the heart of our concerns and in wanting to ensure that the scheme works well for them.
  Adverse comment and criticism of the scheme is a matter for serious concern and urgent attention. Having seen Motability's outstanding success, and being confident of the operation's propriety, I have been surprised at the range of criticism levelled at the scheme and at many the guises in which it has appeared. However, I do not take any issue with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South or with any others for seeking to find out information about the scheme and to raise legitimate questions.
  A proportion of what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said—he knows that we have a good relationship— was perfectly fair and reasonable. It is only when he questions propriety and uses language that I regard as unfortunate that I think he goes too far. But it is right to ask questions: there is no problem about that.
  Given the criticisms that have been made, it is possible to recognise that earlier recognition of the depth of the concerns voiced about transparency and swifter action to provide details on the operation might have helped to avert the current situation, in which lack of knowledge has led to unjustified suspicion. I should also point out that, as a registered charity in receipt of Government funds, Motability deposits its accounts both with the charity commissioners and with the NAO, while MFL— the limited company—deposits accounts at Companies house. They therefore all have to be open to public scrutiny.
  Much has been made of the structure of the scheme and the suggestion that partnerships have been set up to hide the movement of funds through the funding banks. That is not the case. The scheme was set up in a tax efficient and perfectly legal manner to ensure that disabled people gain the maximum benefit. I am anxious that Motability should be able robustly to deal with the criticisms that have been made and to demonstrate fully the propriety of its operation. I believe that the publication of the NAO report will provide the most appropriate opportunity for that. When it is published, I shall be more than happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about what it reveals. I presume that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter then.
  I am extremely sorry that I have not had the opportunity to say more. Had I been given more than eight minutes, I probably would have done.

  Mongolia
  1.30 pm
  Mr. William Powell: It is a privilege and a pleasure to introduce a short debate on the United Kingdom's relations with Mongolia. It is a very long time since the House had the opportunity to discuss those relations—it is certainly a long time since they were discussed at such a reasonable hour. My noble Friend Lord Rees told me that there was much speculation about the Mongolian tax system during debates on Finance Bills in the 1970s but, that apart, there has been precious little parliamentary discussion of Mongolia.
  However, that is not to say that there is not a significant number of hon. Members with a real knowledge of and interest in this particular subject. I became interested in Mongolia thanks to our former colleague Sir James Kilfedder, whose untimely death left such a void in those of us who knew and loved him dearly.
  Mongolia is not—to adapt a phrase used by our former Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain—a faraway country of which we know little. That is far from the truth. As we speak, at this reasonable hour, darkness is descending in Ulaanbaatar. It would be perfectly possible for someone from this country to reach Mongolia by air in well under 24 hours, so it is not a faraway country, but it is a most interesting one.
  Mongolia is about the size of western Europe, and its population is 2.3 million—about that of Greater Birmingham. In other words, a country the size of half our continent has a population equivalent only to that of our second principal city. It might have a small population, but it has masses of what President Kennedy used to call geography.
  No country in the world has more sunshine than Mongolia. There are few clouds, at least in the physical sense, although I shall refer to some aspects of public policy which could be described as clouds. The sun shines, and the sky is blue. To the north of Mongolia lie the Arctic wastes of Siberia and its 100 million people. To the south lies the Gobi desert and Inner Mongolia, as it used to be called.
  To the east is the great wall of China, Beijing and the plains and riches of China, which have so fascinated people from our continent since the time of Marco Polo. To the west is the romance and mystery of Bukhara, Samarkand and Tashkent. That is an enormous area of north central Asia, with which this country has long had friendly relations.
  I am proud and pleased to be able to say that relations between our two countries are as warm today as they have ever been. The President of Mongolia has just made a successful visit—the first ever such visit—to this country. Along with the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young), I was privileged to be part of the fifth Round Table delegation, which, under the redoubtable leadership of my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington, visited Mongolia shortly after Easter.
  This is May, and it should be springtime in Mongolia, with the equivalent of alpine flowers all over the plateau, but, for reasons that I shall identify in a moment, since our visit—but, I hope, not because of it—a terrible tragedy has befallen that country. However, I want to use this debate not to dwell on darkness but to identify some of Mongolia's many assets which should be of interest and advantage to us.
  266
  Mongolia's population is highly educated. Probably no other country has achieved such good results, per head of the population, in the school and higher education system. It was a privilege and a pleasure to me to meet people who had learned about the market economy, for example, at the university of Leningrad, and who had been able to learn something of European culture and civilisation in the somewhat unlikely institutions built in the spirit of those awful old reprobates, Walter Ulbrecht and Mr. Honecker of the former East Germany.
  What we would regard as such an unpromising start has nevertheless left the Mongolian population educated, sophisticated, skilled and knowledgeable, which is a massive asset. Mongolia also had an outstanding health system, which, alas, has to some extent fallen into decline as a result of what Mongolia regarded as the immense tragedy of the collapse of the Soviet empire.
  In the Soviet days, Mongolia was not a Soviet slave or captive nation, as some countries in eastern Europe felt themselves to be; rather, it was a friendly and integrated part of the Soviet world, although its economy was very dependent on mutual trade with the old Soviet Union. Therefore, the collapse of the iron curtain and the Soviet system reduced overnight the wealth of the nation by one third. Very few countries could sustain such a blow, but Mongolians, with the good humour that we would expect of them, set about introducing reform.
  The World bank and the International Monetary Fund—two institutions familiar to the House—arrived in Mongolia and gave advice that the people were happy to accept, after proper consultation. Mongolia then proceeded with modernisation, liberalisation and the start of a programme of privatisation.
  Of course, as the old trade links had been destroyed, and as there was no infrastructure of alternative trading routes, the blow suffered by Mongolia in the early 1990s was formidable. That is one reason why I say to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whom I welcome to his place, that I hope it may be possible for us to do more to assist Mongolia than has hitherto been possible.
  Mongolia has some outstanding products of its own. The aficionados of vodka say that Mongolian vodka is the best in the world. There is no question but that its cashmere is of the highest quality. I hope that it may be possible to expand trade in those two important items between Mongolia and Great Britain.
  There are other opportunities for us, and the Round Table delegation enabled us to explore some of them. I welcome the fact that the Confederation of British Industry was represented on the delegation. Much hard work was done in acquiring information and intelligence to be spread among companies in this country to enable them to recognise those opportunities.
  I pay tribute to a company in my constituency, Marlec Engineering, which is the only company in this country ever to be awarded the Queen's award for industry for exports to Mongolia. The company has supplied Mongolia with wind-powered machines for generating energy.
  Our relations with Mongolia are the product of hard work. I pay tribute to the Mongolian ambassador to this country, who has been here for more than a year and has worked hard to improve our relations. I also want to pay tribute to his predecessor, who was here for a number of

  267
  years. I knew him well, and I was delighted to see him again in Ulaanbaatar. He is now the deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  On the British side, I pay tribute to the wonderful work done by the non-governmental organisations. These are essentially British in character, and they are doing useful work in Mongolia. For example, the work of Save the Children in Mongolia—led by a scion of the Dukes of St. Albans—is as valuable as its work in any other part of the world. I also pay tribute to the splendid daughter of Canada who led the British team of volunteers from the Volunteer Service Overseas. There are many non-governmental ways in which British people are engaged in important and necessary work in Mongolia.
  I also pay tribute to our ambassador and his excellent staff in Ulaanbaatar. At one stage, it seemed that the British embassy—opened in 1962 and the first western embassy in Ulaanbaatar—might not survive some of the periodic efforts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to save money in our posts abroad. Fortunately, Ulaanbaatar was saved from that fate.
  The work of Mr. Sloane, our ambassador—who is shortly to retire—his wife and his excellent staff has been outstanding, in both the public and the private sector. Too often, hon. Members ignore what some of our less important posts abroad do, but sometimes the staff in posts in what may rank as only minor countries do work at least as important as, if not more important than, those in the great posts of Washington, Paris, Bonn and Japan.
  My plea today is that Mongolia deserves British attention, and one area in particular that I wish to stress is the know-how fund for the republics of eastern Europe. Mongolia was excluded from that fund—perhaps for good reason—but it was just as much a part of the Soviet system as Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland. It is somewhat strange that it has been excluded from the scope of the funding. But I do not want to be too technical. If for any reason the know-how fund is not an appropriate vehicle to try to assist the Mongolians, I hope that it may be possible to boost our overseas aid funding, so that Mongolia receives a higher priority than at present.
  I pay tribute to the university of Leeds, which. is doing excellent work in educating in our language students from Mongolia. However, there is some suggestion that Cambridge university—the world's most important university—should abandon Mongolian studies. Mongolian may not rank as the most important language in the school of oriental languages at Cambridge, but it is important that a university of the quality of Cambridge should continue to make it available. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will draw to the attention of the vice-chancellor the fact that it is the view of many hon. Members that Mongolian should be retained at Cambridge.
  May I also say how important the overseas service of the BBC is? In a curious way, this country has managed to nurture the leading English language authorities in countries such as Mongolia through the work that they do for the BBC overseas service. We were blessed in Mongolia to have as one of our number a man who is undoubtedly regarded worldwide as the leading academic authority on Mongolia in the English language. He was
  268
  able to acquire this skill through the work he did for the BBC overseas service. That is an important way in which we can assist Mongolia.
  Finally, I wish to refer to the events in Mongolia since we left shortly after Easter. Hon. Members may be aware that some 80,000 sq km or 31,000 square miles— equivalent to an area stretching from John O'Groats to Land's End and from Milford Haven to Great Yarmouth—has been on fire. This has had a devastating effect on the country and its infrastructure, which was not the strongest in any event. The UK rapidly moved in to offer £50,000 on a bilateral basis and then through the multilateral funds to assist in the international effort to control the fires in Mongolia. But more is required, and I hope that we can give everything we can to help Mongolia at this time of maximum stress and trial.
  We went in friendship, and we were received in friendship. Britain has built up friendly relations with this most excellent country, and my most fervent wish is that we continue to build upon the progress that has been made in the past decade and that we continue to look to Mongolia as a friendly, attractive and worthwhile partner in international affairs.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) for giving us an opportunity today to discuss our relations with Mongolia. Mongolia is not a country that normally receives much public attention here, inside Parliament or out, and this debate is a welcome opportunity to redress that.
  Before doing so, I would first like to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend as chairman of the British-Mongolian parliamentary group. I must also thank both him and my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Trumpington—to whom he referred—who led the delegation, and to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young), who also participated, at last month's fifth meeting of the Mongolian-British Round Table in Ulaanbaatar. I gather that it was a resounding success, and my hon. Friend confirmed that. I know that many constructive proposals for expanding our relations emerged from that meeting, and we are studying them carefully.
  Since then, we have also had the pleasure of welcoming President Ochirbat to the United Kingdom on the first ever visit by a Mongolian Head of State to this country. He had an audience with Her Majesty the Queen, and discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other colleagues. I was honoured to have three meetings with him during his visit, and we all exchanged views on the ways in which Britain might best be able to help support and sustain Mongolian development. I also pay tribute to His Excellency the Mongolian ambassador, who keeps in touch with me regularly in the interests of both our countries. He, our excellent ambassador Ian Sloane, and Mr. Sloane's wife helped to make the president's visit such a success.
  It is unfortunate that so little is heard here of Mongolia, because its performance in recent years has been truly remarkable. It was the first satellite of the Soviet Union, and was for 70 years among the most faithful followers of the twists and turns of Soviet politics. Yet it was the

  269
  first Asian country to throw off the yoke of communism and the shackles of central planning, to embrace the principles of democracy and establish an open market economy.
  Mongolia was, under communist rule, one of the most isolated countries in the world. It is landlocked, bordered only by the Soviet Union and China, and its economy was linked only to those of Soviet bloc countries. The economic legacy of the Soviet years was to set back development of Mongolia's traditional pastoral nomadism and create ill-suited industry aimed at supplying only Soviet needs.
  Energy supply in one of the earth's harshest climates was, and remains, inadequate. Communications are poor. Socially, the Soviets provided education, health and social services, which Mongolia, with a GDP per capita of less than $350 per annum, cannot sustain. Its natural resources remain to a large extent untapped. The geography of Mongolia hampers communications with the outside world. Information technology is only just beginning to make an impact, and thus the international community still knows little about the country.
  That means that the courageous and determined Mongolian people have not hitherto received the credit and attention that they merit. Next month, they go to the polls to elect a Parliament freely for the second time since the collapse of communism in their country. It is important that Mongolia should continue successfully along that path, not just for the good of the Mongolian people but because a successful Mongolia, despite numerous obstacles, can be an example to other countries in the region.
  Mongolia deserves our support. We can therefore take some modest pride in the fact that the Mongolian parties are looking to our own political parties for advice and support. I know that, with the backing of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, some support has already been forthcoming; I also know that Mongolia's Parliament, the State Great Hural, has extended an invitation to the British-Mongolian parliamentary group to visit the country. If such a visit were possible, I am confident that it would be very well received in Mongolia.
  Progress in introducing democracy to Mongolia has been impressive, and the efforts to rebuild the economy following the end of Soviet aid have been even more so. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant a loss to Mongolia of subsidies estimated at some 30 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  This enormous country, with its small population— graphically and accurately described by my hon. Friend— decrepit infrastructure, lack of managerial know-how and meagre financial resources, faces many obstacles, particularly in its bid to achieve self-sustaining economic growth. As a landlocked country, it is entirely dependent on the good will of its two large neighbours for trade and communication links. But, with admirable self-discipline, the Mongolians have followed closely the advice of both the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. As a result, positive economic growth was restored in 1994, and last year growth increased to an impressive 6.3 per cent.
  The prospects for this year were brighter still, but the recent widespread fires—to which my hon. Friend referred at the end of his speech—have caused considerable damage, and have been a bitter setback to
  270
  Mongolia's recovery efforts. It is not yet clear that the worst of the fires are over. They have taken a terrible physical toll: the environment has suffered enormous damage, with perhaps a quarter of the forest cover destroyed, and the long-term damage to Mongolia's recovery will be severe. Britain was one of the first countries to respond to Mongolia's requests for international help in fighting the fires, and our contribution, although small, has been one of the largest to date. We stand ready to consider further requests for assistance.
  President Ochirbat's visit last month demonstrated the warmth of our bilateral relations. They have never been better. We were the first western country to establish diplomatic relations with Mongolia, in 1961, and to open a resident embassy in Ulaanbaatar, in 1963. The Mongolians have not forgotten that, or the signal that it sends of our support for their independence.
  The cultural links established through some of our universities go back at least as far, and were recognised by the President, who visited Leeds university while he was here. Indeed, there is a link between Ulaanbaatar and the city of Leeds, strengthened this year by both the President's visit and that of the Lord Mayor of Leeds to Mongolia.
  We have also made a significant contribution to helping Mongolia in its transition. Through our bilateral aid programme, we have provided about £3 million of assistance since 1992. The European Union provides around 8 million ecu each year, of which we contribute almost one fifth.
  British support does not come just from the Government. Despite the problems of distance and difficulty of supply, some British companies have entered into joint ventures, and others have won contracts under multilateral aid arrangements. Investment by OECD countries is still very modest, but Britain is among the leaders. British aid agencies, such as the Save the Children Fund and Voluntary Service Overseas, are performing heroic work in Mongolia in helping to tackle poverty.
  One effect of the Soviet era was to create a climate of aid dependency in Mongolia. One of the aims of British aid, whether bilateral, through the European Union or through the multilateral aid donors, is to encourage Mongolia into a can-do attitude. Our efforts are therefore aimed at giving the Mongolians the skills and knowledge need to use their own resources, manage their economy and enhance their position on the international stage.
  Mongolia's needs are great, and Britain's contribution is targeted on the areas where the Mongolians have themselves told us it is most valuable. They recognise that a key to success in the modern world is the English language, and that is one area in which they are especially keen to have help from us. It is natural that we should give such help, and it is a particular focus of attention in our bilateral aid programme.
  We have already provided English language teachers and BBC English programmes for Mongolian television, and we will continue to provide support for specialist English language teaching, while Foreign Office and Overseas Development Administration scholarships enable some of the brightest Mongolians to come to Britain for further study.

  271
  We help in many other ways. In view of the importance of livestock to Mongolia's economy, we have donated remote sensing equipment to enable herds and grazing patterns to be more effectively monitored. The Ministry of Agriculture is now arranging extra training in the use of that equipment, as well as considering ways of helping to develop horticulture. Mongolia has a young population and cannot meet all its educational needs, but, in co-operation with the Save the Children Fund and within the framework of the Mongolian Government's own plans, we are helping to strengthen its pre-school system.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of extending the know-how fund to Mongolia. Indeed, he recently wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary about the issue. Unlike the countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, which receive technical assistance from us through the know-how fund, Mongolia has its own bilateral aid programme. That reflects the particular pressing needs it faced at the time when the aid programme was established.
  Mongolia was badly hit by the break-up of the Soviet Union. In particular, the need to pay for imports in hard currency rather than transferable roubles soon exhausted its foreign exchange reserves. Whereas all our aid to the other former Soviet bloc countries has been in the form of technical assistance, the bulk of our recent aid to Mongolia has therefore been in the direct provision of badly needed lubricants for Mongolia's industries, the purchase of which would otherwise have been a severe drain on its very limited foreign exchange.
  However, as Mongolia's economy has turned round, so its needs are changing. Our bilateral programme will seek to provide assistance in areas where it is most needed. While the financial constraints on our aid programme limit our ability to increase our assistance, our technical co-operation programme will continue.
  The Mongolians have also asked us to resume export credit guarantee cover. We are at present reviewing our position on that, although our decision will have to take account of Mongolia's arrangements with the IMF. Following the latest meeting of the Round Table and President Ochirbat's visit, we are also considering other ways in which we can help.
  The President kindly invited me to visit Ulaanbaatar, and I intend to do so before too long. That will enable me to see for myself the challenges that Mongolia faces, and to discuss with its leaders ways in which we may help. I know that concern has been expressed about the future of
  272
  Mongolian studies at British universities. We are conscious of the long and proud tradition of those studies, and are investigating, as a matter of priority, ways in which to ensure that they can be maintained.
  Mongolia deserves our support and encouragement for the democratic and economic reforms that it is pursuing. We have helped, and will continue to help, Mongolia in the widest possible way within the available resources. We hope that other countries will join us in doing that, and in encouraging Mongolia to play a full role in the international community. We look forward in the near future to welcoming it to membership of the World Trade Organisation.
  We are pleased that our support is being reflected by an upsurge in Mongolian interest in Britain. The number of Mongolians wishing to visit Britain to study, make contact with our institutions, learn our way of doing things or just look around continues to grow. The Mongolians see their country as small and somewhat vulnerable, and therefore value the presence of our embassy in Ulaanbaatar.
  To cope with the growing interest, we are extending our embassy there. Given the extreme harshness of the Mongolian winter—which prevents any outdoor building work for about two thirds of the year—and the absence of suitable equipment and materials locally, even such a seemingly modest activity becomes a major task; and the fact that we are performing that task should be seen as a sign of our strong commitment to Mongolia. My hon. Friend will understand why do-it-yourself is one of the talents required of our ambassador in Ulaanbaatar.
  It is in the interests of the world at large for Mongolia to remain an independent, democratic state with its unique culture and contribution. Our diplomatic presence, our continuing aid—both bilateral and through the international financial institutions—and our modest but growing trade and investment, as well as the realisation by some British travellers that Mongolia is really worth visiting, are all symptoms of a healthy and developing relationship.
  It being Two o' clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o' clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 June.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Training Opportunities
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to extend training opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds. [29089]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): TheDepartment will continue to offer and support a wide range of opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds, including specialist provision for those requiring basic skills training.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that that is the one group for whom unemployment has risen in the past few years? What does he have to say to young people in my constituency, where long-term unemployment has risen by a staggering 64 per cent? Is it not the case that they really are the lost generation, whose hopes and aspirations will never be achieved under this Government because, for them, it is still hurting and they are still not working?
    Mr. Paice: I congratulate the hon. Lady on being able to read—obviously education does work for some. We are used to the Opposition twisting statistics, but it is relatively unusual to present statistics that are downright untrue. That age group has enjoyed a 10 per cent. fall in unemployment in the past 12 months, and a drop of 36 per cent. since the peak. It is an important group. That is why the Government give it special priority and access to our training programmes. Incidentally, the hon. Lady might like to take the matter up with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who criticised the Government only this February for giving that group priority.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that unemployment among 18 to 25-year-olds would be adversely affected by the introduction of the national minimum wage? Does he also agree that the problems of that group have been exacerbated by the failure of our education system, sometimes, to send them from school with the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic and that that problem was created by the late and unlamented Inner London education authority?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, where it exists—we must never ignore the fact that young people are still looking for work, and we are trying to help them—much of that unemployment stems from a lack of adequate education. That is why the Government have carried out many reforms, which my hon. Friend has rightly supported, and it is why we are carrying out further reforms as a result of the Dealing report to ensure that all those young people have access to the right education, through compulsory schooling and beyond, to equip them for the workplace.
    Mr. Byers: The Minister speaks of figures. Is he aware that one in four of 18 to 24-year-olds in his constituency is out of work? Does he agree that special measures are needed to help that age group because the training needs of 20-year-olds differ from those of 40-year-olds? When will action replace neglect? Is not it time that the Government brought hope to the lost generation of young people by providing them with the training opportunities that they need to improve their prospects of finding employment?
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman represents the lost generation of Labour Members who will never be Ministers. The training for work programme is flexible enough to respond to the needs of individuals. It is not a question of laying something down for 40-year-olds or for 20-year-olds; it is a flexible programme that can be adapted by the training provider to meet an individual's needs. If the hon. Gentleman cares about this age group, how can he support policies such as the minimum wage, the social chapter and the withdrawal of child benefit, all of which would destroy opportunities for advancement?
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than 100 18 to 24-year-olds in my constituency would lose their jobs if the Government were to adopt a national minimum wage and we were to suffer the same level of youth unemployment as France—28 per cent? Even more young people would lose their jobs if we suffered the same level of youth unemployment—38 per cent.—as Spain, which also has a minimum wage. How many training for work, youth training and modern apprenticeship places have been provided by the Government for the coming year?
    Mr. Paice: About 250,000 youth training places will be provided in the coming year and 60,000-odd modern apprenticeships will be available. My hon. Friend is right; we need to consider the impact of the minimum wage not only in our constituencies but in those countries where one is practised. That is what is so staggering about Labour's policy. It knows what is happening in other European countries, and wants to copy their policies despite the fact that they would lead to far worse unemployment.

    Nursery Voucher Scheme
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received about the nursery voucher scheme. [29092]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): There have been a number of representations on all aspects of the nursery education voucher scheme.
    Ms Quin: Has the Minister had time to study the debate in the other place earlier this week in which, apart from the Minister, there was universal condemnation of the nursery voucher scheme? Is he aware that, in the Secretary of State's county, the scheme is described as "excessively bureaucratic"? Given the universal hostility to it, is it not time for a major Government rethink of nursery education provision?
    Mr. Squire: I look forward to reading the account of the debate in the other place. I always listen with care to what their Lordships say. When the hon. Lady refers to Norfolk, the county of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, she must recognise that the take-up of vouchers is now 96 per cent. which suggests that her allegations about bureaucracy are overstated. We are witnessing in phase 1, and in due course will see with the second phase across the country, an increase in the number of quality places. That should be good news for everyone.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend accept that much misinformation is circulating about nursery vouchers? No doubt we shall hear some of it in later questions. Will he confirm that nursery vouchers will not damage existing local education authority provision, nursery education provision for three-year-olds or existing admission arrangements?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will remember that I have sought, in my modest way, to make public some of the myths and misconceptions that have been spread, especially by the Labour party. To take up two of his points, there is no reason why the education of three-year-olds should be affected. They are not covered by a deduction of local authority funding. Secondly, local authorities remain free to continue to spend, as most of them do, above the level of the voucher value because that money also is not affected.
    Mrs. Mahon: Whatever happened to choice? Has the Minister received representations from head teachers, teachers, parents, school governors and just about everyone involved in education, including Conservative councillors, in Halifax who want the right to keep their own, excellent, nursery education? Why do not they have the right to choose?
    Mr. Squire: It is surprising that the hon. Lady delivered her question without a trace of a smile, because it is quintessentially the existence of the voucher, which she and her hon. Friends object to, that is creating choice. Any parent, whether in her local authority area or others, who is satisfied with present local authority provision has simply to ensure that they take up that provision when the child is four. The voucher ensures that there will be greater choice throughout the country, and that, as I said a moment ago, should be good news. If the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends would listen to what is happening, they would be better informed.

    General Certificate of Secondary Education Examinations
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the benefits of GCSE examinations and of their future. [29094]
    Mr. Paice: Since its introduction in 1988, the GCSE has been successful in raising the levels of performance and attainment of pupils of all abilities. The Government are committed to the GCSE as the principal means of assessing pupils at the age of 16.
    Mr. Booth: May I inform my hon. Friend that the question on the Order Paper was drafted by the customers of the education system—some children in one of the most excellent schools in north London?
    276
    As a result of the main question, and what I am about to ask, will my hon. Friend accept that Conservative policy for the GCSE is soundly based on an excellent curriculum and on a desire to train children and prepare them for life, whereas the policies of the Labour party are divided and dither over the curriculum and the GCSE? Neither attitude would prepare children for anything.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right to identify the question as coming from the most important group of people—the customers, the young people who are undergoing our education system—and to demonstrate the Labour party's U-turns on education policy during the past few years. Labour Members have opposed every reform that we have introduced but, ultimately, they begin to welcome some. Labour Members criticise us for the poor results in tables. If they had had their way, we would not even have had those tables, from which we can work out the improvement that needs to be made.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Why are there no jobs for our school leavers?
    Mr. Paice: How dreary. The reality, as I said a few minutes ago, is that unemployment among young people has fallen substantially—by 10 per cent. in the past year and by 36 per cent. since the peak. There are more and more jobs for young people. What really matters is what Labour would put in the way of those jobs. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long while, and still he espouses policies that would destroy jobs for young people.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are currently being educated in grammar schools. [29095]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Approximately 125,000 pupils are being taught in maintained grammar schools in England.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members wish that the figure were 10 times that number? Many of us cannot forget that, in terms of educational provision, the inner city has become a nightmare for many of our young people because of the control and ideology of the Labour party. Labour has denied many young people a chance to have a real education in the inner city; that is why it is not fit to govern.
    Mrs. Shephard: As my hon. Friend knows, I intend to publish a White Paper in June which, among other things, will propose increased selection for those schools where parents, governors and heads wish it. In that way, we shall enable schools to build on their strengths, to establish distinctive identities and to increase choice and diversity. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said it all: whatever happened to choice? We know what would happen to choice if the Labour party ever formed a Government: it would be abolished.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister confirm the Government's support for comprehensive schools? Is she aware that, over the years, many thousands of youngsters from comprehensive schools have gone on to considerable achievement? Those students would have been unable to pursue such opportunities had selection continued. Is she aware that the Government appear to be moving backwards, and against the comprehensive principle, in support of the selection principle, which has served this country badly?
    Mrs. Shephard: The Government believe in a broad spectrum of schools in the maintained sector, and that is what our policies have achieved. We have grant-maintained schools, LEA schools, grammar schools, non-selective schools, specialist schools and colleges, city technology colleges and Church schools. Labour Members seem to be opposed to such diversity. It seems that they would seek to march forward to the 1960s and impose only one kind of school on everyone—but for a few of their Front-Bench team.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: How many pupils are currently being taught English grammar? Would not the level of spoken and written English in this country go up appreciably if the old grammar school standards applied throughout the country?
    Mrs. Shephard: All pupils in our schools are currently being taught English grammar. Their achievement is regularly inspected and examined. They are tested at the ages of seven, 11 and 14. I know that my hon. Friend has high standards in these matters. He always expresses himself admirably. It will take a little time before all our pupils reach his standard, but we intend to get there.

    Nursery Voucher Scheme
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of providers participating in the pilot phase of the nursery voucher scheme have not previously accepted four-year-olds. [29096]
    Mr. Robin Squire: Forty private and voluntary sector providers did not have four-year-olds on roll at the time of applying to join the nursery voucher scheme but had the capacity to provide for them.
    Mr. Griffiths: The Minister has not told me what proportion of providers that is—I will assume that it is minute. Does it not show that the nursery voucher scheme is a vast waste of money on administration and bureaucracy? In relation to the pilot schemes, more than 25 per cent. more places could have been provided if the money had been given to local authorities.
    Mr. Squire: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact proportion that he seeks because I do not have that information. There are new providers in the private and voluntary sector, and I should have thought that he would welcome that, particularly as he knows—he is a member of the relevant Standing Committee—that checks are being built in to ensure high standards. As for his comment about money being wasted on bureaucracy, he should also know from his Standing Committee
    278
    membership that, of the £20 million that is estimated to cover the operation, administration and inspection of the scheme next year, the vast proportion will be spent on inspection. I should have thought that he would join me in welcoming the fact that all providers will be inspected.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nursery voucher scheme is the only means of ensuring a diversity of choice for parents in nursery provision? Does he agree that without the scheme, the only choice parents would have would be between LEA provision and nothing?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that we are awaiting precise details of any Opposition proposals. Despite the passage of legislation through the House, we still await that information. There is no doubt that the voucher gives parents a greater say than does the present system, and it should be welcomed on that ground alone.

    Teacher Training (Science Graduates)
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to increase the number of applications from science graduates for training for teaching; and if she will make a statement. [29097]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): We have introduced a priority subject recruitment scheme, being run by the Teacher Training Agency, which should attract more good students to train as teachers in key subjects such as science. The TTA's other promotional activities also place particular emphasis on science.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister believe that the Teacher Training Agency will reach its target of training 3,700 science graduates as teachers this year? Does he believe that there will be more science teachers in the classroom next year, taking into account those who will be promoted out of the classroom, retire, change careers or leave the profession because of disillusionment? Are we not facing a crisis in science teaching in schools, which is due in part to disillusionment with the Government as a result of their lowering teachers' status over the years?
    Mr. Forth: That hysterical outburst—[Laughter.]—is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman. I am told that there are 46 vacancies nationwide for physics, chemistry, biology and other science teachers, which does not suggest a crisis of the proportions implied by the hon. Gentleman. However, the Department and I share his concern to do everything that we can to guarantee the future supply of science teachers and to strengthen the teaching of science in schools. The Teacher Training Agency is doing several different things in that area. For example, it is considering how it might develop the licensed teacher scheme to attract mature applicants to science teaching. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is an imaginative approach that could bear fruit. The School Teachers Review Body will also examine the question of the supply of science teachers when undertaking its annual consideration of pay skills. Those

    279
    and the other measures that have been implemented will ensure that there is no worsening of the current position of only 46 vacancies nationwide.
    Mr. Butcher: The problem is that most of the time that graduates spend in teacher training college is a complete waste. Although we have introduced measures to test pupils and the level of output in schools, should we not also consider introducing a core curriculum for teachers, particularly for junior and infant trainee teachers, in numeracy and literacy? Graduates should be taught not simply what to teach, but how to teach it. Recent studies have highlighted tragic levels of illiteracy among young people in our inner cities which are caused by poor teachers who do not know how to teach—and who have not been trained to teach—reading.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, characteristically, puts his finger on a very important point. An important part of the remit of the Teacher Training Agency, working with the Office for Standards in Education—which is helping us increasingly to understand some of the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted—is to provide the information that we need to quantify the nature of the problem and to go ahead and deal with it.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must ensure that teachers and those who are in teacher training have the tools that they need to do the job properly. As well as helping us to identify problems in schools and with pupils in the classroom, Ofsted is working to identify the needs of teachers. The Teacher Training Agency can then bring about the necessary improvements in that area.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: I ask the Minister, calmly and without hysteria, whether he agrees that, to safeguard the number of teachers of science in the future, we must take seriously the Dearing proposals to broaden the post-16 curriculum. We must ensure that more students continue to study science beyond the age of 16 and are well prepared to enter higher education to study that subject.
    Mr. Forth: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman's constructive point. The whole thrust for some years—starting with the national curriculum—has been to ensure that all pupils not only gain a grasp of science, but develop an enthusiasm for it from an early age. We hope and expect that more children will want to continue their science studies in secondary school and beyond. The basic curriculum, Sir Ron Dearing's work to develop it post-16 and developments beyond that are designed to achieve that objective, among others. I am happy to share the objectives that the hon. Gentleman sketched.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to promote deregulation in respect of education and employment. [29098]
    Mr. Forth: We will continue to resist the imposition of unnecessary burdens on employers, such as the social chapter and a national minimum wage, which have contributed to unemployment averaging 11 per cent. throughout the European Union.
    Mr. Steen: Although the Secretary of State gets high marks in her end-of-term report for effort and achievement, I hope that she agrees that her performance on deregulation requires a little more attention. Only six paragraphs in a 250-page report on education and employment covered deregulation. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with all her Ministers and find new initiatives to help to support the Prime Minister's excellent initiative to deregulate faster, quicker and better?
    Mr. Forth: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's unremitting efforts to ensure that the Government's stated objective of deregulation is adhered to and thoroughly prosecuted in every Department. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State watches tirelessly over her team of Ministers to ensure that they share in that objective. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we have done rather well over the years in creating a deregulated labour market— which is reflected in our performance in employment and unemployment compared with our European partners in particular.
    As to education, I suspect that we are bound in many ways to be a regulating Department—precisely because we are responsible for the well-being of so many young people in achieving a successful education. I could read out examples of some of the regulations that have been produced by my Department over the past year, but I shall not—I shall share them with my hon. Friend later. We make every reasonable effort to reduce regulation in education, but that must be balanced against our duty to protect standards and the well-being of pupils.
    Mr. Corbett: I presume that the Minister and the Secretary of State are seeking to expand selective and divisive grammar school education under the dogmatic banner of deregulation. Is not it the case that if every town is to have a grammar school, there will be many more secondary modern schools? Is not it also the case that picking winners
    "means plenty of losers as well"?
    Will the Minister confirm that those words came from Mr. Demitri Coryton, who chaired the Conservative Education Association?
    Mr. Forth: Only the hon. Gentleman's twisted logic would have led him in the direction that he seeks to take the House. I suspect that he raised the matter in that way because he has hit upon one of the few areas— education—in which the Labour party seems to have any policy, and that is to do away with selection and choice. That is one of the few things of which we can be certain in respect of Labour's education policy—no selection and no choice. Everything else is either a pale shadow of Government policies or under review.
    Mr. Sykes: When the Minister next goes to the Council of Ministers—if he does—will he try to have a Europewide ban imposed on the 48-hour week, which has been scientifically proven to destroy jobs in Europe?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has hit on a truth that has been obvious to us for some time but which we have as yet been unable to persuade our EU partners to see. It is that if we arbitrarily interfere in the working of the labour

    281
    market in the way my hon. Friend describes, the almost certain result will be a loss of jobs and competitiveness in the EU market as compared with our global competitors. We understand that; it is why we are enjoying a period of success in the creation of jobs and a reduction of unemployment. I fear that if our partners cannot and will not see that truth, they will drag themselves down competitively, and ultimately they will drag us down too.
    Mr. Meacher: If the Minister thinks that deregulation has been so successful why, since 1980, for every job created in Britain 17 have been created in France and 52 in Germany, yet neither France nor Germany has a deregulated labour market and both have a national minimum wage? If deregulation has been such a success, why were more jobs created in Britain in the regulated 1970s than have been in the deregulated 1990s? Why are there now 1 million fewer jobs in Britain than there were the day the Prime Minister took office? Is it not obvious that deregulation is simply a passport to short-term, hire-and-fire job insecurity, whereas what is really needed is long-term investment and commitment?
    Mr. Forth: Something that has puzzled me for the past few days has suddenly become clear. This is the same hon. Gentleman who was recently quoted as demanding the restoration of the old trade union powers of the 1970s—a period to which he now looks back with such nostalgia. He, one of the Labour party's prominent speakers on the subject, wants us to go back to the 1970s and all that they meant. Whereas I used to think that the Labour party had very few policies, I can now see that this is one area on which its policies are developing under the hon. Gentleman's influence.

    Teaching Standards
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she proposes to improve teaching standards in schools. [29099]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We have introduced a wide range of measures, from professional qualifications for head teachers to in-depth reform of initial and in-service teacher training.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recent Ofsted report on reading showed that it is not funding or class size that determines educational success, but the quality of teaching in our schools? Does she welcome the new teacher training rules, which will concentrate far more on classroom experience?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, the recent Ofsted report on standards of reading in Islington, Tower Hamlets and Southwark raised serious doubts about the quality of the teaching methods used, about in-service training and about the role of head teachers. It is sad that the initial reaction of those responsible was to accuse the report of political bias, instead of expressing concern for the education of the children in their care. Obviously, in-service training of teachers is important; but just as
    282
    important is initial teacher training—my hon. Friend is right about that—and inspections of initial teacher training by Ofsted are revealing some interesting results.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is little point in raising teaching standards if children are encouraged to miss school? If so, does she share my concern about the material sent out by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority for this year's key stage 2 standard assessment tasks reading test? In it, children are encouraged to follow the wrong example in a passage in which Uncle Jim persuades mum to allow the children to miss school so as to go for a ride in his shiny new motor car.
    Mrs. Shephard: That sounds like a description of Liberal education policy.
    Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could make a good start to raising teaching standards by saying thank you to the tens of thousands of teachers who, with professionalism and dedication, do so well in our schools? While we are at it, why not say thank you to them for teaching the hundreds of thousands of children who are about to sit their public examinations—including my daughter Sophie?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear that news from my hon. Friend. Of course we owe a debt—as does society—to successful, committed teachers. It is indeed a shame that occasionally they are let down by local education authorities that seek to make excuses for them instead of helping them to achieve more.
    Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Secretary of State will agree that one advantage of Uncle Jim's car is that, by taking a child out of the classroom, it improves the pupil:teacher ratio? Is it not a scandal that yesterday's figures revealed a further worsening of the pupil:teacher ratio and that, in an enlightened moment, the chief inspector of schools said in his annual report that small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education? Will she therefore apologise to teachers and parents throughout the country for what has just been revealed—that, for the first time, more than 40 per cent. of our primary schools have classes of over 30, that classes of over 40 have risen by almost 50 per cent. since the Government took office and that we now have 1.6 million children in those excessively large classes, making it difficult to teach the basics that are the essential tools of raising standards?
    Mrs. Shephard: Provisional figures on teacher numbers show that the position is largely unchanged. I remind the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that there is no clear connection between class size and achievement in the classroom, as has been confirmed repeatedly by the chief inspector of schools. I further remind the hon. Gentleman that in Labour-controlled Hackney there was one teacher for every eight pupils, yet the education provided was so deplorable that the school had to be closed. We heard not a word of condemnation from Opposition Members of that disgraceful state of affairs.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents recognise that the Government have ensured that teaching standards in schools have improved? Would she

    283
    be surprised to hear that Labour's education policy has been condemned by a former teacher, who recently became the chair of the new Blackpool Labour local government committee, as a "Conservative copycat document" and said that most left-wing teachers agreed with her. Is that not another example of splits within the Labour party on education?
    Mrs. Shephard: That is indeed interesting news from Blackpool. Of course parents are well aware that Opposition Members have spent much of the past decade or so automatically opposing every measure that the Government have introduced to improve standards and, sadly, for many parents that legacy lives on in Labour town halls up and down the country. Examples include Islington, where GCSE results are the worst in the country, Tower Hamlets, which has the worst truancy, and Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire, where 11-year-olds were the only ones in the country who were not allowed to take national tests last year.

    Access Initiative
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the success of the access initiative; and what provisions have been made for its continued funding. [29100]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan):Some 800 mainstream schools will benefit from schools access initiative projects in 1996–97 to improve access to the curriculum for disabled pupils. We shall consider shortly the position for 1997–98.
    Mr. Steinberg: I thank the Minister and congratulate the Government on introducing the access initiative with the National Union of Teachers and Scope, which initiated it. Has the Minister analysed the scheme in depth? Does she know in which schools the money was spent? Does she know how the money was spent and whether the projects were successful? If she has not carried out a careful analysis of the scheme, will she undertake to arrange for the Department to do so? Will she give the House a guarantee that the scheme will continue and that money will be put into local education authorities so that more schools can benefit from the access initiative?
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind congratulations, which I accept on behalf of the Government. We have put almost £10 million into the schools access initiative, which will help to provide better access for disabled pupils. Under the Education Act 1993, schools must report every two years on their access arrangements. In 1995, an audit showed that disabled access varies widely from area to area. That is why we have put money into the initiative. We shall carry out another audit in 1997, which we expect to show increased accessibility.

    Nursery Voucher Scheme
    Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions have been made to restrict the profits that can be made by Capita for administration of the nursery voucher scheme. [29101]
    Mrs. Gillan: Capita Managed Services Ltd. was awarded the contract to administer phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme through a competitive tender. That process ensures that the successful contactor offers the best value for money.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Minister accept that head teachers in my constituency are concerned that public funds will go to private profits, while nursery provision in their schools faces the threat of disruption as a result of the introduction of vouchers next year? Does she accept that it is important that every three and four-year-old in this country has the opportunity of nursery provision? That will cost a great deal of money. Instead of gimmicks such as the scheme, would it not be better to ensure that proper provision is made through education authorities, funded, if necessary, by general taxation?
    Mrs. Gillan: I am ashamed that Opposition Members have still not grasped the fact that the nursery voucher scheme is proving a great success. At every stage, the Opposition have tried to cast doubt on the scheme because they have nothing better to put in its place. Capita has successfully implemented phase 1 of the scheme. In fact, a report produced by the National Childrens Bureau, which was published in March, said:
    "All four authorities felt their relationship with Capita was good. When problems had arisen, they had been solved. When mistakes were made, they had been put right quickly."
    There is certainly no need to impose a restriction on profits, since the competitive tendering process ensures that profits are not excessive.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Are not all parents and children aware of what is value for money and sound education? All concerned will be watching. Should we not remember that children are as diverse between the ages of three to five as they are at any later age? The diverse provision that the nursery education voucher scheme will inspire will therefore be valuable. If primary schools continue to attract children to their nurseries as they do now, they will lose nothing.
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The voucher scheme pursues our policy of choice and diversity in all areas of education. The contractor for phase 1 was chosen specifically on the value for money and quality of services offered. The quality of Capita's proposals exceeded those of the other shortlisted candidates.
    Mr. Stevenson: Capita continues to cream off its profits, but is the Minister aware that my constituents are concerned about the madcap scheme? If the Minister is serious in her projection that more nursery places will be available as a result of the scheme, will she give my constituents some assessment of how many extra places will be provided in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire? Is not the scheme another bureaucratic, expensive and Government-inspired education red herring?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman must do his homework before he comes into this classroom. There are already 300 extra places in the phase 1 areas. I am really rather tired, as I am sure is the House, of the Opposition continually trying to cast slurs on Capita. The Capita

    285
    group is the largest provider of managed services to the public sector. It is used to working with local education authorities and is responsible particularly for the SIMS software package, which is used by more than half the LEAs. The Opposition just cannot stand the scheme proving to be a great success.

    Education Services (Inspection)
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to set up a system of inspection of local education authorities in respect of their delivery of education services. [29102]
    Mr. Robin Squire: On 7 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that she would examine whether to extend Ofsted's powers to inspect local education authorities' monitoring and support services for schools. A voluntary LEA-Ofsted exercise is under way.
    Mrs. Lait: Will my hon. Friend try hard to pass on the message to my right hon. Friend that her visit to Hastings and Rye last Friday was much appreciated? She opened Filsham Valley school and saw the effectiveness of East Sussex education authority. Will he ensure that East Sussex is invited to participate in Ofsted's voluntary monitoring exercise so that we can see the increase in standards required to ensure that we improve our position in the tables from 80th for A-levels back to the top?
    Mr. Squire: I am delighted to hear that I can add Hastings to the parts of the country that have benefited from and welcomed a visit by my right hon. Friend on her travels around the country. On the substance of my hon. Friend's question, she is clearly right to recognise that local education authorities can play a significant role in helping schools to raise standards, not least through the quality of their advice and by, for example, encouraging schools to set challenging performance targets. I will certainly look at my hon. Friend's authority although, as she said, she referred to a voluntary activity. A couple of authorities are already involved and I hope that others will get involved in the near future.
    Mr. Madden: Who is responsible for inspecting Ofsted? Will the Minister confirm that it would be prudent for Ofsted to secure the services of inspectors before announcing inspections of schools? Does he remember that that was not done for the mass inspection of nine schools in my constituency? The inspections have been delayed by months, causing considerable anxiety and difficulty for the teaching staff and casting considerable doubt on the inspection reports, whenever they are received.
    Mr. Squire: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman added the last part of his question; I would otherwise have some sympathy with the position that he described. It is, of course, regrettable when planned inspections do not take place. Although that applies to a relatively small proportion of all inspections, I join the hon. Gentleman in regretting it when it happens. I hope that he will join me in welcoming the fact that with well over 7,000 inspections completed since Ofsted was created, the net effect has been to drive up standards in our primary and secondary schools, to get heads and governing bodies to
    286
    look more than ever before at the standard of education that is delivered in their schools and, in places, to get them to make a significant improvement.

    School Standards
    Mr. Forman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met representatives of the Office for Standards in Education to discuss standards in schools. [29104]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Ministers and officials regularly meet Her Majesty's chief inspector and Ofsted officials to discuss issues related to education standards in schools.
    Mr. Forman: When my right hon. Friend last had a chance to meet Mr. Christopher Woodhead, the chief inspector, was she made aware of the fact that he is a distinguished alumnus of Wallington county grammar school for boys in my constituency? He recently visited that school to open an excellent new science block containing four laboratories, which will be invaluable in raising standards of science and will thus set an example to all the good schools in my constituency.
    Mrs. Shephard: I was not aware that the chief inspector is a former pupil of Wallington county grammar school. He is certainly a very distinguished ex-pupil and I am delighted that the school is doing so well.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Is not the real problem in educational standards that the gap between the children who achieve and those who do not is growing wider and wider? Will the Secretary of State confirm that last year the number of young people leaving our schools with no qualifications at all rose to one in 12? Will she accept that that is a result of Government policies? The Government are prepared to give opportunities and resources to the few, but ignore the needs of the rest of the students.
    Mrs. Shephard: Of course there is always more to do on standards. I advise the hon. Lady to read carefully about Ofsted's work in the various reports that we have had this year. They make it absolutely clear that there is no simple correlation between resources and pupil achievement. I remind her—though not necessarily blame her, because she is a fairly new Member of Parliament— that we would not know anything about the performance of the education system had it been left to Labour Members, who opposed every measure that we put in place to measure it.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one sure way of reducing education standards in schools is by encouraging students to leave at the age of 16? Is not that exactly what would happen if new Labour's teenage tax was introduced—that every family with children would lose at least £560 every year?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is indeed extraordinary that the contribution of Labour Members to encouraging young people to stay on at school is to tax their parents.

    Schools (Writing Materials)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the overall provision of writing materials in schools in the United Kingdom. [29105]
    Mr. Forth: We have provided an extra £774 million for education this year. The provision of writing materials, as for all resources in schools, is a matter for individual local authorities and for schools.
    Mr. Skinner: Have we reached the sorry state of affairs in our schools when literally thousands of schools are having to run jumble sales and all the rest of it to provide books and other materials? Is the Minister aware that in Tideswell in Derbyshire, for example, local firms now have to sponsor the supply of toilet paper for the school lavatory? Is he aware that some toddlers in Jamaica have clubbed together their pocket money to send pencils to kids in another school in Derbyshire? After 17 years of Tory rule, a third-world country is bailing out school kids in Britain.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically reflective and considered question. Surely that is a classic example of the utter failure of Derbyshire local education authority to order its priorities so as to provide the most basic materials to its schools. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go back to his constituency and stir up his constituents to demand that the local education authority reorders its priorities, stops spending money on such things as nuclear-free zones and gets some pencils into the classroom.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that schools that have been given grant-maintained status are finding it extremely effective to manage their own affairs, and that in very few, if any, cases are there examples such as that quoted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Has not grant-maintained status, in giving schools the opportunity to run themselves and manage their own budgets, been a great bonus? The examples of Kettleshulme St. James school and the Mottram St. Andrew junior school in my constituency— which have had to have extensions since they were granted grant-maintained status—prove what I have said.
    Mr. Forth: I readily pay tribute to the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency, which prove beyond peradventure his point about grant-maintained schools. When we allow schools to order their priorities, rarely if ever do they get into the type of difficulties alleged by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—which must be laid squarely at the door of the local education authority for failing to provide enough money to its schools. By contrast, if we direct funds at grant-maintained schools and allow them to order their priorities, they have all the materials that they need in their classrooms.

    Secondary School League Tables
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations she has received in favour of the publication of secondary school league tables in the past 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [29106]
    Mrs. Gillan: We receive many representations on school performance tables. Research shows that more than three quarters of parents choosing a secondary school for their children support the publication of such information.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does not the Government's near obsession with league tables create a great deal of difficulty for those who are socially and perhaps also educationally deprived? Is this not a very divisive policy? Is the Minister aware of the recent concerns of the national association of therapeutic education, which stated that an ever increasing number of children have been marginalised from the mainstream system? Is not this truly a divisive policy that has no place in a civilised society?
    Mrs. Gillan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that he will just have to get used to the idea that performance tables are here to stay. There are clear expectations among parents, students and the public that such information will continue to be provided. I cannot understand why some people wish to deny parents valuable information about their children's progress. Secondary performance tables inform choice, strengthen accountability and raise standards for 16 to 18-year-olds.
    Mr. Stephen: I welcome performance tables, but is it not remarkable that although the Government now provide more money per pupil than ever before in the nation's history, education results in so many parts of the country have been so poor? Could it be something to do with the fact that although central Government have to take the responsibility, education is delivered mainly by left-wing education authorities, which are more interested in social engineering than in education?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The purpose of performance tables is that they enable us to study the progress made in schools so that we can ascertain where performance needs to be improved. Indeed, we recently consulted on the 1996 tables, and decisions on the new basis of the tables with probably very minor changes will be made in June.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is not it a fact that crude league tables such as those supported by the Government are not only useless but possibly misleading if they ignore value added? They certainly do not help parents to make informed choices; indeed, they mislead parents into making uninformed choices. Does not the Minister recognise that, useful though league tables are, we must ensure that full information if provided to parents, as the Labour party has always advocated? Does she accept that if they do not provide full information, the tables proposed by the Government will be as useful as those that would put the Minister in the same league as Sally Gunnell for running a 440 yd hurdle race?
    Mrs. Gillan: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is way behind the debate. He should appreciate that, as I said, league tables are here to stay. The debate is not about whether tables should be published but about what information should be published and how. Independent research on league tables carried out by audience selection showed that more than half of parents of five to 16-year-olds thought it important to have

    289
    performance information. More than three quarters of parents choosing a secondary school, including some Opposition Front Benchers, support the publication of information in performance tables and find the tables helpful when making their choices. Opposition Front Benchers prove that with their choice of schools for their own children.

    School Leaving Age
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to alter the school leaving age. [29108]
    Mr. Paice: None.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interests of children in my constituency of Cleethorpes who stay on at school after 16 will be severely harmed if the parental right to child benefit is removed?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend follows other colleagues in pointing out the absurdity of the Labour party's recent proposal. Under this Government, if a young person of 16 decides to stay on at school to do a two-year A-level course, the parents continue to receive child benefit, which means about £1,000 going into the family household budget. Labour proposes to confiscate about £1,000 from every A-level student's family. How does Labour equate that with improving opportunities for young people?
    Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government are trying to reduce through the back door the school leaving age for tens of thousands of young children to as young as 13. Will the Minister confirm that his Department and the Department of Health have written to every employers' organisation in Britain, asking them to agree to a change in the law that would allow employers to employ children as young as 13 in place of adults for up to 20 hours per week during term time? That is despite the fact that, only four weeks ago, a company in the Prime Minister's constituency was fined £12,500 for employing children under the age of 14 in a factory. Will the Minister give a commitment to withdraw this slave labour proposal and ensure that children as young as 13 remain in school and are not employed by unscrupulous employers for £1 an hour or less?
    Mr. Paice: There is no proposal whatsoever that children should be taken out of school as slave labour, or for any of the other ridiculous assumptions that the hon. Gentleman made. The Government propose in a consultation document to float the idea that young children aged from 14 could spend up to one day a week either in the workplace or a further education college. [Interruption.] I am surprised that Opposition Members are barracking me, because there is very little difference between our proposal and what appears in Labour's own policy document, "Aiming Higher", which states:
    "Those who are significantly disaffected with the school system should be offered the opportunity to follow part of their studies in FE colleges".
    That is precisely along the lines that we are proposing.

Royal Assent
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Act 1996

Reserve Forces Act 1996

National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act 1996

Police Act 1996

Industrial Tribunals Act 1996

Employment Rights Act 1996

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the House to summon to the Bar a British citizen who is also a European Commissioner, so that we can hold Commissioner Kinnock to account for the way in which he is seeking to undermine our efforts to lift the export ban on British beef?
Madam Speaker: There is no way in which the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests can take place.
Mr. Keith Mans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on an event that took place during Question Time this afternoon. When the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked a question, I clearly saw the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) standing next to your Chair to check on what the hon. Gentleman said. When, for once, the hon. Member for Oldham, West seemed to be in tune with new Labour, the hon. Member for Hartlepool slipped out without having the courtesy to listen to the Minister's reply. Is that in order?
Madam Speaker: I can see that it is time that the House went into recess and we all went home.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has any advance been made on the balance of education and employment questions? I know that the matter has been raised on previous occasions, but the imbalance between education and employment—and even within education—is apparent. For example, we had no opportunity today to talk about higher education, a vital part of the future of this country, which has suffered massive cuts in its budget which are affecting universities.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House know that Question Time is operated on a ballot system. I noticed today that only two questions were related to employment matters—Questions 1 and 17. I hoped to reach the latter, but we were very slow today in getting through the Order Paper. I hope that hon. Members do better in future, and we may then be able to have a wide variety of questions that suit all hon. Members and all interests in the House.

Civil Service
[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 27–1) on the Role of the Civil Service, the Government's response, incorporated in The Civil Service: Taking forward Continuity and Change (Cm 2748), and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Public Service Committee on 16th January, 7th February and 28th February 1996 (House of Commons Papers Nos. 147, 213 and 265 of Session 1995–96).]
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.33 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government's policies on the Civil Service, as set out in the White Papers 'Continuity and Change' and 'Taking Forward Continuity and Change', including the promulgation of the Civil Service Code from 1st January 1996, the establishment of the Senior Civil Service from 1st April 1996 and the strengthening of the role of the Civil Service Commissioners in maintaining the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit in recruitment; also welcomes the Government's policy with regard to the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services, with the proposed safeguards to protect the quality of Civil Service recruitment; and looks forward to the intended publication in July of a White Paper on training and development in the Civil Service, associated with the further development by the Civil Service College of a number of partnerships with the private sector which will enhance its status in the provision of courses for those working in the public and private sector.
The motion has been tabled to enable the House to consider the main elements of the Government's proposals for the civil service and to clarify some of our plans for its future development.
The motion is in three parts. The first concerns the latest developments following the White Papers "Continuity and Change" and "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", that is, the promulgation of the civil service code, the establishment of the senior civil service and the enhanced role of the civil service commissioners. The second part covers our intentions regarding the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services, and the arrangements that are proposed to protect the quality of civil service recruitment. The agency is more commonly known by its acronym RAS. The third part relates to our forthcoming White Paper on training and development in the civil service, and the further development by the Civil Service College of partnerships with the private sector.
Mr. Alan Howarth: The Chancellor has identified the first two themes as "Continuity and Change" and privatisation. There is intense dismay about proposals relating to Horticulture Research International, a magnificent scientific research establishment in my constituency. Although it has been subjected to endless processes of reform and restructuring, especially during the 1980s, it has been allowed to stabilise since 1990, and has performed every task required of it to the highest standard. For reasons of empty ideology, however—this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel—its privatisation is now being proposed. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to ensure that no such destructive act proceeds?
Mr. Freeman: I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I shall look into the proposals in greater detail, and draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for such matters.
Let me begin with the civil service code that came into force on 1 January this year. It sets out in a few paragraphs the constitutional framework of the civil service, and the values that every civil servant is expected to uphold. It forms part of the terms and conditions of employment of every civil servant, and considerable efforts have been made to publicise it, including steps intended to ensure that every civil servant has his or her own copy.
There are several reasons why the House should welcome the code's promulgation. Above all, its introduction has served powerfully to reaffirm the values that underpin the civil service, to which the Government remain committed. They are integrity, political impartiality, selection and promotion on merit and accountability to Parliament through Ministers.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I was pleased to hear the Chancellor enumerate those qualities. Can he tell us why—according to a book by David Butler—when it came to deciding the position relating to the poll tax, the permanent secretary involved was simply told, "This is in our political interest"? If that is the Government's attitude to the civil service, is it not surprising that we do not come up with more bizarre answers than we do now?
Mr. Freeman: It is very important for the civil service not only to act in the best interests of an independent service with full integrity, loyal to its political masters of the day, but to be seen to be able to serve Administrations of different political colours. That is the test: whether civil servants in any particular Department can continue through a change in Administration, and serve the new policies of an incoming Administration of whatever political colour.
The code does not assert any new values—it is not intended to—but the fact of its introduction has sent a clear signal about the importance that the traditional civil service values continue to have. Those values derive much of their day-to-day force from the fact that they command near-universal support. Thus general support for the code is clearly important, because the civil service is not the exclusive property of the Government of the day; it is a permanent and impartial service on which the Government of the day have, so to speak, the lease rather than the freehold. In other words, the civil service must command the confidence not only of the Government, but of potential future Administrations.
The code contains an important innovation. In addition to internal appeals procedures run by Departments, there is now a right of appeal to the independent civil service commissioners. Civil servants can now appeal when they believe that they are being required to act in a way which is illegal, improper or unethical, which breaches constitutional convention or a professional code, which may involve maladministration or which otherwise breaches the code or raises a fundamental issue of conscience.
Mr. John Garrett: Such an appeal, however, can be routed only through the head of the Department in which the civil servant works. The civil

295
servant must first make the point to that person. Therefore, there is a chance of retaliation against someone who protests about the illegal or improper activities of a senior civil servant or Minister, which is likely to be recorded on his or her personnel record.
Mr. Freeman: That is a gloomy and negative assessment. It is perfectly right and proper that, in the first place, the civil servant should have the responsibility of reporting his or her concern through the chain of command to the permanent secretary of the Department, but then there is an automatic and unamendable right of appeal to the civil service commissioners. That right can be exercised as quickly as the individual complaining deems appropriate. It is entirely appropriate that the permanent secretary of the Department should be aware of the concerns—concerns that are in some cases, perhaps, justifiably held by the individual—and should know of them first.
It is essential that the arrangements should be credible, and it is clear from our consultation last year that we have a provision that commands widespread confidence. As a succinct and widely available statement of the standards asked of civil servants, the code enables the public to know what they should expect of the civil service.
The creation of the senior civil service is another reform that has commanded widespread support. As the name implies, the senior civil service covers the senior staff—that is, former grades 1 to 5.
The White Papers, "Continuity and Change" and "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", set out the Government's broad objectives for the senior civil service, which came into being on 1 April.
The new senior civil servants have an important role to play in providing leadership, fostering a sense of unity and shared purpose and sustaining key civil service values at a time when most responsibilities are devolved to individual Departments and agencies.
Senior civil service staff will be managed by Departments within a broad common framework. That framework has a number of important new features. First, there are more flexible performance-related pay structures than existed before. That gives Departments more scope to pay people according to their individual circumstances, including the difficulty of their jobs, and to reward according to their individual contribution.
Secondly, we have cut out unnecessary jobs and hierarchies and abolished the old inflexible senior grading structure, which restricted Departments unnecessarily in settling the way in which they organised themselves. The resulting streamlining will lead to an overall reduction of well over 20 per cent. in the number of senior posts.
Thirdly, senior civil servants, like other senior managers, are moving on to personal, formal written contracts. Those set out more clearly than before, in writing, the terms and conditions of employment for senior civil servants, ensuring that people understand properly their rights and obligations.
Fourthly, we have developed a new senior appraisal system. It ensures that our senior performance management systems match best practice elsewhere in the public and private sectors.
296
Fifthly, we have increased the use of open competition for filling senior vacancies, both across Departments and more widely. So, in recent years, around 30 per cent. of vacancies at the top three levels of the civil service have been openly advertised outside the service, including, in the past year, six posts at permanent secretary level.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Two factors concern me. The first is the performance-related pay of senior civil servants, who after all are closely allied to the thinking of the Government of the day. The performance-related pay might be related not just to their ability but to how far they satisfy certain political considerations, which is a serious matter. Secondly, on the fixed-term contracts, if we proceed along those lines, senior civil servants will be under even greater pressure. Those are matters that concern the House and anyone else who is concerned with good administration, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to reflect on them.
Mr. Freeman: It is important that performance pay— it is modest in relation to basic salary, and certainly in relation to what is paid in the private sector—is determined on merit and performance, not on political loyalty. Civil servants should have loyalty to their Ministers, but should not portray their political affiliations, nor should performance pay be in any way related to political favours that may or may not be deemed to have been performed. That is an extremely important principle. Performance pay is essentially determined by civil servants themselves—ultimately by the permanent secretary—and not by the Minister. It would not be appropriate if it were seen as a Minister giving rewards for political favours. That would be widely unpopular in the civil service and it would be wrong.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for arriving a little late for his speech. On performance-related pay, how many senior civil servants leave the service early for the private sector? If we are losing a steady number, is that not an argument for more PRP—for making it more flexible and a bigger element of basic pay, so that we can appropriately reward civil servants who make the sacrifice of staying in public life and avoid losing the best talent to the private sector?
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will agree that there has been a remarkable change in the level of civil service pay so that it is much more commensurate with private sector pay. There is no great desire, as there was a decade ago, to leave the service because of pay. Of course, there are civil servants whom we would like to retain who leave for substantially better-paid work, but I would not describe that as a main feature of the movement of civil servants out of the public sector.
We have lost, or will lose, up to 20 per cent. of the senior civil service in most Departments through restructuring and opening up and making more flexible the previously monolithic structure of some Departments. Some civil servants have taken well-earned early retirement, where some may pursue other jobs. Some have gone to the private sector. I do not have detailed figures. The introduction of PRP is appropriate in modern life, whether in the public or private sector, to reward not political loyalty but effort, achievement, leadership and efficiency.
Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Freeman: If my hon. Friend will allow it, I should like to make some progress. I have a fair amount to say, but I shall try to compress it in the interests of the debate.
We have committed ourselves to a renewed emphasis on developing talent. We want to equip our senior people and their potential successors so that they contribute effectively to their jobs and develop satisfying and well-planned careers to meet the Government's and the individual's aspirations. We have already announced our plans to publish a White Paper on that during the summer.
The senior civil service is now well suited to play a vital role both in maintaining traditional civil service values and in driving through necessary change. It will continue to provide clear-sighted and impartial policy advice to Government. It will continue to manage the delivery of a wide range of services to the private sector and the general public. However, it will do so in a way that leads to still greater efficiency and in accordance with the principles of the citizens charter, which will continue to raise standards of service to the customer across the whole of public service. We are confident that the senior civil service, like the wider civil service, will continue to be recognised as being among the world's best as we enter the next millennium. I was going to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), but I see that he is talking to a higher authority.
I shall now deal with the enhanced role of the civil service commissioners, brought into effect by the continuity and change White Papers. The commissioners' primary role is to maintain the key principles of fair and open competition and of selection on merit in relation to recruitment to the civil service. The Government have made clear their commitment to those key principles, but we have gone further than lip service: we have strengthened the commissioners' independence and powers in relation to the regulatory framework for civil service recruitment, to ensure that the key principles are upheld in practice.
The main enhancements to the role of the commissioners were summarised in the White Paper "Taking Forward Continuity and Change". The civil service commissioners became responsible for the interpretation of the principle of fair and open competition on merit for all civil service recruitment, not only for the most senior recruitment. They have issued a simple but binding recruitment code for Departments and agencies, to replace the former Minister's rules. They audit Departments' and agencies' recruitment systems against the requirements of the recruitment code. They publish an annual report. Their report for 1995–96, the first to cover their enhanced responsibilities, will be published shortly.
The commissioners continue to approve each appointment from outside the civil service to the new senior civil service and to take a direct part in senior competitions.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will the Government consider further extending the role of the civil service commissioners beyond examining recruitment across the range of civil service employees?
Mr. Freeman: That is a novel idea, on which I should like to reflect. I suspect that my hon. Friend is suggesting an extension of the commissioners' role in relation to those who are not technically civil servants but who serve in the public sector. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to develop that argument during the debate. It is an interesting idea, but the commissioners' role is, as their name implies, currently restricted to the civil service.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the Minister responds sympathetically to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), because there is a wide area of the public service to which the experience of the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners could be extended if it had wider public service responsibilities—quangos, and the inspectorate of education, whose staff are Crown servants but not civil servants, to name only two examples.
Mr. Freeman: I understand that one of our main daily newspapers describes contributions to debates by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and myself as sleep-inducing and boring. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] The right hon. Gentleman and I are perhaps in a minority of two in believing that not to be the case.
The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is a constructive idea, which I would not want to dismiss. We should return to that. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate. Certainly, in relation to quangos and non-departmental public bodies—that is, bodies without a Minister in charge—there is a very strong case for looking afresh at some of the principles that we apply, especially on recruitment and promotion, so I take the idea seriously.
In addition, the First Commissioner now has a role in relation to senior internal appointments, and attends the senior appointments selection committee. He is able to comment on the choice between open competition and internal appointment in relation to selection on merit, and on the development of senior selection processes.
The new regime introduced in 1995 clarified the roles of Departments and agencies and of Recruitment and Assessment Services. It has now been made clear that it is for the head of each Department or agency to ensure that the key recruitment principles are followed in practice. Departments and agencies are required to publish information about their recruitment systems.
RAS has had no formal role in regulating civil service recruitment, although of course it adheres to the commissioners' requirements in the services that it provides. RAS now focuses entirely on its role as a provider of high-quality recruitment and related services. That is in line with the principle recommended by the 1994 review, that the roles of service provider, that is, RAS, and the regulator, that is, the Departments and the civil service commissioners, should be separate.
Mr. Garrett: What is the justification for the retention of the administrative fast-stream entry in an organisation that is now supposed to be increasingly technocratic and managerial?
Mr. Freeman: The fast stream is designed primarily to recruit graduates into the civil service. It does not guarantee—
Mr. Garrett: They are not all graduates.
Mr. Freeman: No. I said "primarily". They are primarily graduates. It is a very competitive market. There is not a fast track to promotion, to permanent secretary level. At the early stages of the introduction of individuals—indeed, I suspect that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, would be able to answer in a far more personal capacity because he was probably a product of that system—
Mr. Garrett: Without justification.
Mr. Freeman: I was not seeking to dodge the question. I am merely pointing out that we have some personal experience on the Treasury Bench. I believe that there is justification for the fast stream, simply because it attracts, from memory, about 7,000 to 8,000 applications a year for perhaps 200 jobs, in a very competitive graduate pool. It does so because it provides a tailor-made system of recruitment and pays special attention to those highly qualified individuals.
Mr. Garrett indicated dissent.
Mr. Freeman: Of course they are. They are for the most part graduates, who, if they did not join the civil service, would be competed for in the private sector.
I now refer to the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services. RAS was established as a next steps agency to provide services to Departments and agencies on a repayment basis. It is widely regarded for its recruitment and assessment capabilities, and is perhaps best known for its role in the recruitment of high-calibre graduates to the civil service fast stream, the future "high fliers" in the civil service, but without any guarantee of promotion.
The agency has done well. With no tied business, it has to compete in a dynamic marketplace against Departments' in-house teams as well as against private sector recruitment companies. With the continuing development of a range of services designed to meet the changing needs of customers, it has established a reputation as a centre of excellence and it has been able to increase its overall market share of civil service recruitment, from 7 per cent. at the start to 12 per cent. in 1995–96—RAS accounts for only 12 per cent. of recruitment into the civil service.
The opportunity for RAS to compete in wider public and private sector markets will come at a time when companies are beginning to place their graduate recruitment in the hands of outside specialist recruitment firms. RAS will be especially well placed to exploit that trend. Freedom to develop fully the potential of the business will enhance the range of services and the value for money that it can offer to customers, including existing customers and Departments. Therefore, we are confident that privatisation will also give best value for money for the taxpayer.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Minister is well aware that that proposal was heavily defeated in the House of Lords—I think by 120 votes to 64. In response to the defeat, the Lord Privy Seal said that
300
the Government would bring forward proposals taking that into account. What changes have been made since the debate in the House of Lords?
Mr. Freeman: I had planned to deal with that issue later in my speech, but I shall deal with it now. I have been called to appear before the relevant Committee of another place, which is looking at the public sector and its services, including Recruitment and Assessment Services. I look forward to doing that after the Whitsun recess. The hon. Gentleman must concede that neither this House nor the other place has had as comprehensive an opportunity as today to consider the reasons for our suggestion of transferring ownership of RAS to the private sector. We are now doing that. When I attend the Committee of another place, I shall expand on that in even greater detail.
I look forward to seeing the conclusions of the report of that Committee, which I understand will be available before the summer recess—and before we complete any arrangements for the transfer of ownership of RAS. I give my assurance to this place and to the other place that the observations of the Committee will be taken into account and carefully considered. If the hon. Gentleman listened to the Lords debate, or read the report of it, he will have come to the conclusion that the arguments in it did not bear a tremendous relationship to the realities of the new situation, post-1995, when the principles governing recruitment into the civil service and the regulation of that process have been removed from RAS.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Minister saying that the noble Lord who led for the Government— who made two lengthy speeches—was incompetent and did not put forward the proper arguments? As I understand it, he put forward the arguments and a distinguished collection of Lords—if I may so boldly call them that—comprehensively undermined them and, as a result, the Government were defeated by a vast majority. If the Committee comes forward with proposals, the Government ought to take them very seriously and delay their project.
Mr. Freeman: I am the Minister responsible, and this is the first opportunity that I have had to account to the House—this is ministerial accountability. I am explaining the policy and the reasons for it in detail. I look forward to giving evidence to the Committee and to its deliberations. Any conclusions of the Committee that are relevant to the privatisation of RAS will be carefully considered. I give the House and the Committee an assurance that I shall treat the deliberations seriously. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a Committee of this place or another place should control the policies of Government. It is this House and the other place that must pass specific conclusions on specific legislative proposals.
Mr. Derek Foster: Would it not be sensible to defer any progress on the privatisation until the Select Committee has given the Chancellor the benefit of its full deliberations?
Mr. Freeman: It depends what the right hon. Gentleman means by "progress". I assume that the relevant Select Committee will report before the summer

301
recess and that I shall have the opportunity to study its recommendations and perhaps even discuss the matter again. Therefore, we shall not conclude the process until that has occurred. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman places particular stress on the word "conclude". He will know that it takes many months of careful planning—I shall comment on the timetable in a moment—to conclude a complicated privatisation. That process should, and will, continue and it will not be concluded until the Select Committee has reported—so long as that occurs before the summer recess.
Mr. Gunnell: Will we debate the matter again in the House before the process is concluded? The privatisation announcement was made in an answer to a written question, and this is the first opportunity that hon. Members have had to discuss it. It is a highly controversial matter, and it is not good to debate it immediately before a recess, when few hon. Members are able to participate in the debate. I believe that we should debate the matter in full in the House.
Mr. Freeman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns: he has expressed them very clearly. The matter does not require legislation, as Opposition Front Benchers know and understand. We are debating the matter properly today. If the Opposition call another proper debate on the subject—as occurred with Her Majesty's Stationery Office—I shall be happy to respond. We have debated the issue three times and we shall debate it properly now. 1 am trying to explain the reasons for our decision. I believe that we should clear away some of the less rational comments regarding the process, look at the issues in an unemotional manner—perhaps in a boring fashion—and come to a considered conclusion.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I apologise again to my right hon. Friend for my absence earlier. We look forward to seeing the Opposition Front Bench, as represented by the archetype of new Labour, participate constructively in the debate. I am sure that Opposition Front Benchers will not opt for the reflex anti-privatisation reaction that we expect from Labour Back Benchers.
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to his contribution during the debate, which I am sure, as always, will be based on a wealth of experience.
RAS has already had some success in its exploration of wider public sector markets. The Government believe that freedom from public sector operating constraints will allow it to exploit and develop fully its considerable expertise with new customers, including private sector customers. That is why we announced last November that RAS should be privatised. Since that announcement, we have advertised the potential sale of the business and received completed questionnaires from interested bidders. Those expressions of interest have undergone an initial sift and I intend to send a detailed information memorandum describing the business to bidders who have pre-qualified, inviting them to submit indicative bids for the business.
The information memorandum will be issued shortly. I intend to place a copy of the letter inviting bids and the information memorandum—omitting commercially sensitive and personal information—in the Libraries of
302
each House. I shall write to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland about the matter as soon as I can. If the memorandum is issued during the recess, I shall send him a letter detailing the steps that I have taken.
The important civil service reforms that have been carried through in recent years have given rise to concerns in another place that key public service values may be under threat. Those concerns were voiced in the debate on the civil service last year, which considered the report on the role of the civil service by the former Treasury and Civil Service Committee as well as the Government's Command Paper "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", which accepted most of the Committee's conclusions. On that occasion, we made clear our continuing commitment to the principles laid down in the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the 19th century, which underpin the integrity and the quality of our civil service. I have already restated that commitment today.
Nevertheless, the opinion recently expressed in the other place on our proposals for the future of RAS was clearly based on that same concern. It was suggested that privatisation would remove a key safeguard of public service standards and risk a decline in the quality of recruitment procedures, and so of recruits themselves. I shall be appearing before their Lordships' Public Service Select Committee shortly after the recess, and I look forward to receiving the Committee's report—which I understand is expected before the summer recess—on its findings regarding the privatisation of RAS. When that Committee reports, I shall consider its recommendations with care and respond in due course. Meanwhile, we are adhering to the privatisation timetable, which is aimed at a successful completion later in the summer.
I want to explain why the concerns are misplaced, not least because of the safeguards that we are introducing to guarantee the integrity and quality of civil service recruitment undertaken by RAS after privatisation.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Minister agree that there is already a great problem, in that 1,706 maladministration complaints have been filed with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in the past year? Is there not an increasing correlation between departmental maladministration and the loss of 32,000 civil servants since 1993? How can quality be achieved when staff are put under amazing pressure through job cuts?
Mr. Freeman: I do not accept that there is any correlation between examples of maladministration and civil service staff numbers. I accept that there is great pressure on the civil service, as there is on just about every private sector company. We live in a much more competitive world, and the House and the taxpayer demand proper value for money and control of public expenditure.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not that nonsense? The specific terms laid down for the creation of the Child Support Agency specified that civil servants should not normally be recruited, but outside people with no experience should be recruited—many of whom are on shift work of no more than four and a half hours and are badly paid. If the Minister seriously believes that that produces quality work, I suggest that he reads carefully not only criticisms

303
of the CSA but the continuing complaints that every Member of Parliament has about the agency's ability to deal with the problems that confront it every day.
Mr. Freeman: I submit that those problems are to do with procedures, not the number of civil servants employed.
Mr. Derek Foster: I am totally surprised that the Minister dismisses the parliamentary ombudsman's criticism, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) referred. When I tackled the Parliamentary Secretary in a debate only a short time ago, he dismissed the argument in the same way. He felt that nothing in the report underpinned what had been said in the press release. I took the opportunity to write to the ombudsman, and he reaffirmed his comments in the press release and said that he had all the evidence required to underpin his criticism.
Mr. Freeman: No one disagrees that the duties of a particular Department must be discharged with the appropriate number of civil servants, but I do not accept the contention that the reduction in their total number correlates to the number of complaints of maladministration, for which there are many reasons.
Mr. Connarty: As a member of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, I can tell the Minister that many permanent secretaries have appeared before it—and when we ask about maladministration, it comes down to pressure on staff. When staff make a mistake, they do not have time to find out how it was made, who made it and how it can be corrected. Pressure is created by lack of numbers, and even changes to the system have not relieved that pressure. Will the Minister accept that point, before he rushes headlong down the road of further cuts and maladministration?
Mr. Freeman: One of the factors relating to the responsibilities of a specific Department and the way in which it discharges its duties is staff numbers. Many other factors, however, are involved: the procedures, the training and whether the right balance between public sector and contracted-out functions has been struck, to name but three. The general contention that there is a correlation of some kind between the number of cases of maladministration—1,706 was the figure cited—and the decline in the number of civil servants is not sustainable.
The concerns expressed in another place tend to imply that our proposals—to privatise RAS—will change the rales governing civil service recruitment and the responsibilities for ensuring that they are followed. They will not. The rules, based on the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit, are rightly regarded as cornerstones of civil service integrity. Those rules are embodied in the civil service Order in Council and set out in the recruitment code of the independent civil service commissioners. Departments and agencies are responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the code are met.
The commissioners audit their recruitment policies against those requirements. RAS has only an operational role as a provider of recruitment, assessment and
304
consultancy services to civil service customers who choose to use it. It retains no links with the regulatory functions of the commissioners. Those arrangements are in no way affected by the privatisation of RAS.
It has also been suggested that our proposals may affect the quality of recruitment, in particular recruitment to the civil service fast stream. In their response to the review of the fast stream, published in July 1994, the Government announced their intention to retain a servicewide fast stream scheme aimed at recruiting the very best graduates. The privatisation of RAS will not change that. We propose to convey to the new private sector owner of RAS the exclusive contracts to provide fast stream customers with the recruitment services that they require.
It might be helpful to the House if I describe the safeguards designed to guarantee the integrity and quality of the fast stream selection process after the sale.
Most importantly, there will continue to be close civil service involvement at all stages. We have stipulated that actual selection of candidates must remain in the hands of civil servants. The civil service will continue to provide assessors at the civil service selection boards—the main assessment stage of the process—and panel members for final selection boards. They, not RAS, will decide the success or failure of candidates.
The main fast stream contract is being drawn up in consultation with the customer consortium of fast stream employing Departments and is designed to ensure that they retain at least the same control over the process and tests used in their competitions after the sale as they currently enjoy. The Office of Public Service will work with customer departments and RAS to ensure that obligations are met and that the day-to-day operation of the contract runs smoothly. Those running specialist fast stream schemes are also involved in the work to create separate contracts that will meet their particular requirements. Customers—Government Departments—will also be closely consulted in the selection of the new owner.
The detail of all stages of the selection processes will be set out in the contract schedules. In his recent independent audit of the fast stream, Professor Bartram commended RAS's approach of treating those processes as dynamic rather than fixed, and it will be important for the processes to continue to change and evolve in response to customer needs. However, all changes will need approval from those customers. It will not be possible for the new owner to seek to take short cuts, therefore, in an effort to reduce costs. Nor would the new owner want to do so. We shall select a new owner with a clear commitment to making a success of those prestigious contracts and to maintaining the reputation that RAS has established for its leading-edge public sector recruitment and assessment work. The new owner can be expected to put greater effort into maintaining positive and productive relationships with civil service customers.
The Government will retain ownership of the tests and exercises used in the fast stream selection process, including those developed by the new owner for fast stream use. The tests for use in each competition will continue to be approved by customers. Civil servants will still be responsible for preparing background exercises based on civil service work. Under the terms of the intellectual property licence to be granted to the new owner, the tests will be strictly protected while current. Use of old tests elsewhere will be subject to provisions

305
designed to ensure that the integrity and efficacy of the fast stream schemes is in no way compromised. Again, customers are closely involved in the work on the licence, as well as the contractual terms relating to that area.
The staff of RAS have shown great commitment in maintaining the highest standards of service, while also working to prepare for privatisation. We of course attach the utmost importance to ensuring that they are treated fairly and that their rights are fully respected in the process. Arrangements have been made to keep staff as closely involved and informed as possible. We intend to publish the short-list of bidders in due course, so that staff representatives can have the opportunity to meet prospective purchasers and discuss their plans with them. As has been the case with other transfers to the private sector, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply at the point of sale to preserve all terms and conditions.
I can also state that we would not wish to take forward proposals from bidders which include the utilisation of offices outside Basingstoke or its immediate vicinity for the head office operations of RAS. That will provide reassurances to staff.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the sale is conducted on a basis that not only maintains and enhances the standing of RAS as a high-quality provider of recruitment and assessment services, but guarantees that the integrity of the recruitment that RAS carries out for civil service customers is maintained. The provisions that I have outlined will meet those objectives.
I shall conclude by dealing with the Civil Service College, which has aroused a good deal of attention and misplaced concern in recent weeks and months.
Mr. Adam Ingram: I do not know whether the Minister has seen the four questions on today's Order Paper, relating to the prior options review and the future of the public sector research establishments. As he is responsible for the civil service, and as thousands of civil servants will be affected by those announcements, which have not yet been made available to the House, does he share my concern that the morale of those civil servants will go into major decline and that the announcements will be seen as an attack on the science base in the United Kingdom? Why are those announcements being made by way of written answers and not by way of debate in the Chamber?
Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the prior options process has now been in operation for a good number of years. It is a routine method of examining whether a certain function should remain in the public sector and, having decided that it should remain in the public sector, whether any particular aspect of that service needs to be market-tested. I shall certainly look into the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I am grateful to him for reminding me of them. I was not personally aware of them or briefed—
Mr. Ingram: Why?
Mr. Freeman: As the motion in the name of the Prime Minister makes clear, I am dealing with certain specific issues. If the hon. Gentleman would like an answer, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will seek to address that point when he replies to the debate.
306
I conclude by dealing with the Civil Service College. For more than 25 years, the Civil Service College has provided training and development for civil servants, particularly those at senior levels. As well as training more than 30,000 students a year on more than 500 different courses, the college makes an important contribution to the articulation and preservation of the values enshrined in the civil service code. In addition, the college is highly regarded around the world and receives a steady stream of eminent foreign visitors.
The college is an executive agency within the Office of Public Service, and as such, its strategy and operation have recently been reviewed. The review of the Civil Service College has been designed to ensure that the college achieves its full potential for developing the best traditions and the international reputation of the civil service. A wide range of options has been considered, including continuing as now in the public sector and partial or full transfer of ownership to the private sector. The Government concluded that the college should proceed within the public sector to develop new activities in partnership with the private sector.
The Government will ensure that the essential link between the civil service and the Civil Service College is preserved. The college will build on and extend already established and successful partnerships, which include the delivery of a public sector MBA in partnership with Cranfield university and Manchester business school, the delivery of courses on the private finance initiative with Price Waterhouse and a project in the Czech Republic together with a Dutch private sector partner.
New partnerships currently under negotiation cover a variety of training courses, seminars, conferences and consultancy assignments. With them, the Civil Service College will have the means and resources to extend and enhance the quality of the services that it provides. What the Government are seeking to achieve with those further developments is the continued development of training for civil servants, particularly those with professional and senior management responsibilities, and that the college should become a centre of excellence in public sector management and reform, recognised in Britain and worldwide.
Later this summer—before the recess—I hope to publish a White Paper on training and development in the civil service, dealing not only generally with enhancements and improvement to those processes, but specifically with Investors in People, and commitments that the public sector should be making to support that initiative.
In conclusion, the motion covers the Government's intentions for the future of the civil service. It represents a package of important measures: the promulgation of the civil service code, the strengthening of the role of the civil service commissioners, the development of the senior civil service, the privatisation of RAS, with the necessary safeguards to protect the quality and principles of civil service recruitment, and the forthcoming White Paper on training and development in the civil service, associated with the further development by the Civil Service College of a number of partnerships with the private sector. I commend those proposals to the House.
4.19 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

307
'welcomes the statement in the White Paper "Continuity and Change" that "the Government recognises that the Civil Service is not the property of any single administration", and commends the Government for constructing consensus around the Civil Service code; regrets the Government's refusal to manage other Civil Service reform by seeking consensus or properly consulting staff; recognises the widespread feeling of job insecurity and "initiative fatigue" throughout the Civil Service; urges the Government not to proceed so late in the Parliament with the privatisation of HMSO, RAS and OHSA and to join opposition parties in seeking consensus by requesting the Public Service Committee to conduct a thorough independent review of all recent Civil Service reforms.'.
As I listened to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I realised why he has his job. I am sure that he could present the slaughter of the innocents as the most acceptable and humane of happenings.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Did you not use that line last time?
Mr. Foster: No, I did not. The hon. Gentleman is a veteran of such debates, and should remember what goes on.
We are witnessing a sea change in British politics. The Conservative party once had the reputation of being the most formidable vote-winning machine throughout Europe. Now, it is so riven by ideological division that it cannot address the concerns of the British electorate, and certainly cannot address the concerns of the civil service.
Even with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary at the heart of the Government, each one a pro-European, one-nation Tory—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confesses to be of the same persuasion—the Conservative party cannot drive to the middle ground of British politics, which is now commanded by the Leader of the Opposition and new Labour. Stung by the charges of inadequate leadership, incompetence and rift, wherever the Tory high command tries to create an impression of momentum, the inner dynamic of the party drives to the right.
Since the Deputy Prime Minister took charge less than 12 months ago, he has driven to the right on civil service issues with frenetic glee. Frustrated in his plan to sell off the Post Office, he is privatising every tiddler that moves or is stationary in the civil service. The civil service has been so privatised, market-tested and contracted out that job insecurity is widespread.
Although the President of the Board of Trade thinks that job insecurity is only a state of mind, it strikes me that Ministers and Tory Back Benchers take their own job insecurity seriously enough. Even if we grant that the President of the Board of Trade might conceivably be correct and that job insecurity is a state of mind, I remind Conservative Members that being a Tory voter is also a state of mind.
The Deputy Prime Minister dispatches his messenger the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the House to persuade us to approve the motion; yet the only reason why we are having this debate is that the Government suffered a humiliating defeat in another place. The privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Services agency needs, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, no primary or secondary legislation. The proposal was smuggled out in a written answer one Friday
308
afternoon. There would have been no debate in either House without Lord Bancroft, who initiated a debate in the other place on Friday 8 March.
Of the 20 people who spoke in that debate, only one supported the Government. Those taking part included a former Prime Minister, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary, a former Conservative Minister of Transport, a former Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, and a former Secretary of State for Education. Others included many who have reached the most senior positions in the civil and diplomatic service or in academic life. The result was that the Government lost the vote by 124 votes to 64. When I heard that news, I immediately wrote to the Chancellor asking him to initiate a debate in the Commons. Two months later, he has responded with this debate just before the recess.
In the debate in another place, Lord Bancroft referred to
"the flippant destruction of an essential pillar."
He was referring to the civil service. Lord Callaghan reminded the House that the civil service was
"not the private property of temporary, fleeting Ministers to trifle with as they please. It is the property of us all to guarantee its neutrality, independence and integrity".
He went on to suggest that Ministers
"have been so long in power that they are insensitive to the limits of their responsibilities."
He called for a royal commission or a Select Committee to review the matter, as has happened on many occasions since the great Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the mid-1850s.
Lord Jenkins doubted that it was constitutionally proper for a Government who were clinging on to power
"to force through a totally unnecessary change on a subject which goes to the heart of the delicate balance between party government and wider national interest".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 545–48.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth said that the process would deserve the most careful consideration at the best of times, but that these were post-Scott times, when the whole question of the public service ethos was under serious discussion.
I do not intend to address all the arguments for and against the privatisation of RAS. I leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), whom I might describe as my comrade in arms, who will wind up the debate. I just caution the Government that, with such distinguished opponents, whose long and deep experience should not be ignored, they should consider that they may conceivably be wrong.
Should not the Government take the advice of the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, that they should give the whole matter of civil service reform a proper airing in front of the appropriate Select Committee in this House, or perhaps even a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, so that we can proceed on these matters, which are so crucial to our unwritten British constitution, with some consensus?
Mr. Alan Duncan: On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm categorically that it is Labour party policy not to politicise the civil service any further, either by appointing a political press secretary to No. 10 Downing street, should, by any

309
prospect, Labour occupy these Benches, or by adding more political appointees to the private offices of individual Ministers?
Mr. Foster: If I wanted to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, I might say that it would be impossible to politicise the civil service any further, but I shall not be so unkind.
I now turn to the White Paper "The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change". In that White Paper, the Government seemed, like Lord Callaghan, to be seeking consensus. They said that they recognized
"that the civil service is not the property of a single Administration."
However, in my view, there is little evidence of a bipartisan approach over the past 17 years, as the Government have imposed wave upon wave of change on the civil service, with no consideration for the views of staff or of the civil service trade unions.
If the Government genuinely want consensus, let them now halt the privatisation of HMSO, RAS, the Occupational Health and Safety Agency and the Government computer centre at Chessington. Let them abandon the market testing of the administration of the principal civil service pension scheme. Let them abandon the privatisation of the public sector research establishments, a matter that was recently raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), because that would damage the continuity, independence and integrity of the science base as a provider of research information and advice in the public interest.
Labour believes that the Government have behaved with reckless irresponsibility in bequeathing two huge problems to their successor. First, the trust between the people and Government is badly fractured. For the first time since the great reforms of the mid-19th century, the probity of the British public service is in question.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, intervened earlier. In its eighth report, that Committee spoke of
"a departure from the standards of public conduct which have been established during the past 140 years."
I have an example of that. The Committee discovered, in the very citadel of Government—in the Treasury—that one arm of the Treasury had been defrauded of £250,000 by another of its arms, called Forward Catering. If that type of incompetence and fraud is occurring in the very citadel of Government, what hope have we of discovering it in the "sticks" of Government?
The Public Accounts Committee also claimed that the fragmentation of the civil service makes its job of effective scrutiny far more difficult.
The former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, said that he was
"more worried about the Civil Service than I have ever been in the 60-odd years since I first joined."
If Conservative Members do not like the words of a former Labour Prime Minister, let me remind them of the words spoken in the House by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in the debate on civil service pensions:
"In pursuing the privatisation path, particularly regarding civil service arrangements, my hon. Friend the Minister is making a grave mistake."—[Official Report, 7 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 132.]
310
Those are the words of a Conservative former Prime Minister.
The fact that the current Prime Minister was forced to set up the Nolan committee is eloquent enough comment that the public have lost confidence in Government and in Parliament to put their houses in order. Those who have read the 1,800 pages of the Scott report—which took three years to complete, at a cost of £3 million—will have had a disturbing picture of Whitehall's culture of secrecy and of the unhealthy relationship between Ministers and civil servants. Restoring trust between the people and Government is a formidable task, which will not be achieved quickly or easily.
New Labour has a very ambitious programme of constitutional and democratic renewal. It is based on four principles: first, a clearer definition and stronger protection of the public interest; secondly, greater decentralisation of Government; thirdly, greater transparency; and, fourthly, much more accountability. Our programme will, of course, include devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions, in time; a limited reform of the House of Lords; and a freedom of information Act to make central Government and their agencies and quangos more open.
Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me about a personal matter? Has he ever been approached by any of his constituents asking for an, additional, regional layer of government?
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman totally misconceives the Labour party's proposals. We do not propose to impose an additional layer of administration at all.
Mr. James Couchman: If the Labour party does not propose imposing an additional layer of government in forming regional government, which current layer of government would it do away with?
Mr. Foster: I am completely surprised that Conservative Members do not see the virtue—in what is now the most centralised Government in Europe—of pushing power further down to the people. That objective strikes me as eminently sensible and very popular. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not persuaded of its sense.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Foster: No; I shall not give way again for the time being.
I was beginning to describe my party's proposals for dealing with the breakdown of trust between the people and the Government. It is horrifying that the Conservatives are quite unaware that that breakdown is what they have achieved in their 17 years of undistinguished rule. We want to put on a statutory basis the civil service code to which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred; we want an effective register of all quango members and their financial, political and other interests; and we want new arrangements to ensure better accountability of quangos at each level on which they operate.
I deal now with the second problem that will face the new Government—the widespread demoralisation throughout the civil and public services. In an interview

311
with The Observer last November, Sir Robin Butler himself described the revolution sweeping Whitehall Departments as having sapped the morale of civil servants and created a climate of insecurity.
The recently published First Division Association MORI survey revealed that 40 per cent. of senior FDA members expected to leave the service shortly, and that morale was at a low ebb. The much more recent survey of civil servants conducted by The Observer, together with the Public Service, Tax and Commerce Union— known as the PTC—and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists found that 92 per cent. of those asked believed that civil service morale was quite or very bad, and that 73 per cent. would not advise the next generation to join the civil service.
The House will have seen the ICM poll published in The Observer on Sunday 5 May, which showed that insecurity has risen sharply in the 1990s and has spread to people of all ages, all regions and all social groups. A sense of insecurity pervades the whole of the civil service. Whenever and wherever I meet civil servants, that is uppermost in their minds.
What will Labour do to tackle low morale in the civil service? First, Labour will affirm its commitment to the public service and reassert the classic civil service values. Those values were Once shared by one-nation Conservatives, who have now been elbowed aside by the right-wing ideologues who call the shots.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: Not for the time being.
Secondly, we shall make it clear that the British civil service is a great national asset which, since the 1870s, has been a permanent and impartial instrument of all Administrations. The new Government will recognise their duty to preserve its efficiency and honesty for their successor.
Thirdly, we shall halt privatisation of the service. Fourthly, we shall place a moratorium on market testing while we institute a thorough independent review, but the drive for efficiency—[Interruption.] It is interesting that a party which has instituted so many reviews finds the notion of this review mildly amusing.
Mr. Radice: Is not the Government's problem the fact that they have done a great deal without any testing, and without thinking through the implications of what they were doing? Is that not the reason why so many of their policies have failed?
Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that intervention from my distinguished and hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the Chairman of the Public Service Select Committee.
The drive for efficiency, value for money and high-quality service will continue under Labour. However, the motivation will not be the dogmatic wish to drive down public expenditure in order to fund tax handouts. Nor will we seek efficiency gains by driving down public servants' wages and conditions of service; nor will we regard downsizing as an end in itself.
312
No one should expect the pace of change to slacken, because change is driven by international competitive forces. Change is inevitable, but it does not have to be threatening. Change does not have to mean more job insecurity. Britain will succeed only by embracing change, and managing it for the benefit of all. The Government will be judged by the success with which they prepare the country, including civil servants, to embrace change.
New Labour will invite the British people to become partners with the Government in managing change, because Labour believes that the British people are the nation's most valuable resource. The country can succeed in an increasingly competitive world only by developing the skills and talents of all our people. In the stakeholder society, every citizen must have an opportunity to make his or her contribution. That contribution must be given proper recognition and rewarded fairly. In this way, we will build one nation and unite the country.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I speak as a one-nation Conservative. The right hon. Gentleman talks at length about job insecurity in the civil service, but he has given no analysis of why that insecurity has arisen. Is it not due to the changing nature of the labour market, the introduction of technology, and all the factors that create job insecurity in the private sector? Furthermore, he has given a long list of things that Labour would stop doing. Can he tell us what Labour will do, other than have another review?
Mr. Foster: The Tories cannot wriggle out of the charge that they have created job insecurity by blaming the changing nature of the job market. They have created wave upon wave of changes in the civil service, and they have caused virtually everyone in the service to fear for their jobs and their future. That is the Government's responsibility, and they will suffer for it at the next election.
I believe that a sense of ownership among staff could transform the amount and quality of service throughout the civil service and across the public sector, but that will not occur with demoralised, undervalued and insecure public servants. It will not occur without skilled managers who believe in the quality of the work force and are determined to encourage the development of skills. It will not occur without a great investment in training, and, above all, it will not occur without politicians who believe in the public service and are committed to its success.
My party recognises the wealth of skill, expertise and experience within the civil and public services, and our success in office will largely depend on our ability to galvanise the Whitehall machine. Labour is keen to learn from the best of private sector management, and we see the need to reconcile the clash of cultures that has occurred in recent years. A new genre of public sector managers is required, who are eager to adapt the best of private sector practice and keen to enhance all that is best in the public sector.
Labour and the country are deeply indebted to the former Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and to the Nolan committee for the proposals that have been accepted by the Government. These are remarkable examples of independent committees building consensus where the Government were unable to rise to the task.

313
The consensus on the new civil service code would not have been possible without the seminal draft proposed by the Select Committee.
Although the code does not go far enough, it is an important step. It provides a unifying set of values to a dangerously fragmented service, and an independent appeal system. It requires Ministers to take cognisance of the code and to refrain from inducing civil servants to act outside the code. Labour will put the code on a statutory basis. Nolan has also made important recommendations.
Mr. Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—which has a Conservative majority— recommended in its recent report on open government that we should have a freedom of information Act to ensure that the partnership between the public and the civil service is clear, by allowing information to be available to all by statute?
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had intended to refer to that development later in my speech. There now seems to be a consensus emerging that we need a freedom of information Act, but that consensus excludes parts of the Conservative party.
Nolan has made some important recommendations—on Ministers and special advisers taking up business appointments; on amendments to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"; on quangos, with respect to methods of public appointment; on the rules and procedures assuring probity and proper conduct of business; and, only last week, on local accountability. Those are important advances, which will make the task of the next Labour Government easier, but a wiser Government would have been leading rather than following.
There is, I think, a consensus on next steps agencies. By the end of 1996, 80 per cent. of civil servants may be in such agencies, most of which are working well. Where that is the case, Labour will see no reason to change the structure. Indeed, I have already endorsed the conclusion of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which has stated:
"We believe that the next steps agencies represent a significant improvement in the organisation of government. And that any future government will want to maintain them".
Let me make one thing clear, however. Under Labour, agency status will not be a step towards privatisation. In the case of bodies such as Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Recruitment and Assessment Services agency, which may need to borrow in the private sector and sell in wider markets, full commercial freedom in the public sector will be given careful consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary wags his head, but it has been given no consideration whatever by the Government, and that is to their shame.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: There will be a review.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman may not be around to see whatever reviews take place in the future.
There is an important issue relating to ministerial responsibilities. According to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers",
"Ministers are accountable to parliament for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies",
314
but Sir Robin Butler has drawn a distinction between Ministers' accountability and their responsibility for policies and actions.
That doctrine is very convenient for Ministers. Under such a dictum, it seems possible that no Minister ever need resign over anything. I am aware that perhaps that just ratifies current practice, but, as the reaction to the Scott report demonstrates, it has not satisfied the electorate, and has further damaged the credibility of the democratic process. Furthermore, it may put chief executives, not Ministers, in the firing line, as the Derek Lewis affair showed. Ministers are all too ready to claim credit for success and delegate blame for failure.
Mr. Freeman: Let us be clear about the policy for agencies. The right hon. Gentleman just said that "careful consideration" would be given to allowing agencies such as HMSO—if it remained in the public sector—to compete with the private sector, in the private sector. I think that that was the essence of what he said. Will he confirm that, as a result of this careful consideration, there might well be circumstances in which agencies that were already in the public sector could compete fully in the private sector, with the private sector?
Mr. Foster: I see no problem with that, provided that such careful consideration takes place. I understand that it happens elsewhere in Europe.
Let me return to the question of ministerial responsibility. It was Scott's view that, if Ministers were not to be responsible—in the sense of blameworthy—for all the actions and activities of their Departments and agencies, the corollary was that Parliament must be given fuller information, so that Parliament and people could judge where responsibility lay. I agreed with that; that is why a freedom of information Act is so crucial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) pointed out.
In addition, however, Parliament should strengthen its Select Committees by extra staffing, and challenging the Osmotherley rules under which civil servants give evidence. Clearly, the Government need to improve the flow of interdepartmental information and decision-making. I look forward to the deliberations of the Select Committee on Public Service on all those issues.
In a recent article in The Times on the general theme of the public service, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote:
"We seek to build sensibly on what is in place. We keep what is good and working. We change what isn't."
That strikes me as a balanced approach. Surely a period of calm reflection is required—an open, independent and thorough review of all the changes imposed in recent years and a proper assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and value for money because we do not believe what the Government tell us about those concepts. It should be a review that builds on the excellent work of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Nolan committee.
Mr. Duncan: Another review.
Mr. Foster: No, it is the same review. The challenge is to create a distinctive public service management philosophy, which adopts the best management techniques from the private sector, while enhancing the long-standing public service values of which we are so proud and which are so essential to good government, whoever is in power.
The Government are guilty of too little continuity and too much change—much of it ill-conceived, ill-considered and poorly managed. The Government have been driven by dogma to the point of recklessness in the exercise of their duty of care to the independence, impartiality and integrity of the British civil service. With 500,000 civil servants—many living in marginal seats such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich—a reasonable person would expect the Government to heed Voltaire's advice as the election approaches. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has a 6,500 majority."] I am referring to the other seat in Norwich—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)—and I think that the Minister is thinking of that seat, too.
Hon. Members will recall that Voltaire—a noted atheist—was on his deathbed urged by a priest to repent and renounce the devil. Voltaire replied:
"This is no time to make enemies".
Perhaps the Government too are beyond redemption. It would be a kindness for them to be put out of their misery sooner rather than later, and the House can do it by voting for the Opposition amendment.
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) mentioned a number of written answers about the privatisation of some parts of the civil service, which were due to be published at 3.30 pm. I have been seeking the same written answers for much of the day. The hon. Gentleman has gone out of the Chamber again to establish whether they are in the Library. It seems unreasonable that we should be debating significant matters of privatisation when that material, which the Government announced today, is not before us and was not explained by the Minister in his remarks. I hope that you do not mind my drawing Ministers' attention to that matter in a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am
sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not expect me to answer that question, but Ministers are present and undoubtedly heard his point of order. They may want to respond.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There can be no further points: the answer was clear.
Dr. Bray: On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take it if it is a new point of order.
Dr. Bray: The House is debating the civil service and the prior options study has been completed. The answers to the written questions on the Order Paper have been given to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Mr. Freeman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said. Those questions are not my Department's responsibility, but during the debate I shall ascertain what the position is and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with it in his reply.
4.54 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I wish to discuss the prior options review, about which the points of order were made.
The phrase, "prior options review" is remarkably Stalinist. I do not propose to go down the track taken by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), but the idea that devolution in Scotland can be achieved without the most extraordinary upheaval in civil service and government generally is beyond belief.
In a touching ceremony on 30 April, only three weeks ago, my noble Friend Baroness Chalker gave my noble Friend Baroness Young a large golden or gilded key that fitted the buildings in my constituency formerly known as HMS Pembroke, which for the past eight years have housed the natural resources institute of the Overseas Development Administration. The keys were handed over by the ODA to the university of Greenwich in what may be the first of several such handovers from the public to the private sector.
The university of Greenwich will manage the NRI on behalf of a powerful consortium that consists of itself, Imperial college London, Wye agricultural college and the university of Edinburgh. I believe that the handover will be good for the NRI, which relies largely on commercial contracts for its resources. It will certainly be good for the consortium of four powerful universities and it will be especially good for the university of Greenwich because it involves the injection of a centre of scientific excellence that has world renown for its research. That will lift the research component of the university of Greenwich. The site is particularly well located alongside the university's recently arrived school of earth sciences, which shares part of the buildings once known as HMS Pembroke, which were occupied by the Navy in the days of the Royal Navy base at Chatham.
Greenwich is a thrusting and ambitious university. It was a polytechnic for 100 years but it is a young university. It is trying to rationalise its many sites into five campuses. Hon. Members will know of its bid, which is believed to be successful, for the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. The NRI in its former naval buildings is an excellent fit and addition to the university's research capacity, especially as its membership of the consortium forges links with pre-eminent academic institutions. This will be the forerunner of many public sector research establishments moving from the public sector to the sort of private sector that the consortium represents.
The NRI was ready for the change thanks to the excellent work of its director until the handover, who is working closely with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Thanks are also due to his staff over the period since it became an agency.

317
Last Friday, my wife and I visited the Horticultural Research International establishment at East Mailing in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). Its headquarters is at Wellesbourne and was mentioned in the brief intervention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place. I went to discuss the research that is being done at East Mailing with its director of external affairs, Dr. Flegg. He was able to show me some of the important work on hops, apples, pears, strawberries, raspberries and cherries. That work is important for Kent—the garden of England. In Kent, we depend for our horticultural excellence on many small and medium-sized growers, who frequently market through co-operatives and who would certainly not be able to undertake strategic research of the type that is undertaken by HRI.
There is great concern at HRI, and I propose to paraphrase extensively from its chief executive's letter, which may have been sent to other hon. Members. HRI staff are worried that HRI, although it may one day be ready for privatisation—perhaps to the university sector, as has happened to the natural resources institute—is not currently ready for privatisation, mainly because it is not sufficiently robust financially.
I do not hold the view expressed by the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists that privatisation should never take place, and I find its briefing somewhat misleading and at least very selective in the quotes that it gives us from the prior options review guidelines. I agree with certain points that it makes, however, and especially that:
"The scientific activities undertaken by public sector research establishments are often of a long term nature. Security of funding and freedom from constant contractual and organisational upheaval are required to enable them to flourish."
An example is marine studies undertaken in the interests of the environment by scientists for the Natural Environmental Research Council.
IPMS also says that it is very important to maintain the independence and integrity of such research establishments in the advice that they give to farmers on, for example, pollution, which is currently provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I am much taken with the arguments of Professor Payne, the chief executive of Horticulture Research International. He has expressed concern that decisions will be taken by Ministers about the future of HRI in the very near future, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is worried that those decisions may have been taken, although the information is not available to us in written answers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clear that up.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): Although this subject is not within my Department's responsibility, we are checking the position at the moment. We understand that the written answers are being tabled and are on their way to hon. Members; I apologise for any delay that hon. Members have experienced in receiving them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is pursuing the matter.
Mr. Couchman: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He will understand that my remarks are obviously made in ignorance of what may be in those written answers, which are not yet available to us.
It is very important to continue to provide strong research and development for the United Kingdom's horticultural industry. The rapid changes in ownership of HRI might compromise that strength, and I hope that when Ministers take these decisions they will be conscious of the need to maintain HRI as a centre of excellence for horticultural research and development. It currently operates in the public sector for the public good, and it is already the product of several earlier rationalisations.
There are, I believe, six sites, including the headquarters at Wellesbourne, the site at East Mailing, three outposts and a small presence at Wye college. If HRI moves towards the private sector, it may move to a university situation rather than to full-blown privatisation. It is extremely unlikely that that especially important research establishment could be supported by its industry, which, as I have said, is made up primarily of unsubsidised small and medium-sized businesses, none of which could support a research programme of the nature that is available.
I hope that the example of the movement of the natural resources institute from the public sector to the private sector—from the Overseas Development Administration to the university of Greenwich—will be a forerunner for many other institutes in the public sector. Those establishments are important, they are centres of excellence, and the university sector is probably the most appropriate place for them to be transferred to.
Mr. Ingram: Is there not a danger that, if the university sector takes over some of these research institutes, it will cherry-pick some of the best aspects of the work and other activities will be cut because they do not fit comfortably into the university sector? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is therefore not necessarily the best solution in every case, regardless of the circumstances?
Mr. Couchman: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Fragmentation of the HRI establishments would be a detriment to the integrity of the whole, and I hope that, if a consortium such as the one that took over the natural resources institute takes over the HRI, it will take it over completely and continue with the excellence of its work.
I hope that the consortium that took over NRI might pick up the HRI establishments, for that would be a very comfortable and excellent fit, especially as one of the major campuses that has been developed by the university of Greenwich is situated a very few miles away from the East Mailing research establishment.
The final thing that worries me slightly about that proposal is that the East Mailing establishment is on land that is not in the public sector. It is owned not by the Crown but by a trust, and there is no great security of tenure for the establishment at East Malling.
In the interests of the horticultural industry in Kent—a very important industry in the garden of England—I hope that Ministers will hear what I have said today about the need to ensure that HRI is maintained as an integrated entity, whether in the public sector or ultimately in the private sector, and that its strength is protected through whatever change is proposed.
5.6 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I am a strong, unrepentant supporter of the idea of a permanent, politically impartial, honest, accountable civil service with selection and promotion on merit, and I believe that such a civil service is one of the hallmarks of an advanced democratic society. As the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee said, the British civil service is a great national asset, whose commitment to the highest standards of performance and conduct is a guarantee of constitutional and financial propriety as well as of good government.
Throughout the 20th century, especially in two world wars, the British civil service, as reformed by Northcote-Trevelyan, has served the nation extremely well. It has been used as a model by many other countries and, as Ministers know well, very often people come to see how we run our civil service because they think that its example is worth following.
It is true that any civil service needs to adapt to changing conditions, and from the 1960s onwards, with the Fulton committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) was a consultant, there has been a series of changes. In the 1980s there were the next steps agency changes, and two thirds of the civil service is now covered by those agencies. From 1992 onwards, there were the market testing, contracting out and privatisation reforms.
In my short contribution, I shall make three points. First, I believe that there is a danger of an excess of ideology. I strongly support efficiency changes; I oppose permanent revolution. I strongly supported the broad principle of agency status; I saw it as a natural conclusion, or extension, of the reforms suggested by Fulton and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South. The purpose of the agency change was to improve service to the customer and citizen, to ensure devolved decision making and to improve accountability. These are excellent aims.
We on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee gave the reforms our bipartisan support throughout the late 1980s. The 1992 changes have not been carried out based on a consensus. On the contrary, it seems to me that market testing and contracting out have been used in a doctrinaire way—and they should not be. It also seems to me that the principle of cutting the number of people in the civil service is the wrong way to approach matters. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a morale crisis in the civil service.
It is not just me saying that—it is reflected in the survey of members of the First Division Association and in a recent poll in The Observer. Any Government have to take this issue seriously—and I would have thought that the Government would take it much more seriously than they are. When we in the Treasury Select Committee asked for a survey of the members, the Government refused—and we drew our own conclusions from that.
Things have gone too far and the Deputy Prime Minister's Department has moved too quickly. It would be unkind to say that it is an old man in a hurry. There have been four privatisations in a short time and we have only just managed to save the Civil Service College. This is overdoing it. Recruitment and Assessment Services is a privatisation too far.
320
No one says that Recruitment and Assessment Services is not efficient. In fact, the Minister said—as far as I could understand his argument—that it is so efficient it should be allowed to expand in the private sector. No one has said that it has any impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. Indeed, I understand that when Lord Bancroft asked that question in the House of Lords he was told that the impact would be negligible.
This seems to strike at the heart of one of the key principles of the civil service: fair and open competition. In principle, it is inherently dangerous and unstable not to have recruitment to the civil service run by the civil service. It is not surprising that that was rejected by the House of Lords. I believe that this reform has no consensus behind it at all. It should be delayed until after the general election.
I refer to politicisation. It is not a question of political appointees in the civil service or Ministers appointing Tories to posts. When a Government have been in power for so long—as Lord Callaghan put it to the Treasury Select Committee—civil servants pick up the scent and begin to present Ministers with what they want to hear rather than with impartial evidence. That is unprofessional, and it is against the civil service code. Of course, a change in Government would help and it is not surprising that many civil servants would like to see another Government in power—not necessarily because they support the Labour party. They believe that a new Government would be good for our democracy.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: This is a serious point and I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is characteristically putting it in a serious and logical way. However, is there not an inconsistency? With great respect to Lord Callaghan and to Labour Members, the Labour party has not been in a position to have received that advice. It is making it up—it does not know whether it is true. From personal experience and from the experience of my colleagues who have served in government, it is not true.
Mr. Radice: I am quoting—
Dr. Spink: Guessing.
Mr. Radice: No, I am quoting the First Division Association, the trade union of the civil service. It presented evidence to the Select Committee—it is not a question of hearsay; it is serious evidence. It is not good enough just to have a change of Government and to rely on that. Therefore, we should have a civil service code. I am glad to know that the Labour party believes that it should be put on a statutory basis. We need to protect civil servants by asserting the values of the civil service and by giving them an appeals system with an independent basis.
In the run-up to the election, I would like to hear the head of the civil service make it absolutely clear that it will not be used by the party in power in an unprofessional partisan way. I have heard of some incidents of this taking place, and I hope that it does not continue. I say this in all seriousness, as someone who wants to see the civil service remain impartial. I hope that Conservative Members take that point seriously, not in a partisan way—I do not mean to make it partisan.
The important issue of parliamentary accountability is raised by the managerial changes and we have not faced up to it. If we devolve powers, how do we ensure that the

321
agency heads and the agencies are responsible to Parliament? We are trying to grapple with that. As the Minister knows, the Treasury Select Committee suggested that agency chiefs should be able to account to Select Committees in their own right. This is already happening—although I accept that they consult their Ministers first.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) pointed out, Scott has raised disturbing issues about accountability and civil servants not taking their duties and responsibilities seriously, particularly in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the Ministry of Defence and in the Department of Trade and Industry. They are not seeing it as their duty to inform Parliament about what is going on and they are conniving with Ministers to keep Parliament and the Select Committees in the dark. That is not good enough. We need to assert our position in Parliament.
I am glad that the Select Committee is looking at the issue of ministerial and civil service accountability. I hope that we will be able to report before the end of the summer on these issues and that we will come up with something that may be of use to the Government and to the Opposition. If the Conservative party is in opposition after the election, it will want a proper code of accountability— it will be useful to it, too. I hope that we get bipartisan support for some changes.
The civil service is extremely important to this country and to our democracy. It is the duty of the Government and the Opposition to support the civil service and the values on which it is based. It is the duty of civil servants to assert those principles. If they do not, it will not be surprising if others start to ride roughshod over them.
In conclusion, the civil service is a great national asset and it is absolutely essential that we preserve it and develop it in the years ahead.
5.19 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for arriving after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had begun his speech. Unfortunately, I was caught in traffic. However, I heard most of his comments and I followed closely his remarks about the Government's proposals regarding recruitment and career development in the civil service. I shall add very little to his comments except to respond to the observations of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice).
The hon. Gentleman described the civil service as being in a state of permanent revolution. I do not see it that way. We are beyond the extensive and far-reaching reforms that were made to the civil service some 100 years ago. As the nature of the Government changes in order to perform different tasks, it is inevitable that the nature of the civil service should change also. I believe that most of those changes have been for the better and that they take into account the needs, desires, qualities and career prospects of civil servants.
We are extremely fortunate that people of the highest calibre seek careers in the civil service. The civil service is not bereft of talent: the selection boards can choose from a wide range of candidates. Many civil servants serve for decades with great distinction. We are also enormously fortunate—if only we knew all the facts—that our civil service is not tainted by corruption. Civil
322
servants all over the world are in it on the sly for money. That is not the case in Britain: over the years, few civil servants have been caught taking bribes or engaging in other illegal activities. Our civil service is of the highest standard and I think that civil servants should be more widely appreciated. Their good instincts should be nurtured—we must not take high standards for granted.
I wish to make several observations that have become more pertinent over the four years of this Parliament. My first concern is leaks. When I was a boy and a student of the workings of Government and of the civil service, leaks were a rare event and they were big news when they occurred. It is in the nature of politics that it sometimes serves politicians' interests to slip information into the public domain in some way. They do so in order to advance their cause or to gain some advantage in an argument.
We can usually tell when information is leaked for party political purposes. However, in the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of leaks that can originate only from within the civil service. They are easy to recognise because they do not advantage a politician from the Government party who is in dispute with another. Such leaks are becoming too prevalent. Civil servants—it may be only a few who are at fault—should adhere to the code of conduct which states that they must respect the secrecy of the information with which they are entrusted.
The media have an insatiable appetite for leaked information. As soon as the word "leak" is attached to a story, it becomes sensational. It adds an exciting ingredient to otherwise ordinary and mundane information. As the spin doctors would say, it gives a story legs.
Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable how often Labour Front-Bench spokesmen purport to quote from internal memorandums between Departments and between Ministers?
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Two parties are involved in leaking information: the giver of the information and its recipient. We often find that documents or information are not leaked directly to the BBC: they are usually leaked to the Opposition, who then give that information to the BBC. I think that the Labour party should examine its conduct and the way in which it uses the information that comes into its hands in that manner.
If there are leaks and if there is no measure of secrecy and confidentiality in Government, policy making becomes impossible. The Opposition have charged some of their Front-Bench spokesmen with the task of thinking the unthinkable. The Opposition do that already to a certain extent—although not very well—and the Government must do that as well. The thinking does not stop when a party gains office: policy making must continue. One cannot think the unthinkable, discuss, debate and throw ideas around to be digested and honed into policy if the discussion process takes place in public.
The argument for open government has become simplistic. We cannot have open government when it comes to policy formulation if we also want good, effective and decisive presentation of that policy. One cannot arrive at a coherent decision from a mess of

323
argument. The increasing habit of leaking documents mid-stream in the policy-making process is making the conduct of Government and the presentation of policy almost impossible. As the Opposition approve of whistleblowing—that is a popular new term—perhaps from time to time Labour Members will blow the whistle on those who leak documents to them which they then use for underhand purposes. We must be able to discuss policy, to argue and to differ about policy, and then to decide when policy will be made public. That is impossible if information may be leaked to a newspaper or to the BBC halfway through the process.
My second concern relates to the question of how some Government policies and legislation are implemented. The legislation that is passed in the House and becomes law is written in language that we consider to be appropriate to the circumstances. If we are honest, we must admit that our law-making process is not perfect. The process of examining legislation line by line in Committee is far from perfect. Many ill-thought-out turns of phrase remain in Bills which become Acts and are then implemented—quite properly in many respects—to the letter.
We have an exact culture of law making and implementation of that law. We do not express wishes in legislation: we detail the rules that should be followed. However, we cannot foresee all the circumstances in which the rules may be applied. For example, European Community directives are the product of a law-making culture that is very different from our own. The literal interpretation of the tiny details of law is becoming increasingly intolerable for many who must bear the consequences. There is growing exasperation about the overly literal implementation of regulation at all levels.
The courts may now assess legislation according to Parliament's express intention when it passed that law. In other words, judges may take account of the words used by Ministers at the Dispatch Box or in Committee. I believe that that is a pretty iffy process because it is liable to reduce the inclination to make legislation exact and black and white. We would be pegging our hopes on judges realising that remarks made in this Chamber might be taken into account. It is absurd to imagine that judges would read through Hansard and implement what was said.
The application of rules at an administrative level is becoming too rigid, particularly with EC directives, business regulations and the Health and Safety Executive. The man from the Ministry is not required to suspend all initiative when applying rules defined by the House. Initiative can still be deployed, so that the official can pass back up the line the express concerns of the people affected by the rules and regulations in question. The same applies to Ministers. An autobiography by a Minister whose name I have forgotten is entitled "Ministers Decide". Ministers decide less and less because more and more they are bound by rules, many of them from the European Union, and they no longer have the discretion to decide.
One example of the petty detail that is applied when implementing rules is export licences. Setting aside post-Scott paranoia, constituents of mine have produced examples of export licences that have taken six months to authorise. How can anyone export when a civil servant
324
takes six months to process a licence? That is a self-created brake on our export potential. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether the citizens charter standards cannot be applied to that function of the Department of Trade and Industry, to ensure that export licences can—for the benefit of productive British companies that want to sell overseas—be processed more efficiently. Many companies feel that they do not have an effective right of appeal against that inordinate delay.
Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend contrast the way in which we apply rules with French practice? Does he agree with the axiom that rules are for the blind obedience of fools and for the careful guidance of managers and officials?
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is right, because in many cases the French ignore or avoid the rules altogether.
My final point concerns politicisation. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) did not answer the question that I put in my intervention. If Labour entered office, it would immediately make a political appointment to the job of press secretary at 10 Downing street. Labour would—it has never said this in public, but in private briefings that could be denied—make ministerial offices have far more political appointees to them. The statutory registering of the political affiliation of persons appointed to public bodies is a step towards McCarthyite censorship, which is a dangerous path to tread.
There have been comments about Ministers moving from ministerial jobs to private sector appointments. The reverse, in terms of influence, could happen. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) must consider whether what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Is it not wrong, at least in his terms, for the hon. Gentleman to have represented in the House the interests of the First Division Association of civil servants, then— hot on the heels of that responsibility—take the post of Front-Bench spokesman for the Office of Population and Census? If moving from a Government post to the private sector is the peddling of influence, why is not that which the hon. Member for Hartlepool has done?
5.33 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The debate is hindered by the fact that we did not have access to a series of parliamentary answers that affect the privatisation of scientific parts of the civil service in particular. That matter was raised by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and by me, in points of order. I must say at the outset that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service could not have been more helpful in personally ascertaining why those answers were not available and delivering copies of such answers as were available to me because I could not leave the Chamber at the time. The Department of Trade and Industry must have known the subject of this afternoon's debate, so the long delay in making answers available is not at all satisfactory. Some of us were aware that the answers were to be given, but still they were late, while others are not yet to hand.
One of those parliamentary answers reveals that the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, the John Innes

325
Centre and the Silsoe Research Institute have all been identified as leaving the public sector, while a number of other institutes are identified as more appropriate for executive agencies within the public sector. Those matters are relevant to the debate, in which a number of privatisation candidates have been identified—even in the Government motion.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) referred to the East Mailing research institute. I hope that Ministers will note that the hon. Gentleman had a number of reservations about what might happen, even though he does not oppose in principle a change in that institute's status. I remember that institute particularly well because my wife worked there as a student. It is one of a number of scientific centres that play an important part in ensuring long-term scientific research of relevance to industry, governed by long-term considerations rather than near-market, short-term decisions—which can more readily be financed on a short-term basis.
As to Recruitment and Assessment Services, the Government must be chastened not just by the defeat that they sustained in the other place but by the weight of informed opinion forcefully expressed in that debate. It must be significant that so many people with long experience of government felt that the RAS is crucial to maintaining the impartiality, integrity and reputation of the civil service. In the Minister's discussions with the Public Service Select Committee, I hope that he will constantly keep in mind what was said in the debate in the other place. I have no continuing interest in the Civil Service College, but I taught there many years ago— particularly at its then centre in Edinburgh. The Government have at least been forced to recognise how powerful would be the opposition to that activity being outside the public sector.
The prospect of privatisation is causing concern in many other organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) drew my attention to the Institute for Animal Health. With all the current international arguments about animal health, it is of great concern that that institute is a possible candidate for privatisation. Many such institutions are involved in international committees in which their counterparts are public service scientific bodies. We must be careful that our ability to make our case effectively in international scientific bodies is not impaired because it can be argued that we are represented by scientists from privatised institutions—perhaps commercially sponsored—rather than from organisations performing a regulatory role on behalf of the Government.
The constitutional issues are the other main focus of the debate. Gladstone said that the British constitution
"presumes more boldly than any other the good faith of those who work it."
Anxieties about the state of that good faith have been manifest. One party has been in office a long time, and it was led for a considerable period by a Prime Minister more noted for her determination to get things done than for paying attention to the processes by which they were done or the condition in which the system of government would be left when she finished. The attitudes cultivated during that period, which are summed up by phrases such as, "He's not one of us," were of potentially long-term damage to the public service. The present Prime Minister entered office with a desire to correct some of those
326
trends, but I am not sure that he has been entirely successful. We must therefore consider impartiality, codes of practice, and the accountability of Ministers to Parliament.
The Government were driven into a civil service code. I sat on the Treasury Select Committee with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and argued strongly for such a code, but a series of other events eventually forced Ministers to recognise the need for one. Many doubts and anxieties about the code's effectiveness remain, particularly when civil servants have to go through the permanent secretary of their own Department before they can get to the first civil service commissioner.
When people fear that they may be impairing any future chance of promotion by drawing attention to what they feel is improper pressure on them to act in a particular way, they are loth to take such a step. There are people in many walks of life who are prepared to take their case to the limit and perform a public service by so doing, but not many of them benefit their careers in the process. We are often indebted to those who put their careers on the line, in the public service or in private industry, by being prepared to take their case to the limit; but they often suffer for so doing.
The FDA states that one of the main issues about which civil servants have complained to the association under the code has been requests for political briefings— briefings for Ministers to use at party conferences or for answering parliamentary questions. It requires some courage on the part of civil servants to take such complaints right to the top.
The Scott report gives us every reason to fear that the code by itself does not offer sufficient protection. The FDA quotes one cynical civil servant's suggestion that three drafts for answering parliamentary questions will be put before Ministers in future: a draft that accords with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"; a draft that deliberately withholds information but does not knowingly mislead; and a draft that designedly leads Parliament to believe that one policy is in place when the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary—but does so unintentionally. We wait to see which draft the Minister will choose.
I find it difficult to understand how those who produced the summary of the Scott report issued by the Cabinet Office to the press could possibly have imagined that they were operating within the terms of the code. That summary was tendentious and grossly misleading; it deliberately excluded all items that might raise questions about what Ministers or civil servants had done or about what should happen in future. In no way did it uphold the political impartiality of the civil service.
It was one of the most damaging features of the whole publication of the Scott report that the Cabinet Office should have taken responsibility for a document that was so clearly party political in its purpose and that did not inform recipients of the burden of the report or of the conclusions that might be drawn from it.
The ethical questions that confront civil servants extend more widely than what we know as the civil service. We can no longer talk about a civil service ethic; we have to talk about a wider public service ethic that might apply to the agencies and non-departmental organisations which have taken over so many of the responsibilities of the traditional civil service. It could be argued that the same

327
is equally relevant to local government, which has developed its own way of tackling those issues, in the form of rules and codes, over a century of facing similar challenges. The public draw no distinction between those various public bodies when they demand fairness, competence, integrity, impartiality and the right to challenge decisions through the democratic process or via an appeals mechanism.
As Government functions have been contracted out to private agencies, the question has arisen: should not public service ethics be imported to those agencies for the carrying out of their functions? Defence contractors have long been subject to the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of the Government work that they do. How could any Government contemplate entrusting people's tax records to a private agency if its staff are not subject to civil service rules?
That dispersal of public service functions to a variety of institutions means that it no longer makes sense to talk of a code of ethics peculiar to the traditional civil service. The objective must surely be to encompass all the organisations in a code of ethics and to develop a mechanism to that end. That is why I expressed sympathy with the idea of a public services commission wider than the present civil service commission. We would propose a public services commission with a wider remit, responsible for the operation of the rules governing appointments and terms of service in national, regional and local government. It would be required to ensure that the principles of a politically neutral civil service, appointed on merit, were observed. We would want to insulate the commission from ministerial interference by having its membership determined by the new Public Service Select Committee of the House, to which it would report.
The commission could help the whistleblower's role, by investigating claims from members of the public service of breaches of the regulations governing its operation, and of improper conduct towards officials by Ministers. Such a role would be rather wider in our proposed format than one played by a civil service commission alone. Next steps agencies should be on a clear statutory footing, and the framework documents setting out how they work should also be statutory and considered by Select Committees.
I want also to refer to the wider question of ministerial responsibility, which has come up several times in the debate already. When we debated the matter on a Liberal Democrat motion on 12 February, the public service Minister said:
"While a Minister has full constitutional accountability to Parliament for everything that the Department does, it is manifestly impossible for him to take all decisions, or be personally involved in every action of his Department. It cannot, therefore, be sensibly suggested that a Minister is personally responsible for every action of his Department. It is worth stressing that distinction, because the terms 'ministerial accountability' and 'ministerial responsibility' have tended to be used interchangeably."—[Official Report, 12 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 684.]
In my submission, they can indeed be used interchangeably because there is no proper distinction between the two terms. There is nothing for which a Minister is accountable to the House for which he is not also responsible to the House.
328
That is not to say that the House would hold a Minister personally responsible for a failing of which he had no prior knowledge and which did not result from his actions or failures. The House would hold him constitutionally responsible but might conclude that he could not reasonably be expected to resign. The classic example was Lord Whitelaw, who considered that he was responsible for the fact that someone got into the Queen's bedroom; but no one in the House thought that he should resign as an example to others. We clearly recognised that there was no fault on his part—and no fault in the setting up of the systems and procedures for which he might have been held responsible.
It is for the House to judge whether the extent of a Minister's responsibility is so personal, or whether an issue is so fundamental, that a resignation ought to be demanded. It is also for his colleagues in Government to consider whether his resignation should be exacted from him.
Mr. Couchman: I am fascinated by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Why, then, did some hon. Members the other day demand the resignation of the Home Secretary because of dirty equipment in a forensic laboratory?
Mr. Beith: Although I often demand the resignation of the Home Secretary, for reasons that I shall elaborate on in a moment, I did not do so on that occasion—although I thought it reasonable to criticise the Home Office for not ensuring that such tests were carried out with equipment that could be shown to be satisfactory. The Home Secretary, as hon. Members will hear, is crucial to my argument and I shall come to him in a moment.
I want to dispose, first, of the spurious notion—I am sorry to see it put about by a civil servant of the experience and ability of Sir Robin Butler—that there is a distinction between a Minister's responsibility and his accountability. The political process judges whether to exact the resignation of a Minister, but his responsibility remains the same at all times.
It is not just constitutionally repugnant but, in terms of modern management practice, inefficient to give people duties to carry out while leaving an aura of confusion about who is responsible if those duties are not properly carried out. There have been some terrifying examples of this in recent Government actions. From the day of the Westland case, when Lady Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, declined to accept the political consequences of what had happened or to discipline any civil servant for it, there opened up a gaping hole in our constitution. In such a situation, either a civil servant had acted improperly and should have been disciplined, or a Minister had given a civil servant instructions that ought not to have been given. In that case, the Minister should take the political consequences of so doing. That also applies to the Home Secretary. The greatest confusion surrounding the doctrine of ministerial responsibility has been created by Ministers who like an aura of fog and mystery around who is responsible for anything as it enables them to deny ever having been responsible for anything that is to their detriment.
A classic example is the Home Secretary, who interferes extensively in the policies and activities of the Prison Service agency. He defends doing so on powerful

329
grounds. He believes that there is a public interest in his intervening to make sure that a particular governor is removed or to decide what the salary of a particular governor should be. In at least some cases, he can probably sustain his argument. However, he cannot then say that anything that goes wrong in the Prison Service cannot be his responsibility as he is concerned only with broad policy.
Not only do Ministers make specific interventions that may lead to mistakes for which they subsequently disavow responsibility, but agency staff know that they are expected to act in ways of which of the Minister would approve and the Minister's periodic interventions serve to reinforce that belief. The pretence that the Government have created a cocooned series of institutions in which Ministers' interventions are confined to the broadest matters of policy—clearly understood and easily set down on a piece of paper—is unsustainable. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility and Ministers' accountability to the House is being destroyed to protect individual Ministers in particular circumstances.
Under every Government of any party, Ministers will come to Dispatch Box and attempt to explain away a particular action and their responsibility for it. We all know that we have to deal with that and join the political argument. However, it is not acceptable for a Government to destroy the entire doctrine on which Ministers are held responsible to the House to protect individual Ministers in particular circumstances. That is exactly what they are doing when they pretend that agency status allows Ministers to insulate themselves against the day-to-day operations of Departments. That is not the case. As long as Ministers engage in such intervention, they preserve a culture in which it cannot be true. The Minister's explanation of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in the debate on 12 February maintained that fiction and furthered the damage that has already been done.
We need a whole series of reforms to protect our civil service from being further damaged and undermined. The most obvious requirement is a freedom of information Act so that the public will know when decisions were taken on the wrong basis and we will not need a Scott inquiry, except in those circumstances—which were present in the Scott case—into which a freedom of information act cannot reasonably extend as they involve intelligence and security matters. It is also vital that even now, while the Government are still in power, they do something to rescue a doctrine on which they will want to rely when they occupy the Opposition Benches.
5.52 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Just when one thought one understood a point that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was making, he would contradict himself so that his speech became completely opaque. When he studies Hansard tomorrow, at least privately, he will be forced to accept what I say. However, he is a Liberal, and one expects that from Liberal policy formation.
I shall make three points. First, we need an open civil service. People need to know what the civil service is doing, how it is doing it and what the guidelines are. Of course, civil servants need to know what their responsibilities are and what the guidelines are. Therefore, the code that has been discussed is most welcome, particularly in the way that it has been put together— with consensus.
330
Everyone knows what the code is, as it is published. It is characteristic of the Government to publish information that has not been published before and to acknowledge organisations such as Cabinet Committees that past Labour Governments were not prepared to admit existed. However, to put a legally enforced code on the statute book would achieve absolutely nothing. It would be a field day for lawyers—and for barrack-room lawyers as well—but it would achieve nothing constructive, and would damage the institution that it was supposed to serve.
Mr. Derek Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government were against the code for a long time?
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government said that most of what is now in the code was already in place. That is why, at the time, some far-sighted Ministers accepted that a code should be published.
Secondly, we need a civil service that recruits the best, and fairly promotes them. It is reasonable to say that the civil service has a pretty good record in recruiting and promoting women. However, I am not suggesting that it is perfect.
Mr. Garrett: Except permanent secretaries.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, "Except permanent secretaries." I am not sure whether that is true.
Mr. Garrett: How many are there?
Mr. Hughes: There is one specific permanent secretary, others have the rank of permanent secretary, and there are many others in deputy positions. The position is improving. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I believe that the systems are open, and the recruitment of good-quality women civil servants is going very well.
I am also pleased that the civil service continues to attract an increasing number of people from our black and Asian communities. It is by no means good enough yet. I hope that, before my hon. Friend replies to the debate, his civil servants will inform him of the points that I am making.
Mr. Garrett: Where is he?
Mr. Hughes: We all have to leave the Chamber sometimes. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about the further progress that is being made in that regard.
One problem is that people from black and Asian communities do not have role models in the civil service to make them regard it as a place where they would succeed in making a good career. That is a real stumbling block. I recall being told by RAS that one of the reasons why there were not many black or Asian people in the fast stream entry for a particular year was that those who applied were not good enough. So I went through the applications, and RAS was right. We have to find a way to provide role models to attract bright young black and Asian people into the civil service.

331
Thirdly, we should have a civil service that serves the Government loyally, but is able to serve any Government. More nonsense has been spoken about that than about anything else in the debate. Although I recognise that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) was not making a specific party political point, it demonstrates that, because the Labour party has been out of power for so long, it is completely out of touch. Some in the civil service trade unions will also seek to make that point, but I simply do not believe it to be true; nor is it true in my experience.
I had no idea about the politics of the civil servants with whom I came into contact as a Minister, nor did I want to know. However, I knew that some of the civil servants in senior positions had served loyally in the private offices of Ministers in the last Labour Government. I was also quite clear that the people who served me and other Ministers would be able to serve an incoming Labour Government with equal loyalty. That is what counts. I know that the Labour party doubts that, and thinks that the civil service has been politicised. I have heard some disgraceful remarks.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman protests too much.
Mr. Hughes: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the reason why I protest is that he has made some disgraceful remarks on the Floor of the House in previous debates.
Mr. Mandelson indicated dissent.
Mr. Hughes: Oh, yes. He has suggested that the civil service has been politicised, of which he should be ashamed—but he is not. To suggest that is a calumny not on the Government but on civil servants.
One reason why the Labour party thinks that the civil service has been politicised is evident in local government. The Labour party does not understand the difference between politicians and council officers. That is why there is such switching between Labour councillors and officers and councillors in one authority and officers in another. That is not good enough. It is dangerous nonsense if the Labour party thinks that that is the way in which the civil service should be run.
We have heard much talk about advice given to Ministers and which answers are given to questions. If Labour Members think that things have changed under the Government, they should read the book "How to be a Minister", by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which is as true now as it was when he wrote it after leaving the previous Labour Government.
Let us be clear: Ministers are politicians; they give political answers. Civil servants give the information on which those answers are based. The Minister is responsible for the answer, and if the answer is highly political, it is because the Minister has chosen to give such an answer. That has always been true, and always will be. To suggest that somehow politics will end and answers will be based merely on information provided by the civil service is nonsense.
332
The speech of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) proved that the Labour party is the captive of the unions. It can move sideways or backwards, but it has no mechanism for moving forward. It will not dare to be radical about the civil service, for fear that it would further widen Labour rifts.
Of course, Members of another place who were senior civil servants or Ministers years ago think that Recruitment and Assessment Services is essential to preserving the civil service's integrity. Indeed it used to be, but thinking that is a throwback to many years ago, when, if one wanted to recruit a junior secretary or a clerk to any far-flung branch of the civil service, one had to go to the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Garrett: No, one did not.
Mr. Hughes: It is not like that any more. That is what those in the other place believe. Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman thinks that he knows better. The service is not needed. It has talented staff, and such talent should be more widely available. Of course, those staff will do well in the private sector. Many of the organisation's trumpeted successes have been achieved because it employs private sector headhunters to bring in people they want to recruit.
All large organisations have to tackle the enemies of change. We have heard the speeches of such enemies from the Labour Benches. It is suggested that many dragons have to be slain—traditionalists, xenophobes, devil's advocates and technophobes. I do not think that there are any dragons to slay in this debate. We have heard speeches from the same old Labour carthorse—not a dragon, but one old carthorse. For all its new Labour razzmatazz, the Labour party cannot disguise the fact that that carthorse is out of date, does not think very clearly, moves too slowly to be of any use, and is terrified of change.
This debate goes to the heart of why new Labour is simply a sham. In a fast-changing world, Labour would have us believe that the civil service is the only thing that should not change. Britain has a dynamic and growing economy because our private sector has grasped change, and much of it is thriving on that change. A civil service that does not change will ossify and die. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Office of Public Service have grasped change, made the changes and preserved the essential integrity of our civil service. They should be congratulated on that, not criticised.
6.4 pm
Mr. John Garrett: It is a gross discourtesy that there is no Minister on the Front Bench to reply to the debate. If that is a trend, it is quite deplorable.
For the past 30 years, since I was a consultant to the Fulton committee on the civil service, I have worked in, worked for, written about and generally shadowed developments in the civil service. In recent years, I have done so with mounting dismay. In addition, I have a constituency interest, since more than 2,000 of my constituents are employed as civil servants in scientific research establishments, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the CCTA.
I have seen nothing less than the literal disintegration of the civil service. Twenty years ago, there were about 25 mainstream Government Departments in the civil service.

333
Each was responsible for policy and its implementation. From the Minister and permanent secretary and the policy decision, to the delivery of service to the citizen through local and regional offices, there was a fully integrated national civil service.
We are now well on the way to a disintegrated Government, consisting of 25 headquarters Departments, more than 120 agencies, 4,000 quangos and countless private contracts. That conglomerate structure makes for inadequate control, as many policies cross unit boundaries. It will end the concept of a national civil service, and it wrecks parliamentary accountability, because Select Committees cannot keep track of such a large variety of executive and policy organisations. Quangos and contracts encourage too much patronage. The disintegrated structure will massively complicate performance measurement and appraisal, and lead to wide variations in the quality of service.
It is true that the civil service of years ago was too hierarchical, with administrative mandarins lording it over professionally qualified specialists and executive-class managers. There was far too little scope for upward movement for talented people who did not have the right social and educational qualifications. That is still largely true. The civil service maintains the discredited and elitist administrative fast stream, which guarantees a route to the top for Oxbridge arts graduates—white, male, public school Oxbridge arts graduates—while boasting of its progress in the development of management and opportunities for managers.
I cannot see any justification, if there ever was any, for an administrative fast stream. When the Treasury and Civil Service Committee considered the matter, civil service management said that the administrative fast stream in the civil service was no different from graduate entry arrangements anywhere else. The management used arrangements at British Petroleum as a comparator.
I worked for British Petroleum for a number of years, and noticed how it was possible for an accountant or an engineer to get on the company's board. It is far more difficult—in fact, virtually impossible—for an accountant or an engineer to become a permanent secretary in Britain, even in a technical Department such as the Department of Trade and Industry. Top management in the civil service is still recruited as a political secretariat and not as a management cadre, as Fulton pointed out 30 years ago.
I have always been impressed by visits to the Ecole Nationale D'Administration in Paris to examine the formation of the French higher civil service, especially its output of people who combine political, economic and technical skills. That professional civil service has ensured France's success in the past 25 years. It is unbelievable that ENA has half a dozen professional staff, and that most instruction is carried out by serving top civil servants, who consider it an honour.
ENA is criticised in Britain as elitist, but in fact it is much less elitist than our system, because its entry arrangements allow junior civil servants to qualify and progress thereafter. The arrangements also allow for mature entrants who are aged about 40. Its top management cadre is not confined, like ours, to a particular social background.
I have always considered Sunningdale a white elephant. An enormous amount of money has been spent on it. One could call it an Oxbridge college with rhododendrons.
334
It is totally divorced from the way in which the rest of the country is run. It would be far better for civil servants to be trained in Glasgow or Liverpool and to get some acquaintance with de-industrialised Britain. They should be action-trained in finding solutions to the problems faced by our fellow citizens.
The particular scandal of our disintegrated Government service is the quango. However, there is a certain amount of sense in having agencies. They were proposed by Fulton in 1968 as budgetary responsibility centres within Departments, and the idea was further developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and myself in a Fabian pamphlet of the early 1970s called "Administrative Reform—the Next Steps". That is why, I assume, the agencies are called "next steps" agencies.
However, the information systems required to establish the managerial accountability of those agencies were never put in place, although they were needed to measure not only their operational efficiency but, much more importantly, their effectiveness in meeting public needs. The most obvious example of that lack of effectiveness is the Child Support Agency, where performance in respect of clients is nothing short of a disgrace.
What is needed is a system in which civil servants are originally employed in agencies, and are then promoted on merit to the policy division of the parent Department. That would close the experience gap between operations and policy-making.
Some, perhaps many, agencies are merely stages on the way to privatisation, as HMSO in my constituency has been. We have discussed HMSO several times recently, so I shall not dwell on the issue. However, the fact is that an effective operational arm of Government and Parliament is likely to suffer grievous damage as a result of privatisation, with massive job losses. Speaking as a House of Commons Commissioner, I believe that there is absolutely no guarantee of the long-term maintenance of services to Parliament. That could lead to the greatest embarrassment to Parliament in future. The privatisation will, I believe, be seen to be a mistake.
I am glad to see that the Minister is back in his place. Can he tell us about the future of the CCTA, which is also in my constituency? Will it be privatised, and what will be the likely consequences for computing expertise in Government?
I do not have the time to discuss public sector research establishments, as I wanted to do, partly because the information arrived so late. Here we have a number of scientific research establishments which have made a tremendous contribution to scientific policy-making, to discovery and to innovation. We now read that the presumption is for privatisation. That will lead to the disbandment of some of the finest research establishments in western Europe, with no gain for the public.
The growth of the quango has often been commented on. Essentially, quangos involve a function of Government, funded by Government, being carried out by a corporate body, the board of which is constituted by the patronage of a Minister. Training and enterprise councils are a good example. I cannot see how such organisations can be allowed to continue so free from democratic control in a democratic form of government. I trust that a Labour Government will reintegrate the quangos into

335
central and local government wherever possible, and that they will make their boards and their recruitment practice as open as possible.
It has always seemed wrong to me that the governance of the civil service should be under the royal prerogative, without statutory force. The White Paper contains a remarkable observation on that issue:
"The management of the Civil Service is one of the aspects of the Prerogative which is exercised by Ministers on behalf of the Crown … The Prerogative in this context resembles the power of other employers to employ without special legislative authority."
Employing civil servants is different from other employment; after all, they serve the Crown. The use of the royal prerogative gives them virtually no redress for a series of possibly adverse decisions against them. The most obvious is the ban on unions at GCHQ. We have a so-called code of practice which still does not cover major issues, such as the relationship of the civil service to Ministers, Parliament and the public.
The responsibilities of civil servants are specified in code and memoranda, not in law. The relationship of civil servants to Parliament and its Select Committees is specified in the Osmotherly rules—which, on the whole, say, "Don't say anything"—and not in law. The conduct of Ministers is laid out in a Cabinet paper which has no statutory force.
It is clear that we need a civil service Act which defines a civil servant, sets out the duties and responsibilities of civil servants to the Crown and to Parliament, and provides redress against the abuse of power and deception by Ministers. The penumbra of secrecy which surrounds so much of our policy-making—which Ministers, especially in this Government, so eagerly exploit—should be ended, or greatly reduced, by a freedom of information Act.
When we have debates on the civil service, we concentrate on the higher or senior civil service. But the greatest impact from loss of status, insecurity, loss of terms and benefits and outright redundancy has been on the junior levels of the civil service. They have suffered the most. Many have served on low pay which has been subject to income policies for years, and have been rewarded with redundancies and reduced terms and conditions.
The fact is that this Government despise their employees; that is why they treat their most junior employees so badly. There has been constant insecurity and lack of consultation. In HMSO, CCTA or the soon-to-be-privatised research establishments, the tremendously significant factor has been the lack of consultation that any decent employer would carry out with its employees. We had a civil service of which we could be proud. Now we have a civil service dominated by uncertainty, insecurity and plain disintegration.
6.15 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: It is an unequalled delight for me to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), especially when he is talking about Cambridge. I recall that the previous time I followed him in a debate was across the floor of the Cambridge Union. He will remember that the debate concerned the economy, and that that evening, my side won the debate resoundingly, I am delighted to say.
336
I must make it clear that my constituents yearn for smaller government, whereas the Labour party—we have heard this all today—seeks bigger government. My constituents want smaller government in all its forms. They want less interference at all levels, whether regional, central or, particularly, European.
My constituents seek lower public spending as a proportion of our national wealth, because they see that as the way in which to continue to generate real wealth so that we can make the necessary investment in health and education, and so that we can care better for the people who are truly vulnerable. My constituents also see that as a way in which to reduce taxes which, in itself, will enable us to develop the enterprise economy that we all seek and which the Government have now at last delivered.
Lower public spending, lower taxes and smaller government in every way—that is what my constituents want. They also want a smaller civil service, because that comes with the rest. They want a more effective, more responsive and, in particular, a more customer-focused civil service.
Any debate on the civil service must be prefaced by the unequivocal statement that the British civil service is the best in the world. It has the highest level of integrity and the highest ethics; it is the least corrupt in the world. It is completely impartial. I was sorry to hear what the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said, because he was entirely wrong. The civil service is impartial, and he cast aspersions on it by suggesting otherwise. As a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Home Office, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have worked closely with civil servants. I have noted that they are entirely impartial in giving advice to Ministers.
British civil servants have an impeccable record; they have great traditions and great credentials, and we must applaud that. However, having accepted all that, I now turn to the traditions, organisation and culture of the civil service. I want to review, somewhat philosophically, how the civil service operates, and how it delivers service to the public. I do so not to criticise or threaten the civil service, but to explore ways in which it can move forward, adapt and change, and to gently remind it whom it serves.
It could be said with some justification that the civil service management culture is sometimes a little too much based on tradition. In some spheres, it is sometimes a bit staid, although not in all. In some, there is magnificent. forward-looking practice, but risk avoidance is the phrase of the day in others—where one watches one's back, and where managers do not take brave and innovative actions. That type of culture can permeate right the way through those branches of the civil service.
I must say that tremendous strides forward have been made in the past 10 years. That is one reason why I welcome the Government's initiative today, to continue those improvements and to strengthen the civil service through training programmes—particularly the master of business administration programme, the best of which is offered in partnership with Crownfield university, an institution with which I have had more than a passing acquaintance.
I welcome the training review promised by the Minister today and the Government's "investment in people" programme, which is most important. I hope that some real progress will be made with those in future years.

337
I welcome the Government's initiative to impart new and modern disciplines. It includes contracting out, market testing, and, of course, bringing in payment by results when that is appropriate.
In this debate, I should like to focus on communication and on the civil service's management and organisation culture, because those are central to the success of any organisation—certainly to the civil service—in achieving its objectives. Today, hon. Members who belong to the all-party parliamentary group on management were told— at a meeting admirably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson)—by Christopher Roebuck, the director of Cattle Consultancy, how important and central is communication. I should like to follow that theme.
Senior civil servants can very easily lose touch with the daily operations of their offices. They can be under enormous pressure from their political masters—their political customers—the hon. Members of this place. It is possible that those civil servants might take their eye off what is happening to their other—I believe more important—customers: the public. In short, they can easily lose sight of the heart of their business and lose focus on what their objectives should be and on how and whether those objectives are being achieved at the coal face.
My simple proposition is that front-line, support and administration staff do not lose touch. They often know very clearly what is best, what is happening and how to make the organisation more effective.; but, for their knowledge and skills to be useful to the organisation, they must operate in a culture in which their message can be heard and in which they are free and willing to give that message. I am not talking about specific incidents of whistleblowing or anything so specific; I am talking about the organisational culture, and the way in which the daily operations are run.
We must strengthen the link between professionals, senior management staff and the workers who deliver services—direct and face-to-face—to the public. That objective will be achieved by improved communication. It is as simple as that. But communication is, of course, a two-way process, and it is not at all simple.
I believe that downwards communication in the civil service is extremely effective and professional. The issuing of instructions, orders, rules and regulations is the nature of it, and they do it extremely well. Upwards communication—from workers back to management—in some spheres is a little less obviously good, if I may put it so gently. Upwards communication needs to have a very conducive and well-developed culture and climate to work well.
Cranfield university and Manchester business school are now carefully developing communication methods for those who will become top management and professional leaders. But perhaps we should think of ways of developing strategies, techniques and cultures in the established middle and senior management levels in the civil service.
Those managers must listen carefully to junior civil servants, who deal with the public, and they must encourage good communication. That does not mean a drink at the annual Christmas party or the grand walk-through and a back-slap once a month, as the top brass goes wandering through the office, saying that that is how they keep in touch with the workers. That is not the way to do it.
338
Communication means real listening. Listening is a difficult skill to acquire, but it is one of the key ingredients in inspired leadership. One must listen. Improved upwards communication can lead to improvement in the civil service's efficiency, particularly in the way in which it is perceived by the public, who rely so much on it.
I am not advocating employee empowerment or total quality management. Those concepts are not my game in this debate, although I do not dismiss them. My experience is that giving increased responsibility to those who do the work most often works very well, provided that it is done properly. I am not advocating those concepts today.
Leadership is not simply a question of running in front and hoping and expecting that everything will follow behind in an orderly and efficient manner. Leadership, good or bad, is given effect by communication in both directions, up and down—motivating and listening.
The civil service must continue its move into the modern era of management—which this Government are promoting with greater success than any previous Government of whom I have experience. The civil service must be prepared to change and to review and renew its objectives and the methods that it applies to secure those objectives. In short, it must become a more user-friendly organisations for all our constituents.
I am not saying that change for change's sake would be helpful or that the civil service's traditions and culture should be dropped or changed tomorrow. Nothing could be further from the truth. Much in our civil service is excellent and world-beating, and those aspects must be retained, built on and developed. Even some of the civil service's quainter, more charming or even idiosyncratic methods have their place and their great strengths. Change should be embraced only when it is absolutely clear that that change will deliver real and worthwhile benefits— particularly to the public.
I congratulate hon. Members on the very high quality of this debate. I congratulate all those who work in the civil service—those at the coal face and those in the top brass—on the high quality of their work. I have spoken a little about communication. The essence of good communication is, of course, listening—so I will now sit down and listen.
6.27 pm
Mr. Peter Mandelson: The debate has rightly ranged widely across many developments in the civil service, including those in the senior civil service and in relation to the new code, which came into effect earlier this year. I agree with the First Division Association—with which I am proud to have had an association in the past—that it is a useful step in the right direction. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), however, I agree that the code would be better if it were placed on a statutory basis. It should have a statutory footing, as should a freedom of information Act, to which we are also—quite rightly— committed.
Not surprisingly, the debate has focused on the latest examples of the Government's privatisation lust, especially on the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services—or RAS—an organisation more appropriately christened in happier times for the civil

339
service. We should judge whether this and similar measures have any merit by reference to three questions: will they make the civil service more efficient, will they do anything to restore the battered morale of the civil service, and will they make Government policy failures any less likely in future? The answer to all those questions is, with the common consent of everyone with any experience of the civil service, a resounding no.
Nowhere is that more obvious than over the proposed privatisation of RAS, which touches on one of the core pillars around which the civil service was created, namely the recruitment of politically neutral and impartial officials in whom the public and Parliament can have complete confidence. I make no apology for focusing on that matter this evening.
Recruitment is basic to the whole standing and performance of the public service, but barely any attempt has been made to justify the privatisation in terms of its usefulness to the civil service or the public. What benefit could there be to the civil service of a big private sector headhunter taking over its recruitment?
The private sector headhunter will have no background, practice or expertise in the work of the civil service and the qualities that one looks for in senior civil servants— indeed, in all civil servants—are different from those in the private sector. That is not an adverse comment on the private sector; it is simply an observation of fact. Of course, management skills are increasingly important in the public service—I readily acknowledge that—but, at senior levels of the public service, the motivation is different from that in the private sector. Great value is attached to intellectual integrity and the ability to weigh both sides of an argument as well as to work in a collective and non-competitive atmosphere. Working in the private sector, on the other hand, is different from what is involved in working with Ministers—and some would say that that is a very good thing, too.
What benefit is there to the civil service in RAS, or any other agencies for that matter, being able to extend their operation to wider commercial markets? There might be something in it for the private sector individuals involved in that it will enable their favourite private sector clients to pick the best public sector talent thanks to their access to RAS records. However, it is a monumental irrelevance to the operation and effectiveness of the civil service. I believe that it is potentially damaging, too, as I shall argue.
Why, then, are the Government proceeding with this privatisation? I offer three reasons: because it is there; because the Deputy Prime Minister feels like it; and because the Government want to notch up further scalps. [Interruption.] That may be good enough for the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), but it is not good enough for the civil service or the public.
Let us be clear that this privatisation will not provide any better services to the public. It will not put another policeman on the beat, create another hospital bed or put a one extra qualified teacher into the nation's schools. It is little wonder that the proposal has not a scintilla of public support. By all accounts, even the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is remarkably unenthusiastic about the measure, despite his attempt at flag waving in
340
support of it this afternoon. We have to understand how the decision to privatise RAS was taken in order to understand his lack of enthusiasm.
I believe that it was the Chancellor of the Duchy who said in December 1995 that he had appointed Coopers and Lybrand merely to "study" the options for the agency. No sooner were the words out of his mouth than his departmental underling at the time, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), announced that it would be privatised as soon as possible in 1996 via a private sale. That was certainly an embarrassing rebuff for the Chancellor.
As hon. Members have remarked, the arguments in favour of the privatisation are at best specious and at worst non-existent. They simply serve to extend the Government's time-honoured, worn-out dogmatic belief that everything public is bad, everything private is good and that public services become good only when they have been privatised.
Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman favour us with a list of privatisations that a future Labour Government, were we unfortunate enough to have one, would reverse?
Mr. Mandelson: If this was a debate about all privatisations I might do so, but it is a debate about a specific privatisation against which I am arguing.
What of the putative safeguards for the civil service following privatisation, which were advanced rather weakly by the Chancellor this afternoon? We were told that the actual selection of recruits would continue to be in civil service hands. That might be so ultimately and technically, but what about the prior stages of processing and testing? How would the principles of selection by merit and fair and open competition be safeguarded once the agency had passed into private hands? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service can tell us that.
Apparently, civil servants will continue to have only an indirect involvement in—not control of—the preparation of some but not all exercises to ensure that they are a true "reflection" of civil service work. However, there will be no central co-ordination, no protection of confidentiality, no leak proofing or other security.
What about enforcement of private sector contracts if the measure goes ahead? The answer is that Departments will "monitor" the contracts as they go along. In the background, we gather, is the notion that the performance of the private owner will be subject to—wait for it— periodic audit. Will there be an ultimate sanction if contracts go wrong? Apparently, the simple desire to win future contracts will be a powerful encouragement to perform well. I hardly think so. All in all, the Government's idea of enforcement amounts to little more than a small feather duster to keep the private owners in line unless, of course, the threat to cancel a contract altogether is carried out. No one, however, has a suggestion as to what the civil service and its fast-track recruitment would do then—presumably it would hand out leaflets in the street.
As so many senior and experienced Members of the other place argued in a debate in March, the whole exercise is completely contemptible but, tragically, it is quite in keeping with the present Administration's destructive attitude to the civil service.

341
No one who comes into contact with civil servants could fail to admire their professionalism, tenacity and commitment to the job. I have to tell the hon. Member for Harrow, West that we are not criticising members of the public service when we attack what is happening inside the Government machine—we are criticising members of the Government who are responsible for inflicting such wanton damage on the civil service.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: That is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman must reread in Hansard the previous speeches that he made from the Front and Back Benches in which he specifically accused civil servants of acting improperly, not by name but in general terms. He is not attacking the Government by doing that, as he seems to believe: he is attacking civil servants who cannot answer back.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I have never said that civil servants act improperly. I have, however, suggested that Ministers are guilty of enticing and encouraging them to act improperly, which is quite different. Conservative Members may rejoice in their temporary colonisation of the civil service, but it is bad for Government when Ministers seek to reduce the public service to a rump, there only to reflect the Government's political prejudices. When that is allied to asking civil servants to distort or suppress information or statistics that are inconvenient to Ministers or to accept the blame when things go wrong because Ministers will not take responsibility for their failures—one thinks of the prison service, the Scott report or the Child Support Agency—a bleak picture emerges of eroding standards and morale in the civil service.
It is not surprising that many civil servants feel undervalued and undermined. For that reason, we should not be debating changes to the recruitment agency today. We need urgent action to restore a public service whose problem is not recruiting good members, but losing them once they have joined and become thoroughly disillusioned.
If we were to go outside the Chamber and engage a passer-by in conversation, we would find much that would interest him or her about our debate today. People are understandably and properly concerned about the state of our public services and about what is being done in their name. They are concerned about the quality and ethical standards of those employed by their taxes to act in their name and to deliver their services.
The inadequacy of many public services on which our people and their families depend, the lingering mistrust of officialdom, the notion that people have little say over the powers that be, and even perhaps a general awareness that the traditional standards seem to be under threat are all of great concern to the people whom we represent, and we should have focused our debate on those concerns this evening. But the last thing on their minds—in fact, I cannot see that such a thing would ever cross their minds—would be the idea that any of their practical concerns might be addressed by the privatisation of the civil service Recruitment and Assessment Services, the Occupational Health Service Agency or Horticultural Research International, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) referred.
342
Those are the obsessions of a Government who can think of doing nothing more for the quality of our public services and for the standards, performance and morale of civil servants than to pursue these tawdry and mean-spirited privatisation measures simply to satisfy their own lust. That is the message that we must take from the debate. The Government, in attempting to prove that they have not run out of steam, are presenting us today with the political equivalent of a campfire kettle, brewing up a thin and tasteless brew that no one wants to drink. That is why their pathetic measures should be rejected and why we should ask the Public Service Select Committee, as our amendment states,
"to conduct a thorough independent review of all recent Civil Service reforms"
so that we can achieve the public service that we deserve and need. I invite the House to vote for that tonight.
6.44 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): I begin by assuring the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that our reforms are not motivated by lust. Many arguments are made about the motives for our reforms, but I have never previously been accused of being motivated by lust when it comes to public sector reform.
The debate has focused on an issue—the ethics of the civil service—raised by the right hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the Chairman of the Select Committee who, I understand, cannot be here for the winding-up speeches. If the Government were in any way guilty of politicising the civil service, it would be inconceivable that we would have produced the codes, the guidance and the independent arrangements for the civil service commissioners that we have introduced in the past five years.
When I was serving as a civil servant, we had nothing like the code of conduct that is now issued to every civil servant. The code makes clear the ethical basis on which civil servants are expected to operate and sets out more clearly than ever what a civil servant can do if he is in any way unhappy with his circumstances. We have produced so much guidance and so many codes of conduct, and so much has been brought out into the open that was not available before, that we recently produced guidance on guidance. I cannot understand why the Opposition believe that somehow we need even more published guidance and codes of conduct. That is exactly what the Government have been doing in the past five years. We have brought a new transparency to the monitoring of public services of a quality that did not exist before.
Mr. Garrett: No Opposition Member has argued for more guidance, publications or codes of practice. We asked for an enforceable system, established by statute.
Mr. Willetts: The civil service code states that if a civil servant believes that the response that he has received to a complaint
"does not represent a reasonable response to the grounds of his or her concern, he or she may report the matter in writing to the civil service commissioners."

343
The role of the commissioners, who are now responsible for hearing and determining appeals under the new code, is close to a statutory right.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) asked about training in the civil service, and delivered a speech that I am sure he has been giving ever since he served as an adviser on the Fulton report all those years ago. The hon. Gentleman has only to wait a couple of months for the training and development White Paper that will set out an ambitious programme of reform of civil service training and will set out how the Government's objectives of achieving investment in people and standards across the civil service will also raise the level of skills, particularly in the areas that he has been calling for all these years, such as science and technology. We will ensure that there is more use of relevant qualifications in the civil service, such as national vocational qualifications, accountancy or personnel qualifications. We will ensure that the civil service is better qualified in those technical areas to which he drew attention. That is an area that the White Paper in July will address.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise for having missed most of the debate, but this is an important issue. When I was in Her Majesty's services, I had to sign the Official Secrets Act. If one had confidential or secret information, it was more than one's life was worth to give that information to people who were not entitled to it. Increasingly these days, there are leaks from the civil service, and these are often politically motivated. Will the Government introduce a proper code of conduct so that any civil servant who rats in this way loses his job and his pension rights and is sent out without any ceremony?
Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) also raised that subject in his speech. My hon. Friend is quite right that leaking confidential information has no role in the modern civil service, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool made clear in a recent speech outside this place. He disappointed some of his supporters by making it clear that he thought it important to maintain the confidentiality of the relationship between civil servants and Ministers.
Mr. Derek Foster: If the Minister wants to take action against civil servants who leak, what does he intend to do about Ministers who leak, as they do that all the time? What does he propose to do about Prime Ministers who leak? Reference has been made to the Westland crisis, when the previous Prime Minister tried to pin the blame on one of her colleagues. What will be done about the big boys who leak, rather than the little minnows?
Mr. Willetts: I am not sure that Ministers leak. Indeed, I should have thought that that was almost impossible by definition since Ministers explain what the Government's policies are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) asked about ethnic minority staff. We have a good record in that regard. The proportion in 1989 was 4.2 per cent.; in 1995—the most recent year for which we
344
have reliable figures—it had risen to 5.4 per cent., compared with 4.9 per cent. overall in the economically active population.
Mr. Garrett: What about the top grades?
Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that. We are not doing as well as we would like in relation to the top grades, but even in those grades there has been an improvement. At senior levels, ethnic minority representation has increased from 1.5 per cent. in 1989 to 2.5 per cent. now.
A series of questions were asked about public sector research establishments. On behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I apologise again to any hon. Members who did not receive written answers that should have been issued at 3.30 pm. We are conducting prior options reviews of those establishments. On some—such as Horticultural Research International, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman)—no final decisions have yet been reached. As for others, notably the 12 for which the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible, the DTI announced the conclusions of the reviews today.
The policy intentions announced today will now be subject to detailed planning for implementation, and the manpower consequences will form part of that process. No targets have been set for reducing numbers; the reviews are about getting better value for money and more effective research output. A range of options will be examined in the other research establishments that are still being reviewed: anything from privatisation to contractorisation, rationalisation and, indeed, no change. Any potential redundancies will, of course, be taken into account when the options are considered.
In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we should look forward with bated breath to the speech of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, which would constitute a powerful attack on our proposals for Recruitment and Assessment Services. I kept waiting for that powerful attack, but I do not think that it ever came. We were told nothing that we had not heard time and again in relation to every previous privatisation introduced by the Government. We were confronted by a lurid picture of the private sector, a complete inability to understand the power of legal contracts to enforce standards and, I am afraid, a good many irrational and indefensible claims about—in effect—the inability of the civil service commissioners to monitor standards.
It is the civil service commissioners, quite independently of the civil service, who will audit arrangements when RAS is privatised. None of their auditing powers will be in any way weakened by privatisation. In fact, we shall introduce specific arrangements to ensure the integrity and quality of the fast-stream recruitment process. Civil servants' roles as assessors for the civil service selection board and the final selection board will be unchanged. We shall ensure that selection decisions on candidates remain with civil servants. The tests applied by RAS will continue to be owned by Government and licensed to the privatised organisation, and our Department—the Office of Public Service—will have a strengthened role as a customer in monitoring the fast-stream contract on behalf of customer Departments.

345
With those safeguards, the civil service fast-stream development programme will be operated under contract to the new company. The privatised RAS will be able to expand into new markets and capitalise on its expertise. Yet again, we have heard the extraordinary myth that somehow RAS could remain within the public sector and enjoy what is described as full commercial freedom. That is simply impossible. It is unimaginable that private sector recruitment consultants could compete with public sector recruitment organisations, and that public sector bodies would not be obliged to pay tax—that their liabilities would ultimately be protected by the taxpayer. That is not plausible; it is not fair competition. We have repeatedly tried to explain to the Opposition that if there is to be fair competition, and if such bodies are to operate with commercial freedom, there is only one way to achieve that—through genuine privatisation. There is no alternative.
Mr. Gunnell: When will the Minister give the written details that he promised in a written answer on 29 January at column 489? Is he willing to release to us, or place in the Library, the information that was sent to those who expressed an interest in the purchase of RAS when it was advertised in the Financial Times? When will the final details of the privatisation be released?
Mr. Willetts: I hope that that information—apart from some that may be commercially confidential—will be released very shortly. We are working as rapidly as we can.
Let me turn to what may be the Opposition's agenda. According to the amendment, they believe that the civil service is suffering from initiative fatigue. I can only say that, following the Opposition Front Bench speeches, the fatigue from which we are suffering is review fatigue, careful consideration fatigue and calm reflection fatigue, because that is all that the Opposition have to offer.
Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that I must make some progress in the remaining few minutes.
We produced a White Paper on the civil service, which was then carefully considered by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, as it then was. The Committee produced a very valuable report. We published a further White Paper explaining our proposals in depth and responding to what the Committee had said. On that basis, we are making progress in modernising the civil service. That includes using the opportunities offered by competitive tendering and privatisation whenever they present themselves.
The Labour party does not seem to understand that, in the words of the Select Committee,
"the quest for greater effectiveness and efficiency in the Civil Service should be an unending one".
The Committee wished to
"stress that the requirement to maximise the return from finite resources will not go away."
I detected, buried in the speech of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, another Labour spending pledge. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to stop the "Competing for Quality" programme, which generates extra public expenditure savings of £200 million per year. We are subjecting £1 billion worth of public
346
service work to careful study on that programme every year; as a result, we make savings of 20 per cent. on average. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to continue the programme, he must explain to the House how he will finance the higher running costs that will arise from his loss of nerve.
In the absence of any clear statement from Labour today about its possible policies on the civil service, I turned to "The Blair Revolution"—subtitled "Can New Labour Deliver?"—by the hon. Member for Hartlepool. The hon. Gentleman need not blush. In the book, I found quite a good account of the philosophy behind some of the Government's reforms. The hon. Gentleman states:
"There is no reason, in principle, why the operational arms of Whitehall should not continue to be separated from the policy arms, leaving ministers more free to concentrate on politics and strategy."
That is an important distinction which Ministers have frequently made, often being greeted by scepticism from the Opposition parties.
The hon. Gentleman said a little about politicisation. I did not quite recognise his anxieties on that score. He says in his book:
"There is need … for a stronger political presence in No. 10, providing political advice and contacts"—
I wonder who is being described.
Mr. Beith: He means himself.
Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman may be right. The sentence continues:
"which neither the private office nor the Cabinet Office can do because they are not supposed to get involved … and cannot meet the Prime Minister's central need: to focus on and manage the government's political strategy and programme."
One final quotation may tell us something about the position in which the hon. Member for Hartlepool finds himself. He wrote:
"Sometimes, if you have a difficult and uncompromising job to do … it is difficult to avoid being hated as well as feared by those around you. But seeing things through … that is, getting your own way—requires more than exercising fear or having the last word in the media: it requires taking people on in argument."
To do that, one has to be talking to them. It is very difficult if one is not.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 209.

Division No. 131]

[6.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barron, Kevin

Cann, Jamie

Battle, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Bayley, Hugh

Church, Judith

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clapham, Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benton, Joe

Connarty, Michael

Bermingham, Gerald

Corbett, Robin

Berry, Roger

Cousins, Jim

Betts, Clive

Cummings, John

Blunkett, David

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Boateng, Paul

Davidson, Ian

347

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

Marek, Dr John

Denham, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Dewar, Donald

Michael, Alun

Dixon, Don

Miller, Andrew

Dowd, Jim

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Morgan, Rhodri

Eagle, Ms Angela

Mudie, George

Etherington, Bill

Mullin, Chris

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Flynn, Paul

Pearson, Ian

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Pike, Peter L

Foster, Don (Bath)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Garrett, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

George, Bruce

Primarolo, Dawn

Gerrard, Neil

Quin, Ms Joyce

Godman, Dr Norman A

Raynsford, Nick

Godsiff, Roger

Rendel, David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Sedgemore, Brian

Gunnell, John

Sheerman, Barry

Hanson, David

Short, Clare

Hardy, Peter

Simpson, Alan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Skinner, Dennis

Harvey, Nick

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

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

Hinchliffe, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Hoey, Kate

Soley, Clive

Hoon, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Spellar, John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Hutton, John

Stevenson, George

Ingram, Adam

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Jamieson, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Tipping, Paddy

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Trickett, Jon

Keen, Alan

Tyler, Paul

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Kirkwood, Archy

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Watson, Mike

Lewis, Terry

Wigley, Dafydd

Livingstone, Ken

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wilson, Brian

Loyden, Eddie

Winnick, David

McCartney, Ian

Wise, Audrey

MacShane, Denis

Worthington, Tony

Madden, Max

Maddock, Diana

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mahon, Alice

Mr. Greg Pope and

Mandelson, Peter

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brazier, Julian

Alexander, Richard

Bright, Sir Graham

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Amess, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Burns, Simon

Ashby, David

Burt, Alistair

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Butterfill, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Carrington, Matthew

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Carttiss, Michael

Bates, Michael

Cash, William

Batiste, Spencer

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clappison, James

Body, Sir Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Booth, Hartley

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Boswell, Tim

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Coe, Sebastian

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Conway, Derek

Brandreth, Gyles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

348

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lidington, David

Couchman, James

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cran, James

Lord, Michael

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

Luff, Peter

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

MacKay, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dover, Den

Madel, Sir David

Duncan, Alan

Malone, Gerald

Duncan Smith, Iain

Mans, Keith

Dunn, Bob

Marland, Paul

Durant, Sir Anthony

Marlow, Tony

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Elletson, Harold

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Mates, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Mills, Iain

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Moate, Sir Roger

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Faber, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Fishburn, Dudley

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forman, Nigel

Norris, Steve

Forth, Eric

Oppenheim, Phillip

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Ottaway, Richard

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Paice, James

French, Douglas

Pawsey, James

Gale, Roger

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Gardiner, Sir George

Pickles, Eric

Gillan, Cheryl

Porter, David (Waveney)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Powell, William (Corby)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Gorst, Sir John

Richards, Rod

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Robathan, Andrew

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Sackville, Tom

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Hawkins, Nick

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hayes, Jerry

Sims, Roger

Heald, Oliver

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hendry, Charles

Soames, Nicholas

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Horam, John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Spring, Richard

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Sproat, Iain

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Steen, Anthony

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Stephen, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Stewart, Allan

Jack, Michael

Sweeney, Walter

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Sykes, John

Jenkin, Bernard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Jessel, Toby

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Thomason, Roy

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Key, Robert

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Kirkhope, Timothy

Thurnham, Peter

Knapman, Roger

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Tracey, Richard

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Tredinnick, David

Knox, Sir David

Trend, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Viggers, Peter

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Walden, George

Legg, Barry

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Leigh, Edward

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

349

Waterson, Nigel

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Watts, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Wells, Bowen

Wolfson, Mark

Whitney, Ray

Wood, Timothy

Young Rt Hon Sir George

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Tellers for the Noes:

Wilkinson, John

Dr. Liam Fox and

Willetts, David

Mr. Gary Streeter.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's policies on the Civil Service, as set out in the White Papers 'Continuity and Change' and 'Taking Forward Continuity and Change', including the promulgation of the Civil Service Code from 1st January 1996, the establishment of the Senior Civil Service from 1st April 1996 and the strengthening of the role of the Civil Service Commissioners in maintaining the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit in recruitment; also welcomes the Government's policy with regard to the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services, with the proposed safeguards to protect the quality of Civil Service recruitment; and looks forward to the intended publication in July of a White Paper on training and development in the Civil Service, associated with the further development by the Civil Service College of a number of partnerships with the private sector which will enhance its status in the provision of courses for those working in the public and private sector.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we have an urgent statement from a Foreign Office Minister, so that the House can express its revulsion and anger at the pernicious and disloyal way in which Commissioner Kinnock is trying to undermine the policy of the British Government on overturning the beef ban?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman may ask, but he knows that it is not within the power of the Chair to call for such a statement. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard his request.

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

VALUE ADDED TAX
That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1196), dated 30th April 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1 st May, be approved.
NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Food Safety (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.
That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION
Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to deregulation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES
That the draft Deregulation (Industrial and Provident Societies) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.
GAMING MACHINES AND BETTING OFFICE FACILITIES
That the draft Deregulation (Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.

PRIVATE COMPANIES
That the draft Deregulation (Resolutions of Private Companies) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.

Council Tax
7.13 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.
In reaching my decisions on total standard spending for England and the capping principles, I looked hard both at the pressures on local spending and at the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness in authorities. Individual authorities must be equally thorough. They should always be seeking ways to deliver better value for money to their local taxpayers. That means taking a rigorous approach to pay and efficiency and making a realistic assessment of their spending priorities.
The House will recall that the total standard spending for England for 1996–97 is £44.93 billion, an increase of 3.3 per cent. over the 1995–96 figure. That was a substantial increase and it reflected the importance that the Government attach to education and the care of the vulnerable and elderly. We provided for a 4.5 per cent. increase in provision for education and 6.9 per cent. for social services, including further transitional community care special grant.
It is, of course, for each local authority to set its budget and decide its spending priorities. My capping principles for 1996–97 were devised to give authorities the flexibility to make use of the additional resources that we provided for education, social services, fire and police in the settlement. We did that by ensuring that an authority's permitted increase under the capping rules was at least as big as the total of the increases in those blocks of the authority's standard spending assessment. We called that passporting. I am therefore more than a little surprised, given the demands last year for additional funding for education, that some local education authorities have chosen not to pass on the 4.5 per cent. increase in education standard spending to schools. I am especially sad that my county council has failed to do that, but has used the money elsewhere and thus denied schools the money that they should have had.
For county councils and shire unitary authorities, the permitted increase was at least 3 per cent.; for metropolitan districts, outer London boroughs and metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, it was at least 2 per cent.; for inner London boroughs, 1.5 per cent.; and for police authorities, 3.5 per cent. Shire district councils were able to increase budgets by 0.5 per cent. Authorities that budgeted more than 12.5 per cent. above standard spending assessment would be subject to a cash freeze. Capping always allows an authority to spend at the level of its SSA.
Most local authorities have set affordable budgets and council taxes this year within their capping limits. That meant that when I confirmed my capping principles on 3 April, I was able to propose cap limits that required only two authorities—Cambridgeshire county council and Oxfordshire county council—to reduce their budget requirements. By contrast, my initial cap limits last year would have required nine authorities to reduce their budgets.
In a moment I shall set out my final decisions on Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, which are the subject of this order. Before I do so, I should deal briefly with the
352
four other authorities that I formally designated under my capping rules on 3 April—Essex county council and Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear and Merseyside fire and civil defence authorities.
In the cases of Essex county council, Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority and Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority, designation was purely technical. I had agreed in advance with them that they could set budgets above their caps by specified amounts. They are not required to reduce their budgets or to incur any additional costs, and the process is already complete.
Merseyside fire and civil defence authority set a budget requirement for 1996–97 of £52.78 million. The authority argued that a lower budget would lead to its being in breach of statutory minimum standards for the fire service. That view was backed up by Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate. I therefore designated Merseyside fire authority at its original budget. As with the other three authorities, it does not need to make any further budget reductions this year and the capping process for it is now complete.
Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire were the only local education authorities seriously to exceed the provisional cap indicated by my capping rules. That was in spite of permitted increases of 3.7 per cent. for Cambridgeshire and 3 per cent. for Oxfordshire—both of which were greater than the average LEA permitted increase of 2.9 per cent. I designated both counties for capping on 3 April and set maximum amounts for them at the level indicated by the capping rules. Both counties challenged those caps and have argued that they should be allowed to confirm the higher budgets that they have set.
In reaching a view on the final capping limit for those authorities, I must take account of the specific local circumstances of each authority. I have, therefore, considered each county's case carefully, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has met delegations from each authority to hear its case in detail.
Cambridgeshire's problems stem, in its view, from the fact that it used up all its available reserves last year. However, Cambridgeshire would have been aware last year that its reserves could be used only once and should have budgeted accordingly. It would not be right for us to allow authorities to top up their reserves every time they ran out, not least because the local taxpayer would foot the bill.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Gummer: If I may finish the next paragraph, I am sure that the hon. Lady will find it helpful.
In fact, Cambridgeshire's total reserves stand at £53.8 million—about 13 per cent. of its proposed net revenue expenditure. It admits that some of its reserves are available to support revenue spending this year. It also admits that a budget at cap is achievable as it has not yet passed on the additional resources to the relevant services. Against that background, I believe that there should be no relaxation in Cambridgeshire's proposed cap, and that the cap is reasonable, achievable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the authority. If the draft order is agreed

353
by the House, it will result in a reduction of council tax in Cambridgeshire of £25.26 for a two-adult band D household.
Mrs. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in the view of the district auditor, Cambridgeshire's reserves are now down to six days' spending, not the amounts that the Secretary of State just announced? Does he accept that Cambridgeshire's reason for spending reserves in such quantities last year was that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration promised that the area cost adjustment was being closely scrutinised and said that Cambridgeshire might well expect something from that in this financial year?
Mr. Gummer: That is nonsense; the last point was absolutely untrue. We are considering the area cost adjustments and we have said that an independent inquiry is being held, which will report to allow us to make changes, if we think that right, in future years, but I am quite sure—I need not even ask him—that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration never gave any such indication, because it was impossible for any such indication to be given. One does not know, until the thing is properly examined, what, if any, effect there might be. I also represent part of a county that is affected in a deleterious way. Last time we considered the matter, we found that it was much more difficult than I had expected and there were very good grounds for supporting the present system. We are assessing it again, and we are trying to do it as independently as possible, but I am quite sure that my hon. Friend did not say anything of the sort.
Sir Anthony Grant: No one has been a bigger opponent of the area cost adjustment than I have for at least 10 years. I have mentioned it repeatedly in the House. I have tackled umpteen Ministers—the last one was my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who was very reasonable in listening to the case put, but certainly never gave any assurance other than that the matter would be very carefully reviewed. There is no delusion about this matter.
Mr. Gummer: I believe that my hon. Friend will agree, first, that the reason for the further investigation into this matter is precisely as he puts it—because he and other of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pressed for it. I am considering the matter independently and as carefully as I possibly can. I think that my hon. Friend will also agree that for a local authority to decide that it will fix its spending arrangements on the basis of a hope that something might turn up in the following year seems to betoken—
Sir Anthony Grant: Micawberism.
Mr. Gummer: I should not like to go as far as that, but the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) does the Liberal and Labour parties that run Cambridgeshire county council no favours by suggesting that the reason why they got this wrong was that they hoped that some money might turn up. If we all ran our private finances on that basis, we would suffer from serious problems. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge does not run
354
her finances in that way, or she will find herself in difficulties and need counselling, which clearly, in her terms, Cambridgeshire does.
Cambridgeshire had significant extra resources, and those resources could be applied, and have been applied, in such a way as to allow it to keep to a budget below cap. That is what it has done, and I do not think that the authority would criticise the figure that I quoted.
Oxfordshire argues that, since 1991–92, it has reduced total spending by £45 million and that scope for further savings is severely limited. It also argues that, even at its proposed level, the budget represents £5.5 million less than the sum that would be required to keep services running at the same level as in 1995–96.
Nevertheless, on balance, I do not consider Oxfordshire's position to be sufficiently different from other LEAs to justify a relaxation in its capping limit. All the other counties limited to a 3 per cent. permitted increase have managed to set budgets within their provisional cap. The same is true of the inner and outer London LEAs, which were limited to 1.5 per cent. and 2 per cent. increases respectively. Although Oxfordshire's reserves are not large, they are by no means the lowest, as a percentage of budget requirement, among the counties.
I therefore propose that there should be no relaxation in Oxfordshire's original cap, which I consider to be reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of the authority. If the draft order is agreed by the House, it will result in a reduction of council tax in Oxfordshire of £34.90 for a two-adult band D household.
Before I conclude, I remind the House that ordinary people pay these bills. It is all very well talking about this or that standard of service or this and that demand, but ordinary people have to pay the bills, and £34.90 is a sum of importance, not something that must be cast aside.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I had not intended to intervene at this point, but as the Secretary of State has not referred to it, I should like him to confirm for the record that he has written to Oxfordshire, offering an extra borrowing facility in recognition of the county's difficulties. As he appeared to dismiss those difficulties, will he explain why he is offering the borrowing facility and give an idea of how much it might be?
Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman had waited, I was going to cover that in my next comment. I think it important to point out, however, that there is no basic difficulty.
Oxfordshire could do what we have asked it to do, and other counties in more straitened circumstances, in the sense that they have had only a 1.5 per cent. or 2 per cent. increase, have managed to solve their problems, but there is a specific short-term problem, which might mean that Oxfordshire would have to make teachers redundant this year, only to have to employ them again in a year or two's time. That is a result of specific problems in the Oxfordshire profile.
Precisely because that is likely to be a short-term problem, a relaxation in the cap would not be the right approach, as that would give Oxfordshire a permanent increase in its spending power, which could be done only at the behest of other counties. It would put Oxfordshire out of line with other counties.

355
I am therefore prepared to offer Oxfordshire a supplementary credit approval and a capitalisation direction, which will enable it to capitalise revenue expenditure, to help with its short-term problems. That will, in effect, give the authority another year to get its budget into line with our assessment of an appropriate level of expenditure. I understand that Oxfordshire will make a proposal for an SCA and a capitalisation direction, and I await that proposal.
If the order is approved, we shall serve a statutory notice on both authorities formally setting their cap. They will have 21 days to reduce their budget in line with their cap and set new lower council taxes. In Oxfordshire's case, the reduction can, to some extent, be offset by using the offer of a capitalisation direction and SCA to free up resources. Those resources can then be used to support its existing spending plans. I am sure that hon. Members would expect it to do that to support its education spending plans, for which it has been given the money.
I have considered carefully the points raised by all the authorities involved in the capping process, to ensure that the caps that I have proposed are reasonable, appropriate and achievable. Where there are special circumstances, I have been prepared to make concessions. The final outcome is a reduction of £13 million in this year's council taxes in the affected areas. I commend the order to the House.
7.29 pm
Ms Hilary Armstrong: This is the first time that this debate has been held since I have been a member of the environment team. I read with interest what was said in previous years. I have also reflected on the recent comments of the Secretary of State, on the methodology that he has used and on the ways in which he has approached these issues. Once again, I have found that the words used one year are not followed up in succeeding years—and I shall come back to that.
The Labour party has been consistent in the belief that the formulations of the standard spending assessment retain problems. Every time that this is raised, the Secretary of State tells me that it is nonsense and that I have said that it cannot be adjusted quickly. I have said that: it needs proper investigation. Grave concern has been expressed throughout the country about the unfair way in which standard spending assessments are calculated. I will not go through the figures on Westminster tonight. Ministers will not let me have the calculations that they say show that our protestations are wrong. I want to know how the Government calculated the difference between now and 1979, as no one else has been able to do so.
Given the rigidity of the actions of Ministers and the Government tonight, the unfairness and unhappiness throughout the country—apart from Westminster—about the formula used to calculate the standard spending assessment means that we have to return to it. If the Government were interested in working to the agenda of people outside the House, they would be pushing much harder. Last year, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) said:
"I hope that hon. Members will reflect upon the fact that we cannot return to this situation year after year because it will worsen year after year. We must now begin to think of a more flexible and acceptable arrangement."—[Official Report, 15 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 921.]
356
I could not agree more. However, this year the Government have not been flexible, nor have they attempted to address the individual needs of the councils involved. It is significant that today the Secretary of State made a substantially shorter speech than he did last year— although the beginning of his speech was almost the same as his speech last year. He seems to have learnt nothing from last year and he has not defended his actions.
I think that the Secretary of State knows that he is using draconian powers that go far beyond commitments that were made when the system was established and during the passage of the legislation that gave the Government the powers. At that time, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), made commitments and said that this would be used only as a reserve measure. He said:
"It is not a measure to be used as a matter of course.
The people of an area certainly will be able to vote for a relatively high-spending authority if they so choose.
It is important that there should be such a reserve power—rarely, if ever used we hope—to protect the charge payers of an area against extreme cases of extravagant and irresponsible local authorities."— [Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
The Government have wandered far and wide from that commitment and it is not being upheld in the order that we are considering tonight.
It is clear that neither of the authorities that we are debating is charged with extreme cases of extravagant and irresponsible spending—those charges have not been upheld by the external audits of the authorities. This goes way beyond what the Government committed themselves to do when they introduced the power.
Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady comment on why the Labour and Liberal Democrat group leaders on Cambridgeshire county council wrote to their counterparts on other English county councils almost three months before the settlement was announced saying that they could envisage a number of authorities contemplating exceeding capping levels, that they would prefer not to be isolated and that they would feel more secure if more councils exceeded the cap on a common basis. Cambridgeshire was contemplating breaking the cap before the money was shared out. That was its intention, regardless of the amount of money that it received.
Ms Armstrong: That is not a point in relation to what I was saying.
Mr. Simon Burns (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Answer it.
Ms Armstrong: I will answer it if I am given the opportunity and the normal courtesies of the House are observed. We have a problematic Whip; he is obviously feeling a little insecure.
The question whether the authorities are irresponsible depends on how they prepared their budget. It would be irresponsible if an authority simply sought to determine its budget and priorities after the Government had pronounced. Councils have a responsibility to their area and to work effectively throughout the year. They have to set the priorities and work out what their electors want them to do.

357
I have discussed this with both councils and I know that they started their process early. They identified the priorities and what their schools and social services provision would require. They discussed this with people in their counties long before the Government set their rate. If they did not start to do that until after the Government had set their rate, they would be failing in their responsibility to their electorate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice):
Answer the question.
Ms Armstrong: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is not an answer. The Secretary of State complained that the council wrote to other authorities before he set the cap. It was not intent on breaking the cap; it was intent on responding to local demands and to local priorities for spending, knowing what the Government were likely to do. I contend that if they were not working responsibly with their local electorate, the Secretary of State would be right to condemn them. However, they were working responsibly with their local electorate—and I might have something to say to the right hon. Gentleman later about some of his contentions about the authority.
Mr. Gummer: Is the hon. Lady saying that she would commend local authorities that decide that they will think seriously about breaking the cap even before they know how much money they will get? Is the Labour party committed to urging authorities to break the cap even before they know how much money they will receive? If so, that is entirely new Labour policy, which we will be pleased to broadcast.
Ms Armstrong: The Secretary of State is being irresponsible once again: that is his problem. He knows that I did not say that. He is trying to make accusations against those authorities because his argument is without substance. He has shown that he is not concerned about the fact that the authorities have met their statutory responsibilities in service delivery. He is not concerned that they spend less than the average amount per head of population compared with other counties. He is not concerned that the district auditor has commended them for their quality of spending control and for the efficiency of their spending. The Secretary of State simply arrived at a global sum and those authorities have become victims of the global picture. He has not paid attention to local needs. It is the right hon. Gentleman, and not the authorities, who is acting irresponsibly.
Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Lady should note that Cambridgeshire was found wanting in a more recent auditor's report. It is well below average on two counts: care of the elderly and primary education.
Ms Armstrong: I shall refer to performance indicators later. That is a different matter: it is not so much about the efficiency of the authority as the quality of service delivery. [Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would take the matter more seriously; it will affect people's lives.
The Secretary of State said that it is important to approve the order because ordinary people are paying the bills. That is true, but they are also receiving the services.
358
Ordinary people in Cambridgeshire and in Oxfordshire have been consulted extensively about the amounts that they want to be spent on schools. The Government are trying to con local people about the available expenditure, but the people have seen through them. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) wrote a letter to head teachers, one of whom sent a copy to me.
The people of Cambridgeshire know that, if the capping order succeeds, available expenditure will increase by 1.9 per cent. over last year. In Oxfordshire, there will be a 2.7 per cent. real increase in available expenditure for schools over and above last year. The amount that the Government announced that local authorities may spend is a phantom figure. Local people have recognised that fact and they have decided that the order does not meet their needs.
The previous Secretary of State said that people could vote for a high-spending authority. There were no county council elections last year, but there were district council elections. The challenge to the cap was an issue in the election campaigns in both district authority areas. The matter was discussed. I was staggered when Banbury, which is in the district of Cherwell, elected a Labour council. Labour won more seats in that area than we believed possible—let alone targeted and expected to win. That shows how the people of Oxfordshire are voting. Labour also did exceptionally well in Cambridgeshire.
Turning to issues of quality and efficiency, Oxfordshire comes 45th out of 47 counties for total expenditure per head. It spends £560 per head. Cambridgeshire ranks a little higher—it is 37 out of 47—and allocates £580 per head. The county average is £629. Performance indicators identified in the recent Audit Commission report show that both authorities are above average and are doing reasonably well. The performance indicators include education, the collection of charges and so on. The authorities are working hard to meet the Government's objectives, regardless of their political persuasion. Referring to Cambridgeshire, the district auditor said:
"The Council's financial affairs continue to be well controlled. However, the Council now faces significant financial pressures".
The district auditor is concerned that Cambridgeshire's good housekeeping is being threatened by financial pressures. We are told that Oxfordshire is also a good authority that is at the forefront of voluntary competitive tendering initiatives. The district auditor said that its tendering process is operated in the interests of council tax payers and that contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder. Oxfordshire is commended by the district auditor for its low staffing and its high standards, among other things.
We are not debating profligate authorities that have upset local people with their overspending. Both authorities suffer as a result of rapidly growing populations. That is a particular problem in Cambridgeshire, but the order does not take account of that fact. In Oxfordshire, there are more children aged one to four than is the average for that population profile and the number of 60 to 80-year-olds is also above average. That puts pressure on the two areas of service provision that are the most demanding financially.
The Government are so obsessed with ideological dogma that they are breaking their commitments on spending and on capping. They have demonstrated that, far from being in control of local government finance,

359
they have lost sight of reason. The Government are acting against the wishes of the people of Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire. The people want the opportunity to fund their schools and their social services properly, but they know that the Government will manipulate the figures to ensure that they cannot do that. That is not good enough. We need the flexibility that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire urged on Ministers last year. Once again, the Government have not learnt their lesson and the electorate will ensure that it costs them dearly in the very near future.
7.48 pm
Mr. Douglas Hurd: The arguments heard in Oxfordshire this year are not a bad example of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. There exists a contradiction that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) has done nothing to explain, and which is difficult to explain—how £5.95 million extra for education in Oxfordshire via the standard spending assessment grant is converted into cuts when it reaches schools. At the heart of the matter is substantially more money from the taxpayer to the county, and less money from the county to the schools.
Mr. David Rendel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: No.
The county council is trying to argue that Oxfordshire is a special case and that the calculations were in some way unfair to the county—and, the hon. Member for North-West Durham added, to Cambridgeshire. It is suggested that the calculations are the result of some mysterious conspiracy against my county, or of an experiment in ideological dogma. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have chosen those two counties for an experiment in ideological dogma which other counties have been spared. The hon. Lady threw no light on that curious proposition. Obviously her claims cannot be true.
The argument that Oxfordshire is a special case dissolves at the touch. The county has not provided the Members of Parliament that represent it the wherewithal for arguing that Oxfordshire is a special case. The arguments leave out of account something that the Government cannot if their criteria are to be real needs— that is, the lower proportion of Oxfordshire children at state schools. Obviously that affects needs and entitlements. Oxfordshire's claim to be a special case is threadbare—and not improved by the absurd threats such as that to close the county museum at Woodstock.
But it is an undeniable fact that the county is not providing or proposing to provide the money needed to run schools and other services. It has been using up reserves to sustain a high rate of spending on education, and it cannot continue to do so. That is no particular credit to the county but is a fact, and one borne in on me and my right hon. and hon. Friends for two years by headmasters, teachers, governors and parents. We have passed on the facts to the two Ministers concerned. The people who talk to us are not playing the political game that the hon. Lady is playing. They are not concerned at how the situation
360
came about. They do not talk about ideological dogma and all that nonsense. They are simply concerned with the facts with which they have to deal, and with the prospects for children and services on the present figures.
Although Oxfordshire does not have a special case, there is a problem—and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recognised its existence. I hope that the ingenious help that he has decided on for Oxfordshire will ease the immediate strains in the way that he proposes. I ask him to keep a close eye on how the extra money that he will allow to be borrowed beyond the normal limits is spent. I gather that my right hon. Friend will be having discussions with the county council on that point. I trust that he will ensure that the money borrowed is used for the purposes for which it is intended.
Finally, please will my right hon. Friend try—I know this is difficult—to do more to explain the matter to the public? Every now and then he admits us—as he did today—to part of the mysteries over which he presides, but that is not of great help to our constituents. Will his Department produce a one-page leaflet to be included in council tax demands, such as councils usually provide, showing the objective assessments of need? As long as there are mysteries, there will be accusations of foul play and people trying to exploit the matter for ideological and dogmatic reasons. I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks, but may we have a little more light on those dark places?
7.53 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) remarked that Cambridgeshire has always been a low-spending authority. It suffered many years of Conservative control, so even Government Members would have difficulty arguing that Cambridgeshire has not been low spending, and that is confirmed by the Audit Commission's report. Of the shire counties, Cambridgeshire is fourth from the bottom in spending on each primary school pupil, 14th from the bottom in spending on secondary school pupils and bottom in spending on the over-16s.
All that is despite the fact that Cambridgeshire has consistently spent 6 per cent. more on education than the Government have allocated in the standard spending assessment. The county's planned budget this year reduces that figure to only 4 per cent. more than the SSA. The people of Cambridgeshire are in no doubt that, if the order is approved, that will result in appalling consequences for the county's education and social services.
The Secretary of State's accusation that Cambridgeshire is not passing on the increase to its schools was perpetrated in a letter of complaint from the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) to the secretary of the National Union of Teachers in Cambridgeshire. The Government say that the county should spend £237 million on education, but it plans to spend £247 million. It is true that £5 million has been reserved. If that hold-back continues, at least 80 teaching posts already identified by schools throughout the county will be lost—on top of the 100 teaching posts that were lost following last year's disastrous cuts.
The Government say that Cambridgeshire should spend £77 million on central services, but the county is planning to spend £84 million. The Government say that the county

361
should spend £13 million on the fire service, and it is planning to spend more than £14 million. To do so, Cambridgeshire has had to reduce spending on other services by 18 per cent. The county shares the Government's priorities for services and has made sure that money is spent on education, social services and the fire service—not on other services, as it has been accused of doing.
The Government claim that they have given Cambridgeshire £11 million extra this year. In the words of Lord Justice Scott, that is "sophistry". The Government have increased by £11 million not the county's grant, but the standing spending assessment. As the House knows, that is a different matter.
Cambridgeshire was already spending more than the SSA on education, to cope with what the Secretary of State for Education described as a tough settlement last year. The county followed the Government's advice and took £10 million out of its reserves, to lessen the pain of the £17 million cuts imposed. The district auditor has described Cambridgeshire's reserves, which represent only six days' spending, as extremely low. That situation could be repeated this year.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in his place on the Government Front Bench because he has tried to be helpful. When asked on Radio Cambridgeshire today about the county council's problems, he claimed that it was a profligate authority losing £4 million a year on its school meals service. The £4 million excess of expenditure over income is due to the cost of providing free school meals.
Mr. Paice: It is still too much.
Mrs. Campbell: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman realises that the county council has a statutory duty to supply free school meals to children in need. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Cambridgeshire should break the law?
The hon. Gentleman has also complained about the high cost of school meals, but that is because Cambridgeshire not only recoups the cost from children who can pay but provides an element of the overheads. That is why the county cannot cut its school meals service without losing money.
Why is Cambridgeshire struggling to pay for services that everyone else expects of right? In April 1995, the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) and I went to see the Minister to ask for a fairer deal for funding for Cambridgeshire. The area cost adjustment, which the county does not receive, would have given Cambridgeshire an additional £15 million last year. I know that the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire was quite optimistic after that meeting. He remarked to the Cambridge Evening News that he could see light at the end of the tunnel. The Cambridge Evening News is not a paper to sound a note of false optimism, and the editor remarked that it was too early to start celebrating the fact that the Government were finally beginning to see sense.
I am afraid that the news in October dashed our hopes. The Department of the Environment announced an independent review into the area cost adjustment
362
system—a review that would not report until June this year. Promises that Cambridgeshire's situation could be improved were broken, too late for this financial year.
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady as I know that her time is limited, but I want to set the record straight.
I said last year that we were looking to see whether there was an approach to labour costs that was more robust than the area cost adjustment. We were looking particularly at travel-to-work areas. I made it clear, as I have always done, that if that turned out to be a better formula, it would be adopted, but that if it did not, it would not be.
I said the same about the present review. At no stage did I say that we would change the system irrespective of whether the methodology was improved. As the hon. Lady will know, the attempt to make the travel-to-work area methodology work was not successful; I was not prepared to adopt a system that I thought was intellectually flawed. That is why we moved to examining a different formulation. I should be grateful if she reported the facts accurately and did not interpret them in a way that is not true.
Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful for that explanation. The hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire and I came away last April with an optimistic view. We certainly understood that something better would be implemented by this time this year—and that was the county's impression too.
When the settlement was announced this year, Ministers and Conservative Members wrote to schools saying that education spending had been increased. That showed a blatant disregard for the truth. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Peterborough to complain about the inaccuracies in the letter that he had sent to schools. He did not bother to answer my allegations; he simply accused me of having an unsavoury reputation for interfering in other people's constituencies. If interfering in other people's constituencies is necessary to bring the truth home to the people of Cambridgeshire, I am prepared to do it any time.
Whom are the Government trying to punish? Are they trying to punish the county council because it is the wrong political colour; or have they decided to punish the people of Cambridgeshire for voting the Conservatives out of office in 1993? Are they so worried about their chances in Cambridge, Peterborough and Fenland in the general election that they decided to cut Cambridgeshire's budget so as to blame the county council? It is not councillors who will suffer: it is the people of Cambridgeshire. Old people in need of care will be subjected to soaring charges, children with special needs will be unable to receive the help that they should have, and children will study in overcrowded classes. There will be fewer curriculum choices, teachers will be overstressed and school governors will face impossible decisions.
Even Peterborough city council recognised this when, at its meeting in January, it noted with concern the county's SSA and capping limit, which limits its discretionary scope. The city council said:
"This council fully supports Cambridgeshire county council in its bid to seek a higher spending limit and to protect as far as possible service standards for priority services, in particular schools, social and fire services."

363
That was not said by a left-wing council. At the time, the city council was a hung body. That statement, moreover, had the full support of Conservative councillors. Peterborough city council also expressed its heartfelt support for the councillors on Cambridgeshire county council, which was not a Labour council in January. It is now, and one can see why.
The schools have identified 80 redundancies. That has produced outbursts of protest from schools all over the county. I have with me letters from almost all of them protesting about the cuts that they are being forced to make. A head teacher of a school in Huntingdon, the Prime Minister's constituency, was quoted in the Cambridge Evening News as saying:
"We are not very far from meltdown. We are getting to the point where there is extreme anxiety whether we can actually keep children in school full time."
Schools are beginning to realise what a disastrous effect the £5.3 million that has been kept back from the schools budget will have on service provision in Cambridgeshire.
I implore the Minister tonight—indeed, I implore Conservative Members—to take pity on the people of Cambridgeshire, to answer their pleas, and to vote with us in the Lobby this evening.
8.4 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: I certainly have sympathy with the people of Cambridgeshire, but my sympathies are with the people who pay the bills—the council tax payers. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made a valiant attempt to defend Cambridgeshire county council under its current regime. The council certainly needs some defending! She made the council out to be a paragon of financial virtue. As I shall demonstrate, the very opposite is true.
We can at least agree, as I have argued here and elsewhere for ages, that the area cost adjustment is ludicrous and grossly unfair to Cambridgeshire. It is absurd to suppose that taking one step over the border from Bedfordshire into Cambridgeshire takes one suddenly into a poorer area with lower costs. Anyone who shops in Bedford and Cambridge can testify to that. Without the area cost adjustment, a large sum of money would have been available to authorities to spend on education and other services in Cambridgeshire.
As for the review, the Minister of State has been the first Minister to apply careful thought to the matter. The hon. Member for Cambridge and I, together with other representatives of local parties, attended a useful meeting at which we put our case. The Minister promised a review, which means exactly what it says. It does not mean that we will like its results or that the Government automatically have to accept them. Nevertheless, the Minister sincerely undertook, for the first time ever, to review this ludicrous system.
I am disappointed that the review did not report as soon as it might have and that it was delayed for a year, but there is no justification for a well-resourced, responsible county council to pre-empt the result of the review, to believe that everything will be fine and to plan its affairs accordingly. That is like Mr. Micawber at his worst; it is
364
a ludicrous way to carry on. Far from being paragons of financial rectitude, the county councillors showed complete irresponsibility if they operated on that basis. They should have conducted their revenue affairs more prudently.
Strange things have come to light. It has been found that a large sum was wasted by Cambridgeshire county council. The transportation department made a loss on its direct labour organisation estimated at £1.9 million—at least. The money has gone down the drain. What is more, the council has just announced bonuses for its staff amounting to no less than £400,000. It has had to call in Price Waterhouse and pay over a fee of £43,000 as a result of all this chicanery. The cost of sending out a new set of council tax bills is estimated at £300,000.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the loss by the transportation department—it is not condoned by anyone—began in 1992–93 under a Conservative administration? Will he further accept that the bonuses paid to staff were started by his noble Friend Lady Blatch when she led the county council? Finally, will he accept that Cambridgeshire complied with the call for an inquiry into the loss of the £1.9 million by bringing in Price Waterhouse, and paying the price for its services?
Sir Anthony Grant: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I do not care whether the system was set up by Winston Churchill, Disraeli or Campbell-Bannerman. That means nothing to me. We are discussing local authority finance and Cambridgeshire county council is responsibility for all its affairs. It is responsible for its books and it is in charge of the transportation department. The information that I read out was wrung out of the county council with great effort.
I calculate the grand total of the loss to be £2,643,000. That is equivalent to no fewer than 150 or 160 extra teachers, who could be employed in the education department. When the Lib-Lab county council was found out, it started whingeing and whining about party politics. Cambridgeshire local politicians of the Lib-Lab persuasion have never been shrinking violets about party politics—nor should they be. Having been hoist with their own petard and made a hash of their finances, they thought that they could pull a fast one on the council tax payers and the Government. An extra £11 million was undoubtedly made available for education in Cambridgeshire and diverted to other uses.
The Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), was absolutely right to say that the county council was treating parents and teachers with contempt. It deliberately set a budget exceeding the limits laid down by the Government because it hoped to use the loudest, most vocal clamour— that of the education lobby. The hon. Lady said that she had received many letters and so did I. Many of them had been dictated to children. People were told to keep writing to their Members of Parliament and all the letters were exactly the same.
The county council thought that by whipping up the education lobby, it could bully the Government and extract more money. When its financial incompetence and mischief were discovered, it tried to involve other councils in the same monkey business. Now that the council has been found out, the rights of council tax payers, which should have been the prime concern, have been protected by the order that we are debating tonight.

365
I shall undoubtedly continue to fight against the unfair area cost adjustment. I hope that the review will do justice to the cause of Cambridgeshire. Having said that, I support the Minister's decision tonight, as do all Members representing Cambridgeshire—excluding the hon. Lady of course—and the opposition in all Cambridgeshire councils. They will continue to fight that cause and their case will be made clear at next year's elections.
Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who cannot intervene, is in his place and supports what my hon. Friend is saying?
Sir Anthony Grant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I had spotted my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. I read the powerful letter that he wrote and that the hon. Lady dismissed. It made sense to me and I quoted it with approval.
Finally, as I know that other Members wish to speak, let me say that I support the Minister's decision. It is high time that the interests of those who pay the bill—the unfortunate council tax payers who have to bear the brunt of all this nonsense and produce the cash—should be safeguarded at last and that is precisely what my right hon. Friend has done tonight.
8.13 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I begin by making two brief points about previous speeches. First, I thought that the Secretary of State made a bad mistake that I would not have expected of him when he said that, because a particular budget was possible, it must also be right. It is possible for Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire to set an even lower budget than they will be forced to do if the order is approved tonight. It is possible for them to cut the number of teachers further, to make more teachers redundant and to make class sizes even larger, but that does not make it right. So that was an extraordinarily weak point for the Minister to make.
The second point that I would like to take up was made by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). There is all the difference in the world between a theoretical increase and the theoretical amount of money that the Government apply to education and the actual decrease in the amount of cash that an authority has to spend.
It is somewhat ironic that the only two authorities being capped tonight are the Oxbridge counties. In the past, the Government have used only two excuses for introducing capping. One is to reduce the overall level of public expenditure and borrowing, and the other—this was referred to by the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant)—is to protect the public from outrageous increases in local taxes, including those levied by loony left authorities in the 1980s, but that is not the case today.
Let us consider those two possible excuses. It is worth examining some of the facts relating to public expenditure. The total of £13 million that the Secretary of State wishes to slice off the Oxbridge budgets amounts to 0.06 per cent. of the public sector borrowing requirement. It amounts to a mere 0.017 per cent. of the total spending by local authorities. As a proportion of total Government outlay, it represents not 1 per cent. or 0.1 per cent.
366
but 0.000046 per cent. In macro-economic terms, it is a spit in the ocean, but for Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire it will make an enormous difference to service provision.
The second excuse for capping is the need to protect the public from excessive taxation. Hon. Members will agree that, whatever else we say about Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire local authorities, they are not loony left councils.
Members of all political parties now agree that capping should be lifted. Indeed, the Conservative party agreed that at its conference last year. Our motivations may differ, but the basic reason for cross-party opposition to capping is and always has been that capping inhibits the accountability of local councillors, as well as the ability of local authorities to respond to local needs. Surely that is the whole point of local democracy.
Councils should be free to adopt policies and budgets that match the priorities of their local people. Nobody likes a heavy tax burden, and the iniquities of the council tax are well known. However, if the people of Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire are willing to pay a little extra to provide their children with the education they deserve, and to ensure that community care is properly funded, who are the Government to deny them their wishes?
There has been a test of local opinion—the local elections only three weeks ago. In Cambridgeshire, the Conservatives suffered a net loss of four councillors. In Oxfordshire, they had a net loss of 14 councillors. The public know who is to blame for the cuts in services and the increases in council tax—the Government—and they have demonstrated their support for the position taken by the current Liberal Democrat and Labour administrations.
Anyone who comes to the House and whines about the difficulties that the poor old taxpayers will have to suffer if they are made to pay such a huge amount of council tax should look at the results of those local elections and realise that that is precisely what the council tax payers voted for. The council tax payers clearly rejected the Conservative alternative. Therefore, it is undemocratic for the Secretary of State to seek to overrule the local decision-making process in those counties. He is clearly not doing so for the sake of local people, who have made it clear that they do not want his solution.
Local people in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire clearly do not need protecting from a spendthrift local authority by an economical central Government. On the contrary, they need protecting from central Government and their refusal to follow the wishes of local people as they have expressed them through the ballot box.
Moreover, the argument that Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire should be capped because central Government should protect people from big spending councils is flawed in a another important way. Let us look a little more closely at how much the counties are spending.
Such things are, of course, relative, so I have chosen, as it happens, the one Conservative-controlled county, Buckinghamshire, for comparison. Buckinghamshire has just under 657,000 people and a budget of £413 million. In 1996–97, the county will therefore spend about £629 a head. Cambridgeshire has a proposed budget of £408 million—£5 million less than Buckinghamshire— but it has 687,000 people, which is 30,000 more than

367
Buckinghamshire. Spending per head is £594. Cambridgeshire spends £35 a head less than Conservative-run Buckinghamshire.
Oxfordshire has a proposed budget of only £344 million, and has 590,000 people. Spending per head is £583. Oxfordshire spends £46 per head less than Conservative Buckinghamshire. We are told from the Government Benches that, in practice, Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire are expensive councils. The Government should look at their own councils first.
I am not suggesting that Buckinghamshire is spending more than it should; that is not the point. The point is that the Government are using Parliament to impose Whitehall-calculated budgets on two counties on the basis that those counties are spending too much. Yet the evidence is clear: their spending is well below that of the only comparable Conservative authority. Their proposed budgets are moderate to low in terms of pounds spent per head, and they are the minimum that each county needs to maintain quality services.
Let us be under no illusions. The Government are going to impose severe cuts on both counties, which will hurt. We ought to bear in mind just what those cuts will mean. The pain will be felt most by children and their parents and by those who rely on social services—almost certainly, the most vulnerable members of both the communities.
Under the proposed budget, Oxfordshire would spend almost £4 million above the education standard spending assessment. With the cap, it will spend only £300,000 above the SSA. The impact on schools will be acute. As a result of the capping order, at least 160 Oxfordshire teachers are likely to lose their jobs, resulting in redundancy costs of £3.7 million at a time of rising pupil numbers, and increasing burdens being placed on schools by central Government.
One principal summed up the predicament of her Banbury school:
"This September, we had 60 more students with eight less teaching jobs and next September we will have 30 more, plus more in the sixth form."
That Banbury school is set to lose another five teachers.
Oxfordshire's social services are also reeling from cuts made last year, and more cuts this year are the last thing that is needed. I have received details from one woman in Abingdon who suffers from acute arthritis. She can barely move her hands and can walk only short distances, yet she still manages to look after her severely disabled husband. They have the help of a home carer twice a day, but the length of visits has been steadily reduced to less than half an hour. That lady is haunted by the fear that more social services cuts forced by central Government will stop home visits completely. As she says:
"They always ask about family. But we do not have anyone. I have been pressing for more help this year. But I am always given the same answer—there is not enough money in the budget."
Cambridgeshire has the fastest growing population of any English county. Nevertheless, it has had to make real-terms cuts in departmental budgets. Environment and heritage resources have been cut, direct and support services have been cut, transport services have been cut, and social services have been cut. The county has
368
budgeted for additional expenditure on education, but that will be wiped out by the order, which will knock £5 million off its education budget.
If the order is passed, there will be up to 116 teaching redundancies. That will be on top of last year's horrendous settlement. Already, secondary school options have been dropped from the curriculum, and class sizes have risen to the point where sixth-form science students are working in classes of 30. Cambridgeshire's largest secondary school is making every effort to protect its teaching posts this year. Its contingency reserve has been reduced to just £464—not £464,000—and the school has 1,800 pupils.
Social services in Cambridgeshire are also being squeezed, but the order will cut a further £800,000 from its social services budget. Those cuts will have an impact on the 5,000 people who receive home care, the 2,500 people who receive meals on wheels and day-centre meals, and the 500 elderly people who have day care.
The grounds for capping either county simply do not exist. The implications for public expenditure as a whole are, as I have said, negligible. The proposed budgets on the other hand are entirely reasonable. Neither Oxfordshire nor Cambridgeshire can be called a big spender. By persisting with the cap, the Government have shown that Conservatives put party politics before local democracy and the needs of people.
The capping order subverts the electoral process, and will cause great damage to services in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. The young, the old, the weak and the infirm will bear the brunt of the Government's short-sightedness. Capping is wrong in principle, but, by applying it to those two counties, the Government are simply being vindictive and small-minded.
8.25 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the courtesy and objectivity with which he received the two delegations from Oxfordshire county council that I brought to see him this year to express the council's concern about the level of its revenue settlement grant and the level of its cap. I welcome the Government's decision to allow Oxfordshire a supplementary credit approval, and I hope that, in subsequent discussions with the county council, Ministers will continue to be helpful in agreeing the amount of approval. On that basis, and in that expectation, I shall be joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby after tonight's debate.
Nevertheless, while the effects of the cap will be mitigated by the new credit approval, I do not share the assessment of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the cap on Oxfordshire's budget is "reasonable, appropriate and achievable". I continue to be concerned about its effects in the current financial year and about the implications for next year's finances.
In taking that view, I stress that I agree with my Conservative colleagues on Oxfordshire county council, who also do not consider that Oxfordshire has sufficient resources to finance its services. At the time of the teachers' pay settlement last year, the Conservative group pressed for the difference between the SSA assumption for teachers' pay and the level of the actual settlement to be funded either by the Government or by an increase in

369
the cap. I supported them in that campaign, but it failed, leaving a shortfall of £1.8 million, which of course carries on into this year.
I also supported the Conservative group in its bid in January for an additional £1.9 million above the cap ceiling to cover the costs of the landfill tax and changes in pension fund regulations. I reckon that taking those together amounts to a minimum definition of a shortfall in the current year of at least £3.7 million.
Those have been the views of the Oxfordshire Tories, but at the same time, I have felt obliged to make my own independent judgment of the appropriateness of the limits being placed on Oxfordshire's spending. Last year, I was especially concerned about the level of funding for education that was envisaged in the 1995–96 local government settlement. That concern led me in the end to refuse to support the Government in the final vote on the question. I feel that my judgment has since been vindicated by the Government's decision in this year's settlement to accord special priority to education, with a national increase of 4.5 per cent. in the total standard spending assessment for schools.
In spite of that overall increase in the national level of funding for education this year, I remain of the view that the resources allowed to Oxfordshire are insufficient. That is partly a consequence of the overhang from last year's admittedly over-tight settlement. One of its consequences was that many schools in Oxfordshire drew down their balances, as the Secretary of State for Education and Employment urged them to do. To mitigate the cuts in 1995–96, the schools spent some £5 million from balances that cannot be spent again this year. That is why there is an overhang, for which the Government are at least partially compensating with the new credit approval, which was announced on Monday.
Behind these problems, there lies a deeper problem— that of the SSA system as it affects Oxfordshire. This is the critical issue, as it is the SSA calculations that determine both the level of the Government's grant to the county and the level of the cap that they place on the council tax. The Government are currently reviewing the SSA formula, and it is essential that all parties on Oxfordshire county council come together to agree a common position on the changes needed.
I fully understand that, in any distribution around an average, some are bound to be below the average and some above it. The problem is that Oxfordshire's SSA places us below the average to an extent that plainly does not reflect the reality of the county's financial requirements. For Oxfordshire county council, the national changes in SSAs, including the 4.5 per cent. allowed for education, have this year translated into only a 2.4 per cent. SSA increase, below that of all except seven of the other 34 shire counties.
I find it hard to understand why Oxfordshire has such a low-ranking SSA increase, when it faces above-average increases in the size of the key population groups: nought to four years, 11 to 15,65 to 75 and over 75. The county has estimated that, together with inflation at 2.9 per cent. and the effects of new legislation at 0.75 per cent., these demographic factors at 1.15 per cent. have generated a 5.5 per cent. increase in the need to spend at a constant level of service. Yet Oxfordshire's SSA allows only for a 2.4 per cent. increase, rising to 3 per cent. under the cap ceiling.
370
It is a fair observation that, after Oxfordshire became a hung council in 1985, its expenditure rose too fast. But, in the light of a £45 million cut from the county's budget in the past five years, and in the light of the Audit Commission's comparison of the performance of local authorities, I do not think that it can be argued that nowadays Oxfordshire county council is relatively inefficient. On the contrary, the county council is a comparatively low spender, and the Audit Commission acknowledges that it is one of the more efficient counties.
Nevertheless, I have to say to the county that there is scope for further savings, which the continuing financial squeeze will require it to face up to. Councillors were wrong to reject the advice of the county's officers that Oxfordshire's old people's homes should be "externalised". I believe that the question of the schools structure and the number of schools in Oxford city should be reopened urgently. I also believe that the Government should be more supportive of the proposed changes than they were only a few years ago, when they turned down the county's previous proposals for rationalisation.
I have spoken at length about Oxfordshire's SSA, putting down markers for the review to which the Government are committed and which will, I hope, proceed urgently. I now want to generalise from the situation I have described.
I believe that the Government have become dangerously over-reliant on the principle of formula funding for public services. SSAs were invented to distribute central Government grant amounting to about half local authority funding. There has always been an element of rough justice in the SSA system, but it was a justice that all could understand, and, when needs were understated, the consequences could be mitigated by the local determination of business and domestic rates.
The business rate has now been taken out of the hands of local government and put on a formula basis, while council tax increases have been subject to caps, which in turn are based on SSAs. To borrow an analogy from another area of debate, the Government are trying to play golf with only one club, or—worse—they are forcing local government to play its game with only a single club on a course that is more than ever scattered with bunkers and surrounded by increasingly rough grass.
The Government must recognise the real dangers to locally delivered public services which that trend represents. More than 66 different changes in the methodology by which SSA is distributed were considered for 1996–97. Compared with the previous method of calculation, if all the seven best options had been chosen, Oxfordshire would have had £4 million more SSA than it actually got. If the worst six options had been chosen, Oxfordshire would have been given £9 million less SSA than it actually got.
Over the whole process hangs a promise of improbably large gains and the real spectre of disastrous losses. Meanwhile, the imposition of caps, also based on SSAs, in effect deprives local authorities of the means of coping with these statistical vagaries.
I know that there is a pressing need to control public borrowing and public spending, but I believe that, along with that, it is necessary to recognise that our people continue to expect good public services, and I believe that they are prepared to pay for them. In my view, when the history of the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and

371
1990s comes to be written, their handling of local government will be the unhappiest chapter. It is a pity that the Government's record of success, which has been considerable in so many other areas, should be thus blemished.
8.34 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) for curtailing his speech to enable me to make this contribution. I will not embarrass him too much by praising the large part of it with which I agreed. It is a great shame that his vote will not follow the logic of his argument.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was a damning indictment of the argument by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). I have no desire to get into a slanging match with the right hon. Gentleman, who has given distinguished service to this country. However, he has done no service to our county this evening in describing as threadbare the arguments put forward locally by people of all parties and none. I remind him that there were Conservative members on the delegation that originally challenged the SSA. There is no doubt that the balance of opinion, as well as argument, within the county reflects the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Wantage.
I too rise to speak in defence of essential services in Oxfordshire and the quality of provision, which will be severely damaged if the order is passed; there is no doubt about that. I want to give voice to the widespread and intense anger felt in the county as a result of what the Conservative party is doing to our services.
This debate is not about extra central Government spending. As my hon. Friends know, I would be the last person, as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to argue for more or to pledge more. However, as hon. Members know, in the matter of local authority finances, there is quite properly a choice to be made locally—the trade-off between the level of council tax and the level of local services.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) said, except in the most exceptional circumstances, it should be up to local people to make that decision, and councillors should be accountable through the local electoral process. The order denies that choice to the people of Oxfordshire, just as it denies it to the people of Cambridgeshire.
Conservative Members should be under no illusions. Passing the order this evening will mean larger classes, poorer delivery of the national curriculum, an inability to cope with the pressure on residential home provision, cuts in family support services and care in the community, damage to library services and more accidents on even more poorly maintained roads. Up to 50 more teachers will lose their jobs on top of the 110 teachers in Oxfordshire who will lose their jobs even with the budget that the county council wants.
The damage that the order will impose is opposed by the overwhelming majority of Oxfordshire people. I pay tribute to the energetic and well-argued campaign waged locally by people of all parties and none, and to the public-spirited crusade that the Oxford Mail has run in support of local services. Local Members of Parliament
372
have been inundated with petitions, letters, faxes and telephone calls from tens of thousands of Oxfordshire residents, 99 per cent. of whom have pleaded with them to oppose the cap and the cuts that will result.
Conservative Members should understand that, in voting for the order tonight, they are giving the strongest possible message to the people of Oxfordshire, the people of Cambridgeshire and the people of the country as a whole that today's Conservative party does not listen, does not care and is not fit to have ultimate control over people's education, social services, libraries and other local provisions.
The Government will argue, as they have before, that they have provided some extra flexibility by encouraging an application for extra borrowing approval in Oxfordshire. That will, indeed, help a little, but no figure has been given, so such an application can only ease some of the short-term transitional problems of implementing the capped budget, such as teacher redundancies. What is more, the Government's argument exposes their bankrupt logic. They will encourage extra borrowing to allow teachers to be sacked. What sort of system is that?
Like the hon. Member for Wantage, I thank the Minister of State for the courteous and seemingly open-minded hearing he gave our representations. However, I do not believe that he has listened enough, or that he has taken full account of the unfair damage that the cap will do to Oxfordshire's services. But, of course, he faced the problem that local Conservative councillors—who had supported our initial representations on the SSA—did not join us in opposing the cap and the damage that it would inflict. If he was receiving advice from such hon. Members as the right hon. Member for Witney, I am not surprised that Oxfordshire has come out of this as badly as it has.
I have no doubt that, if all Oxfordshire Members of Parliament had spoken up for their constituents' interests, and if Conservative councillors had joined us in this campaign, Oxfordshire could and would have extracted a better deal, even from this Government. As it is, the damage will be great. People in Oxfordshire are and will remain very angry.
No one has been able to answer one very simple question. Oxfordshire is not one of the councils that annually knocks on the Minister's door to object to capping and to plead special difficulties. The council supports, as do I, the drive for value for money in public services.
The council has already made very severe cuts in services. As we have heard, in the past five years it has already cut no less than £45 million from its expenditure. Its staffing levels have already been cut, including—last year alone—the loss of 220 teachers and educational support staff.
The council is an efficient authority that has been at the forefront of voluntary competitive tendering. Moreover, Audit Commission performance indicators show that the county has the third lowest expenditure per head of all the shire counties. So how on earth can the Government argue that this very low-spending county is somehow an overspender? That exposes the fallacy and the nonsense of the way in which the SSA system works, as the hon. Member for Wantage said a few moments ago.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman, who has a position in this matter as shadow Chief Secretary, tell us whether the Labour party intends to change that system?
Mr. Smith: The position is quite clear. I refer the hon. Gentleman to our documents on local authority organisation and expenditure, in which we make it very clear that—yes, indeed—we intend to review the system for local government support so as to make it fairer and to enable local democratic preferences properly to be expressed and reflected in local budgets, so that local people have the say in determining the level of resources of local services, which are there to meet local needs. That is what people want in Oxfordshire, that is what they want in Cambridgeshire, and that is what they want across the country.
As it is, this order is very damaging, as the hon. Member for Wantage knows very well. It is being imposed on two county councils that are already among the lowest spenders. What nonsense it is to claim that Oxfordshire—the third lowest-spending county per head of population—is somehow an overspender that must be punished. That punishment is being inflicted on children, on the elderly, and on vulnerable people who are most dependent on the essential services of our county. It is nonsense—very damaging and unfair nonsense—for which the Conservative party will pay dearly, and which today the House should reject by voting down the order.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 118.

Division No. 132]

[8.43 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Duncan, Alan

Alexander, Richard

Duncan Smith, Iain

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dunn, Bob

Amess, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Elletson, Harold

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bates, Michael

Faber, David

Batiste, Spencer

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Body, Sir Richard

Fishburn, Dudley

Boswell, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Forth, Eric

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bowis, John

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)(

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Brazier, Julian

French, Douglas

Bright, Sir Graham

Gale, Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gardiner, Sir George

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gillan, Cheryl

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carrington, Matthew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carttiss, Michael

Gorst, Sir John

Cash, William

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clappison, James

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Colvin, Michael

Hargreaves, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hawkins, Nick

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hayes, Jerry

Couchman, James

Heald, Oliver

Cran, James

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

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

Hendry, Charles

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Horam, John

Dover, Den

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

374

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hunter, Andrew

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Jack, Michael

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Sims, Roger

Jenkin, Bernard

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Jessel, Toby

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Spink, Dr Robert

Kirkhope, Timothy

Spring, Richard

Knapman, Roger

Sproat, Iain

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Stephen, Michael

Knox, Sir David

Stern, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Stewart, Allan

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Streeter, Gary

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sweeney, Walter

Legg, Barry

Sykes, John

Lidington, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Luff, Peter

Thomason, Roy

MacKay, Andrew

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mans, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Marland, Paul

Tracey, Richard

Marlow, Tony

Trend, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Viggers, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Walden, George

Mates, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Moate, Sir Roger

Waterson, Nigel

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Watts, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wells, Bowen

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Whitney, Ray

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Whittingdale, John

Norris, Steve

Widdecombe, Ann

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wilkinson, John

Ottaway, Richard

Willetts, David

Page, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Paice, James

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wolfson, Mark

Powell, William (Corby)

Wood, Timothy

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Richards, Rod

Tellers for the Ayes

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Simon Burns and

Sackville, Tom

Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Armstrong, Hilary

Connarty, Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barnes, Harry

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Barron, Kevin

Darling, Alistair

Battle, John

Davidson, Ian

Bayley, Hugh

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

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Denham, John

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dewar, Donald

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dixon, Don

Benton, Joe

Dobson, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Dowd, Jim

Berry, Roger

Eagle, Ms Angela

Betts, Clive

Etherington, Bill

Blunkett, David

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Boateng, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Byers, Stephen

Foster, Don (Bath)

Caborn, Richard

Fraser, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

George, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Godsiff, Roger

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Church, Judith

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hanson, David

375

Hardy, Peter

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Harvey, Nick

Primarolo, Dawn

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hinchliffe, David

Raynsford, Nick

Hoey, Kate

Rendel, David

Hoon, Geoffrey

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Short, Clare

Jamieson, David

Simpson, Alan

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Soley, Clive

Keen, Alan

Spearing, Nigel

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Spellar, John

Khabra, Piara S

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Kirkwood, Archy

Stevenson, George

Lewis, Terry

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Loyden, Eddie

Sutcliffe, Gerry

MacShane, Denis

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Madden, Max

Tipping, Paddy

Maddock, Diana

Trickett, Jon

Mahon, Alice

Tyler, Paul

Mandelson, Peter

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Michael, Alun

Wilson, Brian

Miller, Andrew

Winnick, David

Morgan, Rhodri

Wise, Audrey

Mudie, George

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Pearson, Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Pike, Peter L

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

Pope, Greg

Mr. John Cummings.

Question accordingly agreed to
Resolved,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved

A406 (Chingford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
8.54 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Although we have a little more time than usual, I hope not to detain the House or my hon. Friend the Minister for longer than necessary or for longer than I had anticipated.
The subject of the debate is the improvements to the A406 north circular road from Silver street to Hall lane. It is not usual for hon. Members even to contemplate raising such matters in the House, but I do so because, as my hon. Friend will see, the roadworks in question have caused a great deal of frustration and highlight the apparent inability of anyone to take responsibility for the hardship that residents have suffered and for what I now regard as the destruction of their daily lives.
The work on the A406 has caused my constituents severe problems, not only because of traffic congestion and noise but because of dust, the constant coming and going and the digging of ditches in the general area. Additional problems were caused by the way in which my constituents have been dealt with. I ask my hon. Friend to remember the unusually hot summer of 1995 when all my constituents, except the residents of Hall lane, were able to enjoy their gardens and have their windows open when the heat was intense. For the past two summers, residents of Hall lane have been locked in their houses, unable to have their windows open because of the dust and noise. Their gardens have essentially become no-go areas, which has forced them to take their children elsewhere to play. That may at first appear a small matter, but after two years it takes on greater proportions.
We all accept that the roadworks are important as they will help to relieve traffic congestion, but I wish to raise some serious matters which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider reasonable. I shall go quickly through parts of a diary compiled by the people involved, which shows exactly what kind of nightmare they have experienced and how they have been treated. The combined diary was compiled by four people: Mrs. Mansoor of 317 Hall lane, Mrs. Fenton of 323 Hall lane, Mrs. Biggadike of 325 Hall lane and Mrs. Cook of 327 Hall lane.
The diary starts on 12 April 1994, not long after the roadworks commenced, when residents were offered double glazing. After they had badgered the authorities, Enfield council, which I understand was responsible for providing the grant, offered double glazing only for the front of their houses. That was the beginning of the row, because the position of the houses means that double glazing was necessary on at least two sides. The roadworks in effect wrap themselves around the properties and the noise and dust affects both sides.
Compressor noise began on 17 April and often continued through the night. On 7 May, the noise started earlier than intended. The usual story is that the noise started at 7 am and continued for the rest of the day, making it impossible for residents to go into their gardens. On 9 May, the diary records that there was again noise all day. On 16 June, generators were left on through the night, as happened on many other occasions.

377
On 17 June—let us remember that this was the summer of 1994—the noise started first thing in the morning, disrupting the residents for the rest of the day.
The thudding of lorries and the various other noises from major roadworks went on all the way through 1994 and into 1995. My hon. Friend the Minister will also note that, on a variety of days, residents wrote to complain to a number of authorities. On 4, 11 and 22 July and 8 August, they wrote a series of complaints to the Highways Agency. None was answered.
On 23 September, they were exasperated when a hole was dug in the road. Instead of sorting it out, the company slung a metal sheet over the top. All through the following night, residents were unable to sleep because heavy lorries were thumping up and down the road and waking them up. I am told that the vibrations were phenomenal. The diary entries tell almost exactly the same story. The residents expected work to take place during reasonable hours, but—perhaps because the contractors were falling behind—the hours were stretched. The residents' lives were abused because no one contacted them. Instead, the people involved simply acted beyond their brief. They started earlier, finished later and quite often did not check whether machinery was left on. Holes that had been dug in the road were left unfilled, creating problems with lorries. The lives of residents were made absolute hell.
The times on which work could be carried out were restricted, but Nuttalls wrote to the London borough of Waltham Forest to apply to work continuously to destroy the Lea valley storm water channel. The council agreed on the basis that the work would not cause excessive noise, and allowed Nuttalls to work seven days a week from 1 July. The change meant that the residents did not have a moment's peace during the whole week. Their occasionally peaceful times on Sundays now seemed to have gone for ever. The new Sunday working started at 7 am and quite often went on until 10 pm, and I draw my hon. Friend's attention again to the fact that it was a hot summer at that time. The new schedule meant that the residents' gardens were locked off to them on Sundays, and they all found it quite impossible. Nuttalls, who were blamed for the Sunday working, in turn blamed the people laying gas pipes or water mains. Everyone blamed everyone else, but the outcome was that my constituents had to suffer a seven-days-a-week nightmare.
The residents were not consulted on the increase in the working week. When work started, they felt that the noise of the demolition of the old viaduct was excessive, despite the fact that the local authority said that that would not be the case. That was the basis on which the authority had allowed the extra work. In a letter of 27 June to the residents, who had by now formed themselves into the Hall Lane Residents Association, the London borough of Waltham Forest environmental protection department said that work that did not disturb neighbours was permitted outside these hours. But, as the residents pointed out endlessly, that was not the case, and the noise was excessive in the sense that it was almost the same as would have been the case during a normal working day. On 8 July, piling work was done and machines were left on while that work was taking place on the Saturday from 7.30 am to 11 am. On 31 July, the machines worked from 7.30 am around the clock.
Double glazing and secondary glazing grants were obtained for the front of the properties from Enfield council, acting as agents for the Highways Agency.
378
But the row continued about the requirement for double glazing for the rear of the houses. There was a flat refusal by the Highways Agency to allow the residents to put in double glazing. That struck me as a mean-minded and petty point; the authority should have understood the nature of the complaints from my constituents. The residents were told that the noise that was measured at certain times of the day did not reach the absolute maximum that would have allowed the Highways Agency to agree to provide double glazing. That struck me as a small way to behave towards a small number of residents, who were therefore unable to have any satisfaction or relief from the noise even inside their houses.
The problems continued endlessly, however. The residents became sealed into their homes, unable to leave. One 84-year-old constituent of mine who lived just up the road had to be carried over a ditch outside her house because she was unable to cross it: she was manhandled over it and back for two weeks. A situation that was supposedly temporary—it was meant to last for only a few days—lasted for a fortnight.
The bureaucratic excuses mounted. Attempts were constantly made to spread the blame; no one seemed to be responsible. If residents went to one side—be it the Highways Agency or Frederick Snow—they were told that the other side was responsible. Alternately, they were told that they should look to the insurers, or that Nuttalls was responsible. When they went to Nuttalls, they were told that the fault lay with someone laying pipes in conjunction with the firm, or with the gas or water company. When they raised the matter with those companies, they were told that Nuttalls was doing all the damage. They were chased from one concern to another.
I share that frustration. Having met my constituents in their homes and discussed their problems with them, and having visited the area a number of times to try to experience the noise and dust that they were experiencing, I took up the issue with the various parties. As my hon. Friend the Minister probably already knows—he will certainly know from what I have said tonight—I was given the runaround by exactly the same agencies. I might just as well have been a resident.
On 19 May I wrote to Lawrie Haynes, chief executive of the Highways Agency, after a meeting of the residents of Hall lane. I wrote:
"Apart from the fact that these road works have been going on since February 1994, they have been joined by British Gas and Thames Water relaying pipes. What is of the greatest concern to me is that throughout this period the residents have received very little assistance from the Highways Agency and have had to fight tooth and nail in order to get the agency to accept the fact that they have had to put up with appalling conditions.
On a recent visit to these houses during the day it is perfectly obvious that the cracks in their walls and ceilings and the ever present dust are clearly as a result of all the work being carried out outside their front doors. They do not ask for much, but after having received grants for from insulation they have discovered that this was not enough to keep out the noise and dust from the road works, they have spent the past eight months trying to secure insulation for the rear of their properties.
Each of the organisations they have contacted about the work being carried out outside their properties blame the other for the disruption. The residents are understandably feeling more and more frustrated."
It did not seem much to ask, I said, that people who had been affected as badly as my constituents, whose environment had been so disrupted, should not have to

379
fight so long even to have that acknowledged, let alone dealt with. A bit of common sense and understanding could have resolved the matter at an early stage, and avoided the unnecessary blighting of lives. I concluded:
"I should be grateful if you and an independent assessor could visit these homes."
We seemed to be engaged in a Chingford version of the Scottish reel. All those responsible were running around my constituents; every now and then, one would dip his head and move on.
The Highways Agency eventually replied to my letter of 19 May on 23 August. Its chief executive, Lawrie Haynes, wrote:
"I am concerned that the residents feel their complaints have not been properly addressed. Under the contract the contractor is responsible for dealing with all claims for damage arising from the works, including valid claims for unavoidable damage. The contractor is also responsible for ensuring that the works are carried out without unreasonable noise, disturbance or damage and it is for the contractor to see that his work-people and sub-contractors behave carefully and avoid causing injury to other people."
No one appears to have pressed the contractors to carry out their contractual obligations.
Residents were then told by the construction engineers, Frederick Snow, that they were fed up with Nuttalls— the contractors—who had failed to keep their promises to improve matters for residents. That was in a letter from my constituent Mrs. Biggadike. I wrote to the chief executive of Nuttalls on 5 October. I said in my letter:
"These people have been passed back and forward between all those involved with the building of this road and it is high time that this matter was resolved."
I was graced with no reply from Nuttalls. To this day, I await a reply from the chief executive. On 3 May, I was forced to write again to Nuttalls. I said:
"What has become very clear is that both Sir Frederick Snow and the Highways Agency believe that the responsibility for much of the problem lies in your hands and that your company should rectify this."
I do not intend to detain my hon. Friend the Minister much longer, but I must ask him a series of questions. In something as major as this set of roadworks, which clearly has to take place and is likely to bring great benefit to the area, as my hon. Friend knows, why are the contractors and those working in the area allowed simply to get away with behaving so intolerably to those who live there? All my constituents accepted that they would have to put up with difficulties and with a degraded quality of life for a period of time. What they did not accept and could not understand was why they were treated as though their lives were so insignificant to those carrying out the work. They have been ignored, shunted from pillar to post and left to hang—in the hope, I suspect, that if they were left long enough they would not bother the contractors or anyone else any more.
The residents' demands amount to about four or five action points. They still want grants for the cost of double glazing to the rear of their properties. They want the damage from piling—the massive vibrations that cause cracks—resolved by an independent surveyor. Dust, noise and exhaust fumes have taken their toll and they want a full examination of those problems. As they have said, they want compensation for the general state of their houses and the filth that they have had to put up with.
380
Most of all, they want someone to tell them at some stage, "Mea culpa: I will resolve this—it is my problem and I will sort it out for you; let us resolve the matter." Why can we not force someone to say, "The buck stops here"?
9.11 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on bringing these matters to the attention of the House. It is one of the huge virtues of our parliamentary system that he is able to draw to the attention of the House his concerns on behalf of the residents of Hall lane. If he is in any doubt as to where the buck stops, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be prepared to remind him that it has stopped here and now at this Dispatch Box tonight. I shall endeavour to do what I can to answer his concerns and set his mind at rest. He will know that I have one advantage, in that he and I are neighbours in that part of London and I know Hall lane extremely well.
I am sorry to hear about the problems that the residents of Hall lane have been experiencing. Obviously, they have had to contend with a lot of activity in the vicinity while the improvements have been carried out. I very much regret that the inconvenience that has been caused by the roadworks is to some degree inevitable. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the fact that it is impossible to construct a scheme of that sort without some disruption.
The contractor is instructed, however, to ensure that the works are carried out without unreasonable noise, damage or disturbance, and we try to make every effort to ensure that that disruption is kept to a minimum. We try to eliminate some of the noise problems before construction begins, and all the properties in Hall lane that were eligible under the use criteria were insulated against noise.
I suspect that my hon. Friend will know that there are two bases on which we consider the adverse effect on properties. One is the adverse effect during construction and the other is the effect on properties once the road scheme is in use. We project forward noise levels some six years from the date of opening to allow for traffic growth. With those use criteria, we insulated those properties against noise, had secondary glazing installed or offered to make a grant towards double glazing.
Traffic noise calculations for properties in the vicinity of a road improvement scheme are all made on the same basis. Only properties that are predicted to receive noise above the minimum qualifying level receive an offer of secondary glazing. I know that some residents were very disappointed that they did not receive an offer of insulation for the rear facades of their properties, but I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we are restricted in what we can do, because we have to comply with the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, which apply to traffic noise.
On construction noise, we have to consider matters carefully, given the limited time scale between the nuisance and making offers to residents. It would need to be shown that such insulation would be of positive and long-term benefit and that it gave value for money. We offered noise insulation to 19 eligible properties in Hall lane, and 11 residents accepted our offer. About half of those were because of anticipated construction noise.
My hon. Friend pointed out that there has been some confusion about relevant contact points when problems and queries arise. I sympathise about that, but I hope that

381
he accepts that the brochure that we issued at the beginning of the works, explaining the improvements to the local residents, stated clearly the names and telephone numbers of the representatives on site. Whenever verbal complaints have been received from members of the public, they have been advised that the consultant's representative, the resident engineer, is the first point of contact and that the consultant's representative is there for any complaints that arise during the course of the works.
The resident engineer has clear instructions on the action to take once he is aware of a problem. If the complaint is about work being carried out on site, perhaps about the position of machinery or noise levels, and the contractor is working outside the conditions of his contract, he will take action and follow it up with the contractor. However, it is not always simple to put matters right when, for example, special equipment is not available, or lane closures are required for access to enable remedial work to be carried out. Traffic management, safety measures and so on, all have to be taken into consideration. The resident engineer operates specifically within the contract and statutory regulations framework.
If the complaint is a potential third-party claim for damages, the resident engineer has to decide who should deal with it. The contractor's insurers are usually the first port of call, but it may be necessary to involve the district valuer or a statutory undertaker who is not working on the scheme. Again, under the contract, the complaint may need to be referred directly to the Highways Agency. Complaints are passed on to the relevant person for follow-up action, and every member of the public concerned should receive a written reply advising them what has happened to their complaint or claim.
I know that the Highways Agency has recently been alerted to correspondence between Nuttalls, the contractors, and my hon. Friend. I am distressed to learn of the discourteous way in which my hon. Friend's correspondence appears to have been treated, although I note from a copy of a letter from the chief executive that he claims that my hon. Friend's earlier letter was not received. I am sure that he accepts that assurance. I know that the contractor is concerned that the residents of Hall lane believe that they have been badly treated by the contractor and he will, at the earliest opportunity, take the necessary steps to resolve those issues.
I shall ask the Highways Agency to ensure that the contractor's working methods comply fully with the terms of the contract because I am distressed to learn of the details that my hon. Friend has given, which suggest that standards have fallen below those that residents adjacent to such schemes are entitled to expect. I understand that certain residents were especially inconvenienced by maintenance works carried out by Thames Water. Although they were carried out concurrently with the contract, they were not connected with the scheme or with the Highways Agency work.
We try to ensure that all claims made by the public, especially those who live and work close to the improvement scheme, are dealt with promptly and that they are passed to the contractor and his insurers by the resident engineer.
I shall set out the framework, because it is important that my hon. Friend understands the framework in which contracts always operate. Under this contract, the
382
contractor is required to indemnify the Secretary of State against all third-party claims arising from the works, including valid claims for unavoidable damage or loss. On that basis, we cannot interfere directly with the contractor's responsibilities, but we do monitor progress on third-party claims and we ask our consultants to remind the contractor of his responsibilities for resolving and settling claims for damage and disruption.
For the record, there have been seven third-party claims from residents in the vicinity, of which two have been settled, four have not been followed up by the claimants and one is being assessed. In the context of a scheme of that type, that is not an especially large number of claims, but equally, there is no excuse for the intolerable behaviour described by my hon. Friend, and I shall ensure that the Highways Agency takes that point very seriously.
The contractor is responsible for the work methods of his work force and of subcontractors employed by him, and he must ensure that they conduct themselves responsibly, paying close attention to the safety interests of local people and the travelling public. We and the Highways Agency are not in the best position to do so, and I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that. If we did become involved, we would dilute the responsibility of the contractor for his staff, and I am keen that we should not enter such a situation.
I appreciate that some residents have been worried about the reduction in value of their properties, because my hon. Friend mentioned that issue to me when he was fortunate enough to secure the debate. In certain circumstances, they may claim compensation under the provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. To qualify for that compensation, the reduction in value must be directly attributable to the use of the new road and must be caused by factors such as noise, vibration or smoke.
A booklet is available from the agency, entitled "Your Home and Nuisance from Public Development", which explains the basis of compensation and eligibility. I am happy to let my hon. Friend have as many copies as he likes or to send them directly to anyone who he would like to receive them.
The district valuer, who is entirely independent of the Department, as my hon. Friend knows, is responsible for assessing, negotiating and recommending the amount of compensation payable. The claim period begins a year after the road is open to public traffic, and lasts for six years. Notices will be published in local newspapers nearer the time, advising people of their rights under the Act and explaining how to make a claim.
In essence, that is the protection that people are given by Parliament in terms of any substantial difference in the noise levels once the scheme, having been completed, is in operation. It is important to bear it in mind that that means, not that a specific, absolute level of noise is attained a year after the scheme is open, but more especially that there has been a significant difference in the noise level as the basis on which compensation is payable.
I hope to end, if my hon. Friend will allow me, on a slightly more optimistic note, because he and I know, and I am pleased to be able to report, that the improvements on the north circular at the Hall lane site are almost complete.

383
The south end of Hall lane has been identified for planting in our outline landscape proposals, and it is our intention to approach residents there shortly, with a view to carrying out some off-site screen planting in their gardens by agreement as soon as practicable. As my hon. Friend knows, Hall lane runs effectively at right angles to the north circular, and the planting in the front gardens of those properties will provide screening against the sight of the scheme and, one hopes, some amelioration, but that will be done in co-operation with the residents.
Major civil engineering works of the type that we have carried out on that site—the north circular road being one of the largest civil engineering works of its kind in the country, and certainly a very long-standing scheme in the area that my hon. Friend and I represent—inevitably cause some inconvenience and disruption. For that, I offer my
384
condolences to people locally. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous as to accept that, in such circumstances, sadly, there will be an element of disruption. It was the type of summer that probably aggravated the dust and the general effect of such a scheme.
We shall try to minimise problems on the site. I assure my hon. Friend that, if he has any further concerns, he has only to raise the subject with me and I shall personally deal with the matter and with Mr. Haynes at the Highways Agency, who, in my experience, has always been extraordinarily co-operative and helpful.
At the end of a day not long from now, local people in that area will begin to enjoy the benefits of the improvements instead of the rather more unfortunate short-term side effects.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock till Tuesday 4 June, pursuant to Order [13 May].

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if staff from the Central Office of Information will be allowed to put in a bid for work earmarked for market testing which they currently carry out for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if he will make a statement. [29981]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 November 1995,Official Report, column 235. I have decided that COI's activities should become more closely focused and it would not be compatible with this aim for COI to compete in market tests carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Andersen Consulting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many public sector computer projects Andersen Consulting has advised since 1985; how many of these and which have(a) been substantially delayed and (b) failed; and how many claims for compensation against Andersen are now in progress. [29996]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally and it would be disproportionately expensive to obtain it. From the information that I have, which may not be complete, I can say that since 1993 the following contracts have been awarded to Andersen Consulting:

  Department of Social Services/War Pensions Agency—War Pensions Project, 1993;

  MOD/Procurement Executive—ASPECT study and report, 1993;

  MOD/Navy—WRAM project, 1993;

  Department of Employment—Image Processing, 1993;

  MOD/Navy—ACCESS project, 1995;

  Department of Social Services/Contributions Agency—National Insurance Recording System 2, 1995;

  Employment Service; Department of Social Services/Benefits Agency jobseeker's allowance review and implementation, 1995.

  None of these projects has been substantially delayed and none has failed. So far as I am aware from the information available to me, there are no claims for compensation against Andersen in progress, but this information is not held centrally and it would cost a disproportionate amount to collect it.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each of his Department's agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide; and what were the results. [30047]
  188
  Mr. Willetts
  The market testing of services provided by this Department's agencies is a matter for their chief executives and for their customers. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from N. E. Borrett to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your Question about the market testing of our services.
  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) was set up on 1 April this year following Ministers' decision to implement the findings of an Efficiency Scrutiny Report on the Management of the Government's Civil Estate. The roles of PACE set out in the Scrutiny recommendations which by their nature have to be performed in the public sector aim to ensure that the benefits of a centrally managed estate are retained following the transfer to departments of full responsibility for the properties they occupy.
  The Agency has a key role to promote co-operation between departments to enable them to obtain best value for money in the management of their properties. This may either be in relation to departments' or agencies' activity in the property market or promoting opportunities for inter-departmental rationalisation.
  PACE also provides a single central point for the provision of general property advice. The Central Advice Unit (CAU) was set up a year in advance of the Agency to assist departments taking on their new responsibilities.
  Where departments decide that it will not be economic to retain skills in-house, PACE provides intelligent client support on repayment terms. By charging for this particular service PACE are, in effect, being market tested by departments because the work would otherwise be carried out by their own staff.
  The Agency has been reconstituted out of Property Holdings (PH), which ceased to exist at the end of March. Since 1990, PH had managed the Government's Common User Estate (CUE), comprising mainly general purpose office property. PACE has therefore as a result inherited considerable experience in procuring and managing private sector services. Though maintenance responsibilities for some buildings on the CUE had been passed to departments, PH remained largely responsible for estates and most works services. In its last year (1995/96) PH had funding of £550 million for rents and £127 million for maintenance and new works. All estates and works services were undertaken by consultants and contractors in the private sector. During the early years of PH's existence services previously handled within Government by the Property Services Agency (PSA) had all been market tested. Consultants analysed Property Holdings savings from market testing. The level of fees paid under market tested commissions in 1992–93 were estimated to be some 40% less than the rates charged in the previous year under supply and service arrangements with the PSA.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 20 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Office of Information, to your question about the market testing of services.
  COI has not market tested any of the services it provides for clients in the last year. Its activities are subject to constant market testing by customers who are under no obligation to use its services.

  Letter from R. N. Edwards to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your question about market testing in his department's Agencies.
  The Chessington Computer Centre has not carried out any market testing since April 1995. This is because Chessington has been working to prepare itself for privatisation in 1996.
  The sale of Chessington is on target for late July.

  189
  There has however, been a steady programme of market tests carried out since April 95 by customers on the services we provide for them.
  I hope this provides the information that you need. If it does not please do not hesitate to get in touch.

  Letter from Robin Guenier to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 20 May 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), 1 am responding on behalf of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to your recent question raised about market testing of services provided by CCTA.
  I am able to inform you that no services provided by CCTA have been market tested.

  Letter from S. H. F. Hickey to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 20 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question on the Market Testing that has been carried out into the services that the Civil Service College provides.
  The College provides training and consultancy services to the Civil Service and also the wider public sector and internationally. We have no tied customers and thus are operating in a competitive market with other providers of these services. About three quarters of our income in 1995/96 came from open courses run mainly at Sunningdale Park and our London centre. The remainder of our work is single-client training and consultancy and is normally won following some form of competitive tendering which may well form part of our customers' market testing programmes.
  The College carries out its own training and consultancy and we have not market tested any of this provision. We do however use a considerable amount of input from outside sources. Over 50% of teaching input is from non-Civil Service College Staff. This is a strategic decision to ensure quality, relevance and flexibility and ranges from associate lecturers doing individual sessions on a course to partnership with Price Waterhouse to jointly deliver courses on the Private Finance Initiative.
  Ancillary services which include services which are provided by us to our customers, such as hotel and catering services, have been subject to market testing.

  Letter from John King to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to write to you directly, with information about SAFE's market testing. This is in response to your recent PQ addressed to him.
  SAFE is an Executive Agency with a remit to provide a range of security services to Government. It has no tied customers and as a result it is for our customers to choose to use the Agency and most do this through market testing or other forms of competitive bidding. The Agency undertakes a great variety work to a value of £40M to £45M per annum and I regret that it is impractical to list all the individual items.
  Recently, the Agency did, however, initiate a major market test of one of its four operational units—the Inter Despatch Services (IDS). The IDS has a turnover of about £2½M per annum and the in-house team won against stiff competition from the private sector. The outcome has been significant price reductions for IDS customers.

  Letter from Chris Penn to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 21 May 1996:
  In the temporary absence of our Chief Executive, I have been asked to reply, so far as HMSO is concerned, to your Parliamentary question about the market-testing of the services provided by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's agencies.
  The cost-effectiveness of the services that HMSO offers is frequently tested in the market-place by our customers. There have been some losses but a significant and growing proportion of our business has been won in open competition.
  190
  In terms of our own programme of market-testing, HMSO has tested a number of key service areas over the years, and our Annual Reports have regularly recorded the results. In the last year or so, we have announced the outcome of two market tests covering important elements of our Publications distribution business. A test of the order and enquiry services was awarded jointly to the in-house team and a commercial telesales company, EWA Ltd of Chelmsford. The new service began at the start of the year and is already demonstrating improvements in service standards. These include much reduced telephone call waiting times, increases in the numbers of order lines processed and a more proactive response to customers' needs. More recently, the test of receipt, storage and distribution arrangements was awarded to the in-house team with the prospect of both service and cost improvements.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Dr. E. C. McCloy to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 20 May 1996:
  Mr. Willetts, Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, has asked me to reply to your question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asking him to list, for each of his department's agencies, the results of market testing of the services they provide.
  In the period since 1 April 1995 no market testing was carried out of the services provided by the Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OHSA). As part of the privatisation process of the Agency some government departments have indicated that they may wish to market test the provision of occupational health services but no formal announcements have been made.
  In the past (1994–95) the OHSA market tested the provision of laboratory services which resulted in an aggregate net value of efficiency gains of £7,000 in each of the three future financial years.

  Letter from Craig Muir to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 21 May 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning market testing into the services provided by Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS).
  As you are no doubt already aware, RAS was established as an Executive Agency on 1 April 1991. We provide recruitment, consultancy and related services to government departments, executive agencies and other public service bodies.
  As a result of government departments and executive agencies being given responsibility to carry out their own recruitment above Executive Officer level in 1991 (with the exception of the most senior appointments and fast stream entrants), RAS was faced with the challenge of competing against private sector recruitment companies for public sector business.
  The great majority of RAS potential customers now subject recruitment agencies to market testing by competitive tendering on the range and quality of services they are able to provide before appointing the successful bidder. RAS is not immune from this process and our reaction from this increased competition was to continue to develop and expand the range of services and recruitment products we are able to offer, both to those who had decided to carry out their own recruitment (sometimes with our assistance) and to those who had selected RAS to run the recruitment campaign for them.
  Despite a general decline in the number of appointments on offer, the wider range of services and products we are able to provide led to 1994–95 being our most successful year since our inception.
  We had a marked increase in market penetration. Our share of Civil Service recruitment rose to 11% in 1994–95 (compared to 7% in 1993–94), and from a deficit of £333,000 in 1993–94 to a surplus of over £415,000 in 1994–95. There was also a significant increase in consultancy and other recruitment related services. In total, 1,173 consultancy days were provided in 1994–95, an increase of 146% over the previous year.
  I hope that you will see from the above that the services of RAS are in the continuous process of marketing testing; it is only by remaining competitive and high on quality that we will maintain our position as the leading provider of recruitment and related services to a wider market as we head for privatisation later this year.
  191
  Letter from S. P. Sage to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 20 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply on behalf of the Buying Agency to your recent parliamentary question concerning the market testing of the services provided by the agencies for which his department is responsible.
  You may find the following background useful. TBA is a government trading fund with a sales turnover this year projected at around £250m, an expenditure budget of £5m and 125 staff. The agency offers a full range of procurement services to its public sector customers.
  TBA has no tied customers or business. It operates on a fully commercial basis and must continue to minimise costs in order for its services to remain competitively priced and attractive to customers. All TBA's services are market-tested regularly by customers, either as a result of winning business through competitive tenders or through customers' own price comparison exercises.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has reached a decision on the short-list of bidders for HMSO. [30789]

  Mr. Freeman
  HMSO was advertised for sale in March, and a large number of organisations expressed interest in the sale. We subsequently received 14 indicative bids, and I am pleased to announce that the following parties have been short-listed:

  an independent consortium backed by Mercury Asset Management, 3i and Capita;

  a Hambros consortium;

  National Publishing Group, a consortium led by Electra Fleming;

  Westminster Information System, led by NatWest Ventures.

  Each of these will now prepare final bids based on detailed information about HMSO and discussions with its management and staff.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made in drawing up a contract for the provision of printing and publishing services to the House after the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. [30990]

  Mr. Beith
  A draft contract has been prepared by the House's legal advisers, and has been approved by the Commission for release to the short-listed organisations bidding for HMSO. A copy of the draft—excluding certain financial provisions which are commercially confidential—will be placed in the Library on Tuesday 4 June when the House returns from the spring adjournment. The Commission considers that the draft contract provides the safeguards stipulated in the Speaker's letter of 28 November 1995 to the Lord President of the Council,Official Report, 11 December 1995, columns 455–57.

  The provisions of the draft contract are not subject to negotiation with the short-listed bidders.
  192

TREASURY

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of his agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30045]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executives of the Royal Mint, the Office for National Statistics, the Valuation Office and Paymaster agencies. I have asked each of them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Longford to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  In your question to the Chancellor (ref: 30045) you ask what market testing has been carried out into the services provided by the Agency and what were the results.
  The Valuation Office is an Executive Agency within the Inland Revenue and carries out valuations of land and buildings for a wide range of clients in the public sector throughout England, Wales and Scotland, including an estate surveying and valuation service for other government departments, public bodies and local authorities.
  The main functions of the Valuation Office are to:

  undertake rating and council tax valuation work in England and Wales;

  provide valuation services to the Inland Revenue in England, Wales and Scotland mainly in connection with inheritance tax and capital gains tax;

  provide various other statutory and non-statutory valuation services to Government Departments and the wider public sector in England, Wales and Scotland;

  assess, make and recover contributions in lieu of rates in respect of Crown occupation of properties within the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Gibraltar and make payments of rates in respect of properties in the United Kingdom occupied by overseas Governments;

  Provide policy advice to Government Departments and Ministers on property valuation matters.

  The initiative to undertake market testing for non-statutory work rests with other government departments, public bodies and local authorities and the Valuation Office responds by tendering on a regular basis for estate surveying and valuation services in competition with the private sector.
  Please let me know if I can assist further.

  Letter from Roger Holmes to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question about market testing.
  The Royal Mint has operated as a trading fund since 1 April 1975 and already runs on a commercial basis with normal private sector disciplines rigorously applied. As a leading player in export markets with two-thirds of our sales overseas, all our sourcing decisions must be commercial. In these circumstances the Royal Mint does not operate a formal market testing programme, but managers review regularly whether goods and services should be provided internally or outsourced and, as a result, sub-contract or outsource a wide range of items.
  I trust my reply is helpful.

  Letter from Keith Sullens to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question asking if he will list for each of his agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results.
  193
  The following tables show what services PAYMASTER has had market tested and what the results were:

  Banking business

  Service Market Tested

  Result

  56 NHS Trusts and Health Authorities

  Either retained existing level of business or gained additional business in some cases

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  Lost the banking transaction business but retained the vote funding element

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Retained

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Retained

  Further Education Funding Council

  Retained

  Funding Agency for Schools

  Won

  English Nature

  Part retained

  BBSRC

  Part retained

  Pension services

  Service Market Tested

  Result

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  Database and Payroll Services

  Retained

  Customer Services

  Lost to in house bidder

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Pensioner Payroll and

  Retained via subcontract with

  Administration

  MDIS

  Pensioner Administration

  Lost

  Computer System

  Letter from Tim Hold to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question of 17 May about market testing of services provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
  The ONS was created as a new government department and executive agency on 1 April 1996. It brought together the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) and the Central Statistical Office (CSO). This response provides information covering market tests completed by March 1995. Competing for Quality figures for the period between April 1995 and March 1996 are being compiled for the ONS Efficiency Plan. It is anticipated that this information will be published in the 1996 Next Steps Review.
  CSO Market Testing Activities up to March 1995:

  Activities included in the 1995 Next Steps Review

  Catering Services

  Retail Price Index (local price collection)

  Statistical Methodology

  Training

  Other activities, not published in the 1995 Next Steps Review

  Internal Audit

  Graphic Design Services

  Producer Price Index (computer development)

  Four of these were awarded externally, three retained in-house.

  OPCS Market Testing Activities up to March 1995:

  Activities included in the 1995 Next Steps Review

  Reprographics

  London Housekeeping

  Registration Bindery

  Redevelopment of NHSCR IT system

  Other activities not published in the 1995 Next Steps Review

  Voice and Data Communications

  One of these was awarded to the private sector, four were retained in-house.

  194

  Community Transit Procedures
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence the Government has submitted to the European Parliament committee of inquiry into community transit procedures. [30167]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At a preliminary stage of its work, the European Parliament committee of inquiry into community transit procedures invited Governments to respond to the areas of investigation outlined under its terms of reference. A response by HM Customs and Excise was sent to the committee on 19 March 1996. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Members' Library.

  Income Level Research
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the Inland Revenue to increase the sample size of information collected from its files to enable a more accurate assessment of income levels by local authority area. [30398]

  Mr. Jack
  The size of the sample for the survey of personal incomes is set with a view to meeting efficiently its primary purpose of providing information relevant to the costing of income tax proposals affecting the United Kingdom as a whole. As such, a plan to increase its size is not required.

  Some information from the survey of personal incomes on income levels by local authority areas is already published in "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995". Like all information derived from sample surveys, the figures are subject to statistical variation and the published tables indicate which estimates are particularly uncertain.

  Film, Recording and Publishing Industries
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the levels of(a) the invisible and (b) the visible imports and exports of (i) the record industry and (ii) the publishing industry over the past three years. [30350]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Estimates are not available in the format requested. For visible trade, the estimates to the nearest definition available are given in the following table:

  £ million

  Publishing of recorded media1

  Of which: sound recordings

  CDID

  Exports WIQC

  Imports WLJD

  Exports QAED

  Imports QDYH

  1992

  1,292

  877

  231

  148

  1993

  1,543

  902

  237

  166

  1994

  1,762

  956

  301

  192

  1995

  1,999

  1,058

  375

  231

  Note:

  1 Includes books, newspapers, journals and periodicals, sound recordings and other publishing.

  Source:

  Business Monitor MQ10 "Overseas Trade analysed in terms of industries".
  195
  For invisibles, the estimates are available only for the overall classification group "publishing printing, performers and other recreation services".

  The latest available figures are given in the following table.

  £ million

  Royalties and services from "publishing, printing, performers and other recreation services" industry

  Exports

  Imports

  1992

  537

  259

  1993

  665

  331

  1994

  790

  429

  Source:

  First Release (CSO (95) 280) "Overseas Earnings from Royalties and Services".

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of employment in(a) the film industry, (b) the record industry and (c) the publishing industry. [30349]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information requested is available only at census of employment dates. Figures from the latest census at September 1993 are shown in the following table.

  Employees in employment in Great Britain: September 1993

  Industry

  SIC92 code

  Level

  Motion picture and video production1

  92.11

  11,200

  Publishing of sound recordings2

  22.14

  1,700

  Publishing of books, newspapers, journals, periodicals etc3

  422.1

  117,200

  1 Includes production of motion pictures and video tape. Excludes related areas such as motion picture and video distribution and projection, reproduction of video from master copies, activities of own account actors etc.

  2 Includes publishing of gramophone records, compact discs and tapes with music or other sound recordings. Excludes related areas such as reproduction from master copies of gramophone records, compact discs and tapes.

  3Includes publishing of postcards, timetables, forms and posters. Excludes related areas such as printing.

  4Less 22.14

  Information about employment in related areas is available from "Census of Employment Statistics 1993" which is available in the Library.

  Employment Levels
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the changes in employment levels for(a) employees and (b) the self-employed for (i) full-time males, (ii) part-time males, (iii) full-time females and (iv) part-time females between spring 1995 and 1996. [30162]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information is not available for spring 1996 until 14 August 1996 when provisional results will be published in the labour force survey first release. The latest information from the LFS showing the change in employment levels between winter 1994–95 and winter 1995–96 are shown in the table.196

  Employment changes in Great Britain between winter 1994–95 and winter 1995–961 Seasonally adjusted.

  000

  Employees

  Full-time males

  +138

  Part time males

  +76

  Full-time females

  +19

  Part-time females

  +201

  Self-employed

  Full-time males

  -62

  Part-time males

  +4

  Full-time females

  0

  Part-time females

  -11

  Note:

  Provisional.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  EU (UK Contribution)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the United Kingdom gross contribution to the EU in 1996; and if he will express this total as a sum per person per week. [30216]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's latest estimate of the United Kingdom's gross contribution to the European Community budget for 1996–97 is £7,733 million, after account is taken of the UK's abatement. Assuming a population for the UK of 58.3 million, the estimate translates arithmetically to £2.54 per person per week.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net contribution to the EU in 1996; and if he will list the principal areas in which revenue is returned from the EU. [30217]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community budget for 1996–97 is £2,899 million. Included within the estimate is a total of £4,834 million for public sector receipts. The great bulk of these receipts come from the three major Community funds, as follows:

  Fund

  1996–97 £ million

  European Agricultural and Guarantee Fund

  2,999

  European Social Fund

  1,068

  European Regional Development Fund

  744

  Value Added Tax
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest available figures for(a) under-declarations and (b) over-declarations of VAT voluntarily disclosed; and what assessment he has made of the preventive effects of assurance visits on these figures. [30053]
  197
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: Customs' latest audited figures for VAT voluntarily disclosed in the year ended 31 March 1995 are as follows:

  (a) under-declarations—£366 million

  (b) over-declarations—£568 million.

  It is not possible to quantify the preventive effect of assurance visits on these figures.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by Customs and Excise into the link between VAT compliance and assurance visits; if the results are published; and what plans he has for additional research in this area. [30054]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: Customs tells me that it has an on-going programme of research into the link between VAT compliance and assurance visits. It asks academics to carry out research to evaluate the effect of the assurance programme on trade sectors. None of the material produced so far is of sufficient general interest to warrant publication, although it has been made available to interested parties inside the Department.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of VAT arrears have been written off in each of the last 10 years. [30055]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: Write-off figures for 1995 have not yet been finalised. The value of VAT remitted or written off in the previous 10 years was as follows:

  1994: £550,464,000

  1993: £742,376,000

  1992: £745,773,000

  1991: £515,335,000

  1990: £212,715,000

  1989: £176,478,000

  1988: £225,780,000

  1987: £216,354,000

  1986: £178,601,000

  1985–86: £238,999,000.

  From 1 April 1986, schedules of these amounts have been prepared on a calendar year basis. Figures for 1986 cover the period 1 April to 31 December.

  Insolvency accounts for approximately 90 per cent. of all VAT write-offs or remissions.

  Council of Europe Meetings
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [29364]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: No Ministers or officials from my Department have attended meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995.
  198

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who have been mis-sold personal pensions since 1986. [28813]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: There is no reliable estimate available of the number of people who have been mis-sold personal pensions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Jammu and Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received in respect of the general election in India concerning the percentage of electors in Jammu and Kashmir who cast votes; and if he will make a statement. [30441]

  Mr. Hanley
  Elections in Jammu and Kashmir are being spread over three days: 7, 23 and 30 May. Turnout in the constituencies of Jammu and Ladakh, where polling took place on 7 May, but where the count has not yet begun, is estimated to have been around 55 per cent. and 80 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of those United Kingdom nationals who observed on behalf of the United Kingdom recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir; if he will place their reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [30443]

  Mr. Hanley
  A member of our high commission staff in New Delhi visited the constituency of Jammu during the elections on 7 Mary. The overall atmosphere was peaceful. The high commission's report on that visit is an internal document and will not be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received to date, concerning those taken hostage in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [30440]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are aware of recent reports that the hostages may be dead and, together with the Indian and other Governments, are working to assess whether or not they are true. We continue at present to work on the basis that the hostages are alive and to work hard for their early and safe release.

  We keep in close touch with the families and give appropriate briefing to the constituency Members of Parliament involved.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when a decision is to be taken by the post in Islamabad on an application by Mrs. Tazeem Akhtar and her children (ref. IMM/C7358) to enter the United Kingdom; when the results of DNA tests in relation to this application were received; and if he will make a statement; [30235]

  (2) when a decision is to be made on the application made to the post in Islamabad by Mrs. Muzamal Jan and her two children (ref. IMM/C7226) to enter the United Kingdom; when the applicant was interviewed at the post; and if he will make a statement. [30234]
  199
  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply form the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [30258]

  Mr. Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans at present to visit the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Angola
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what UN sanctions are currently being enforced against UNITA. [30331]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  UN Security Council resolution 864 of 15 September 1993 imposed a ban on the sale or supply to UNITA of arms and related materials and military assistance, as well as petroleum and petroleum products.

  UN Peacekeeping
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on peacekeeping operations of the United Nations' borrowing of funds from its peacekeeping budgets. [30500]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Funds borrowed from peacekeeping budgets to meet cash shortfalls on the UN regular budget have had no appreciable impact on UN peacekeeping operations.

  Conventional Forces in Europe Review Conference
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position with respect to the CFE review conference; and what the British delegation will seek to achieve at the conference. [30501]

  Mr. David Davis
  The CFE review conference is the forum for an operational review of the treaty and for resolving outstanding treaty implementation issues. To this end the UK delegation's aim will be to:

  conduct a review of the treaty's operation;

  support efforts to resolve the flank problem and other outstanding implementation issues;

  consider any proposals for discussions on the future of the treaty.

  WPC Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State, Home Office, of 8 May,Official Report, column 213, what representations have been made to the Government of Libya about two
  200
  people in the Libyan bureau in London in 1984, possessing diplomatic immunity, suspected of the murder of WPC Fletcher. [29297]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: We asked the Libyan Government to co-operate with the police investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher at the time. They refused. In the absence of such co-operation it was not possible to bring charges against any individual. There were therefore no grounds for making further representations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30120]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This is a matter for the chief executives of each agency. They will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jan Walters to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about market testing the Agency's services.
  The Agency already outsources the delivery of programmes and services which account for 80% of the Agency's annual budget. Since 1992 the Agency has undertaken a vigorous competing for Quality programme and has continued to scrutinise its programmes and services. Scoping studies have been carried out in the following areas:-

  1992/93: Training Centre Network

  1993/94: Business Support: Jobclubs

  1994/95: Disablement Advisory Service

  1995/96: Careers Service (Including Jobskills pre-entry)

  These studies have not led to further contracting out of services or programmes but have resulted in substantial savings being identified and realised.
  Most notable so far, the examination in 1992/93 of the potential for market testing the Agency's network of Training Centres prompted a major reorganisation of the network, involving running costs of £10.6m and 626 staff (approximately 40% of Agency staff). This re-organisation resulted in total annual running cost savings which rise to approximately £2m by the end of 1995/96, as well as total annual programme cost savings rising to approximately £2m over the same period. The Business Support study resulted in cash savings of £ 134k per annum.
  The Agency's revised Framework document includes a commitment to continue to examine the scope for and, if appropriate, implement proposals for market testing with a view to ensuring best value for money.
  Furthermore, a comprehensive study due for completion shortly is examining the current and future potential roles of the private sector in delivering the Agency's services.

  Letter from F. G. McConnell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU)

  201
  to reply to your question about market testing within Executive Agencies.
  An independent study of the scope for market testing of IRTU's activities has recently been completed. The study involved a detailed examination of the Agency's activities and recommended that none of these is appropriate for market testing. This recommendation is being considered.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Letter from D. J. Bell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Question about what market testing has been carried out into the services provided by the Valuation & Lands Agency for Northern Ireland.
  Since its launch as a Next Steps Agency on 1 April 1993, only once has market testing been fully carried out on a service provided by the Agency.
  In that instance, market testing was carried out by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and as a result, the valuation service previously provided by the Agency to the NIHE throughout Northern Ireland, was restricted to that part of Northern Ireland covered by the NIHE's Western Region.
  I trust this information is sufficient for your purposes but if you think I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know.

  Letter from F. Jardine to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question on market testing on behalf of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA).
  NISRA was established as a Next Steps Agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel on 1 April 1998. Its role is to provide statistics, social research and civil registration services and to undertake the Census of Population. The Agency thus shares a number of functions in common with the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In the short period since it was established NISRA has not market tested any of its services but is committed in the Framework Document to examining the scope for future market testing.
  The collection and processing of much regional statistical data in Northern Ireland is closely linked to analogous GB activities and the market testing of such work is normally undertaken in association with the ONS. Prior to Agentisation Northern Ireland with GB to market test the collection of prices information which contribute to the Retail Prices Index (RPI). The collection of RPI data was transferred subsequently to the private sector.

  Letter from D. Court to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 May 1996:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State to list for each of his Department's Agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results.
  As Chief Executive of the Government Purchasing Agency, I am replying on his behalf.
  The Government Purchasing Agency was launched on 1 April 1996 and is responsible for the provision of a professional procurement service for Northern Ireland Departments, their agencies and the Northern Ireland Office. It also manages the procurement process and advises Ministers on all issues relating to procurement policy.
  Each year Departments will review their Service Level Agreements with the Agency and are free to obtain their services from elsewhere, if they so wish. Therefore the Agency, while unable to market test itself, is subject to a continuous market test by its customers.
  The Agency does contract out some of its work and it is intended to continue to examine opportunities for this in the future.
  I hope this is helpful.
  202
  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on market testing.
  The Social Security Agency has not market tested any of its services since its establishment in July 1991.
  I hope this explains the position for you but 1 would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Letter from P. Devlin to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about market testing carried out into the services provided by his Department's agencies and the results.
  I should like to explain that there has been no market testing of child support maintenance services.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Letter from Ronnie Brown to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on market testing in agencies.
  On 1 November 1992 Health Estates commenced the market testing of design, consultancy and site supervision services in respect of clients' healthcare buildings.
  In each of the three reporting periods since then the in-house team has demonstrated its ability to offer competitive bids for these services and to win sufficient work to ensure the full utilization of the current staff resources.

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Compensation Agency, to your recent Question regarding market testing.
  As part of the Agency's Prior Options review in 1994 an entry was placed in Market Testing Bulletin inviting those with an interest in the Agency's work to respond. In addition, the Northern Ireland Office, the Agency's parent department, wrote to a number of organisations who were viewed as having an interest, these included the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, the Association of British Insurers, the Northern Ireland Bankers Association, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bar Library. Letters were also written to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee and to the 17 Northern Ireland MPs.
  There were responses only from the Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters and one MP. In each case the view was that administration of the compensation schemes in Northern Ireland should be carried out by a public body, such as the Agency, accountable to Parliament and Ministers and that it would be inappropriate for the private sector to handle such sensitive material.

  Letter from Alan Shannon to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about market testing undertaken by Government agencies.
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service became an executive agency on 1 April 1995. None of its functions have been subject to direct market testing in the intervening period. However, a prior options review of its payroll services, which was completed in 1995/96, resulted in a number of recommendations for a more efficient organisation of the service, including a reduction in the number of posts required. In addition, prior options reviews of the works department, pharmacy services and fire prevention arrangements were started in 1995/96 and will be completed during the current year.
  203
  Letter from R. A. Hall to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 May 1996:
  You recently raised a Question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asking if he would list for each of his Department's Agencies, what market testing had been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results.
  I have been asked to reply to you directly. My Agency was launched on 1 September 1995 after a prior options study had been conducted on the provision fo the service. That study concluded that the service should be established as an Executive Agency of the Northern Ireland Office. No market testing of the service was carried out.

  Letter from D. W. Gallagher to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about market testing of our services.
  No market testing has yet been carried out though there are plans to market test our services in toto after 1 April 1997.

  Letter from J. F. Codd to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your question about market testing by Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland. In the absence of the Chief Executive I am replying on his behalf.
  We had two core activities in the market testing programme for 1993–94:

  (i) resurvey at basic scales for preparation of master survey documents; and

  (ii) data conversion of large scales topographical archive to digital information.

  A judgement was made that their small size meant that the cost of preparing for formal market testing would have exceeded potential savings. Consequently we kept the work in-house on condition that we achieved at least 10 per cent. cost reduction in 1993–94 and succeeding years.

  Letter from J. B. Watson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  I refer to the question which you recently put to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, asking for Information on market testing in each of his Department's Agencies. This matter has been referred to Chief Executives for reply and this response covers the Driver & Vehicle Testing Agency.
  The Agency was set up with effect from 1 April 1992, following a complete review of the activities. This review considered all options for the future provision of Driver and Vehicle Testing and concluded that a Next Steps Agency represented the optimum means of delivery. In 1993 privatisation of the private car vehicle testing operation was examined. This review also concluded that the existing arrangements were the most efficient. A full review of the Agency is planned to commence next year.

  Letter from Brendan Hagee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your question in relation to Market Testing which has been carried out into services provided by the Department's Agencies and the results.
  DVLNI invited tenders in relation to a market test on Local Vehicle Licensing Offices during 1994. The bid was won in-house and a new contract commenced 1 July 1995.

  Letter from A. P. W. Malcomson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Question as to what market testing has been carried out for the services provided by this Executive Agency and what were the results.
  204
  The following Public Record Office areas have been subject to market testing (ie, Competing for Quality): cleaning, catering, wordprocessing, reprographics and information technology. The first two functions were contracted out centrally; the third was reduced in scale but retained in-house; and the fourth and fifth were retained in-house. Another area, namely Repository, was also retained in-house subject to the achievement of 10% efficiency saving.

  Letter from C. E. Ronaldson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17May 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about Market Testing of the services provided by his Department's Agencies.
  A Prior Options Study was carried out on Works Service (Construction Service's predecessor) prior to the launch of the Agency on 1 April 1996.
  Since 1 April 1996 none of the services provided by Construction Service have been Market Tested.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17May 1996:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply on behalf of the Environment and Heritage Service, to your parliamentary question about what market testing has been carried out into services provided by his Department's agencies and the results.
  Grounds maintenance at the 2 largest of the 7 Country Parks, managed by this Service, was market tested in 1991. In both instances the work was won by the in-house bid, which proved to be the cheapest.
  Grass cutting operations at 42 of the 181 State Care Monument sites managed by us in the eastern half of Northern Ireland were market tested in 1994.
  This area was chosen as it contained the greatest concentration of monuments in commercially viable groups. In all, 4 groups were market-tested and the work was won by the in-house bid in each case.

  Letter from Arthur H. Moir to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  A Prior Options Review of the activities of the Land Registry. Registry of Deeds and Statutory Charges Register which was completed in 1995 recommended Agency Status and was accepted by the Office of Public Service on the basis that the new Agency would consider the market testing of non-core functions.
  None of the Agencies activities have yet been Market Tested. All of the Agencies activities are being fundamentally examined, as part of the current efficiency plan, in a Business Process Re engineering Project. This will be completed by the Autumn. The Agency is also attempting to secure a private sector partner under the Private Finance Initiative to computerise the Land Registration process. Market Testing will be considered further when these projects are completed.

  Letter from H. R. F. Flester to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  You recently tabled a written question on the issue of market testing for answer by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As the Water Service has been a Next Steps Agency within the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland since 1 April 1996 this has been forwarded to me, as Chief Executive, for reply in respect of the Agency.
  The Water Service has been engaged in a market testing and efficiency review programme since the late 1980s and will, within 2 years, have market tested or carried out efficiency reviews of 50% of all its activities.

  205
  The activities covered in the most recent part of this programme, between October 1994 and March 1996, are:

  1. Collection and transportation of water quality samples

  2. Sludge tinkering

  Septic tank emptying

  Minor to major sewage treatment works, and major sewage treatment works to disposal points.

  3. Sewer maintenance

  Clearing of blockages and desilting.

  Sewer and manhole repairs and construction.

  Of these recent market tests 64% were won by the in-house teams.

  Letter from V. Crawford to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your question about market testing which has been carried out by Roads Service. In his absence I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive.
  Prior to becoming an Executive Agency within the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland on 1 April 1996, Roads Service market tested a number of road maintenance and inspection/testing functions. In addition, street lighting maintenance, car park management, the Strangford Ferry Service, Roadman Training Centre, Castlenavan Quarry and the materials testing maintenance contracts were lost to the private sector, but the remainder, representing approximately 90% of the work tested, was won by in-house teams.
  The agency has not completed any market tests since it was created. It does, however, intend to test approximately three quarters of its work during the next 3 years.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 May 1996:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply to your question about what market testing has been carried out in the services provided by The Planning Service and what were the results.
  The Planning Service since it became an Agency, within the Department of the Environment, on 1 April 1996, has not carried out any market testing. In 1993 The Planning Service market tested the "Area Plans Research and Analysis process" which is the first stage in the preparation of Area Development Plans. The work market tested was for 6 Area Plans extending over a period of 18 months and was awarded to the In-House team.
  A second market test to revisit the market is scheduled for completion by 31 March 1997 and is included in the Agency's Business Plan.

  Sinn Fein Candidates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Upper Bann for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been(a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30514]

  (2) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for North Down for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30515]

  (3) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for South Down for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged
  206
  and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30516]

  (4) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Newry and Armagh for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30517]

  (5) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Strangford for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30518]

  (6) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offence with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30519]

  (7) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for West Tyrone for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30520]

  (8) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for South Antrim for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30529]

  (9) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Foyle for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30531]

  (10) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Mid-Ulster for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30521]

  (11) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Belfast, North for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30522]

  (12) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Belfast, South for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30523]
  207
  (13) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Belfast, East for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30524]

  (14) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Belfast, West for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30525]

  (15) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for Lagan Valley for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30526]

  (16) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for East Londonderry for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30527]

  (17) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for the East Antrim for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date or release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30528]

  (18) if he will list the Sinn Fein candidates for North Antrim for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which they have been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him; [30530]

  (19) if he will publish the regional list of Sinn Fein candidates for the elections on 30 May and indicate any terrorist offences with which each candidate has been (a) charged and (b) convicted and the sentences given and served, the date of the offences and the date of release or as much of such information as is readily available to him. [30532]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to indicate terrorist offences with which any of the candidates nominated by Sinn Fein to stand for election on 30 May, and listed in full in the Belfast Gazette, may have been charged or convicted, or details relating to sentences any may have served. To enable the Royal Ulster Constabulary's criminal records office to begin a search of its records it would be necessary to provide the office with the full name, date of birth and address of each person. As this, however, would not guarantee that the correct person had been identified, the RUC would further require a set of fingerprints to compare with those held on record.
  208

  European Fund for Peace and Reconciliation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the maximum sum of money per head of population in each district council in Northern Ireland which can be obtained from the European fund for peace and reconciliation. [30322]

  Mr. Moss
  Under sub-programme 6 of the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland 1995 to 1999, a proposed sum of £35 million will be allocated among Northern Ireland's 26 district council areas to take account of both population and levels of relative deprivation. The maximum sum of money per head of population in each district council area in Northern Ireland under sub-programme 6 is as follows:

  District council

  Allocation per capita (£)

  Antrim

  12

  Ards

  13

  Armagh

  16

  Ballymena

  13

  Ballymoney

  14

  Banbridge

  13

  Belfast

  34

  Carrickfergus

  11

  Castlereagh

  11

  Coleraine

  13

  Cookstown

  28

  Craigavon

  14

  Derry

  36

  Down

  14

  Dungannon

  25

  Fermanagh

  20

  Larne

  15

  Limavady

  30

  Lisburn

  19

  Magherafelt

  20

  Moyle

  25

  Newry and Mourne

  24

  Newtownabbey

  13

  North Down

  11

  Omagh

  19

  Strabane

  43

  Average

  21

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were employed by his Department on BSE-related research during(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993, (d) 1994 and (e) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [26004]

  Mr. Boswell
  The following numbers of MAFF staff have been employed on BSE-related research:

  Year

  Staff years

  1991–92

  n/a

  1992–93

  116.8

  1993–94

  104.1

  209

  Year

  Staff years

  1994–95

  103.8

  1995–96

  102.8

  n/a = not available.

  These figures do not reflect the totality of MAFF's BSE research programme as MAFF also funds BSE-related research at non-MAFF establishments. MAFF staff are also employed on work related to the diagnoses and monitoring of the disease.

  Directorate of Fisheries Research
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the future organisation of the directorate of fisheries research. [30671]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The directorate of fisheries research was recently the subject of a prior options review. This looked at the need for its services, and how they could be provided most effectively. Following this review, the Government have decided that the directorate of fisheries research should become a next steps executive agency of MAFF. This will give it greater management freedom to improve performance within a framework of targets set by Ministers while retaining it within the public sector. My intention is that this change should take place on 1 April 1997 if this can be achieved, and in any event as soon as practicable.

  Horticulture Research International
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received about the proposed privatisation of Horticulture Research International; [30013]

  (2) what steps he has taken to protect the interests of small to medium-sized horticultural enterprises following privatisation of Horticulture Research International; [30015]

  (3) what guarantees of future funding for Horticulture Research International he will give following privatisation; [30016]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the planned time scale for the privatisation of Horticulture Research International. [30020]

  Mr. Boswell
  No decisions have been taken on privatisation of Horticulture Research International.

  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings and consultations which he has had with representatives of the horticultural industry to discuss the future of Horticulture Research International in the last six months. [30014]

  Mr. Boswell
  Horticulture Research International is the subject of a prior options review which is looking at a variety of options, including whether it should remain in the public sector. The review team has met the following representatives of the horticultural industry:

  The Apple and Pear Research Council

  East Mailing Trustees

  Horticultural Development Council

  National Farmers' Union

  210
  Written comments were received from the following additional horticulture associations:

  East Mailing Research Association

  Horticultural Research Association

  Horticultural Trades Association

  Mushroom Growers Association

  National Hop Association

  Potato Marketing Board

  Processors and Growers Research Organisation

  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his plans for the future of Horticulture Research International; and if he will make a statement. [30018]

  Mr. Boswell
  As part of the prior options review, the future status of HRI is now to be considered by the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene. Decisions on the outcome will be announced as soon as possible.

  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the benefits to small to medium-sized horticultural enterprises which will accrue from privatisation of Horticulture Research International. [30019]

  Mr. Boswell
  In reaching a decision on Horticulture Research International's future status, the Government will take into account the responses received from the horticulture industry in the course of the prior options review.

  Departmental Staff (Directorships)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those MAFF employees who currently hold directorships with companies engaged in the sourcing, processing, distribution or retailing of food, the dates of their appointment and the income or secondment received by his Department for their service. [30392]

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the guide to non-executive directorships for civil servants, Mr. A. R. Burne and Mr. B. J. Harding currently hold directorships in companies engaged in the sourcing, processing, distribution or retailing of food. The dates of their appointments are October 1994 and March 1996 respectively. The Department does not receive any income or secondment from these appointments.

  Lindane
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to publish the results of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides' review of the agricultural uses of the pesticide substance lindane. [30786]

  Mrs. Browning
  The committee completed this review at its meeting on 15 February. The Government have accepted the committee's recommendation that all present agricultural uses of lindane should continue without unacceptable risks to people or the environment.

  Full details of the review are given in the committee's evaluation document which was published on 2 May. Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
  211

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made on the implementation of the new EU rules on the welfare of animals in transport; and if he will make a statement. [30962]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In October last year, we circulated our proposals for implementing the new EU rules on the welfare of animals in transport to over 600 interested organisations and individuals. That initial consultation ended in December and we have been considering the comments received. There are some issues on which it is now possible to give a clearer indication of the shape of future legislation. There are other issues where we shall need to consult interested parties further on how we should take practicalities into account while providing improved welfare conditions.

  It is now clear that there is nothing to be gained by bringing forward early legislation on particular aspects of the directive. We shall, instead, develop practical and workable measures, which we shall implement in a single statutory instrument later in the year.

  One of the central issues to emerge from consultation has been how livestock markets will fit in with the new rules. Consultation has clearly underlined the difficulties in requiring a "paper trail" to follow individual animals from farm of origin through markets and beyond and we will not now be pursuing this. We shall be consulting further on alternative approaches to markets to ensure that the continuity of protection required by the EU rules is provided.

  We have also been considering the requirement for transporters to be competent. It had been our intention to require such transporters to undergo a formal assessment of their competence. However, we have decided, in the light of the consultation exercise, that this would impose an unnecessary burden on the majority of transporters and that, in common with approaches in other sectors, the onus should instead be on transporters to show that their staff have the necessary competence. In order to help both transporters and enforcers, it is our intention to provide a framework of the competences required.

  We want to take the time available to us to make sure that all the detail of our implementing measures is sound and practical. We have therefore asked officials to continue discussions with all interested parties. When we have firmer proposals, we shall set these out in a further consultation document before finally deciding what approaches to adopt.

  Collection Centres
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of collection centres approved in accordance with EU legislation on animal health. [28626]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: As at 17 May 1996, the following livestock markets and assembly points were approved as collection centres, as defined in Council directive 64/432/EEC:

  Penrith Auction Mart, Agricultural Hall, Skirsgill, Pentrith, Cumbria;

  Kirkby Stephen Auction Mart, Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria;

  212

  Lazonby Auction Mart, Lazonby, Pentrith, Cumbria;

  Kendal Auction Mart, Appelby Road, Kendal, Cumbria;

  Sedbergh Auction Mart, Station Road, Sedbergh, Cumbria;

  Skipton Auction Mart, Gargave Road, Skipton, North Yorks.

  Leybum Auction Mart, Richmond Road, Leyburn, North Yorks;

  Applegarth Market, Romanby Road, Northallerton, North Yorks;

  York Livestock Centre, Murton, York;

  Malton Cattle Market, Cattle Market, Malton;

  Bentham Auction Mart, High Bentham, Lancaster;

  Thirsk Auction Mart, Station Road, Thirsk;

  The Auction Mart, North Road, Ripon, North Yorkshire;

  Lingfield Farm, Colton, Tadcaster;

  Lancaster Farmers Auction Mart, Golgotha, Lancaster;

  Light Foot House Farm, Light Foot Lane, Fulwood, Preston;

  Brockholes Arms Auction Mart, Garstang Road, Claughton on Brock, Garstang;

  Haslingden Auction Mart, Private Lane, Bent Gate, Haslingden, Rossendale, Lancs;

  Deben Farm, Land Dyke Lane, Scalford, Melton Mowbray, Leicstershire;

  Northampton Cattle Market, Victoria Promenade, Northampton;

  Stratford-upon-Avon Cattle Market, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire;

  Airfield Farm (Calf Centre), Airfield Farm, Bearley Road, Snitterfield, Warwicks;

  The Cattle Market, Craven Road, Rugby, Warwickshire;

  Melton Mowbray Cattle Market, Scalford Road, Melton Mowbray, Leics;

  Henley In Arden Market, Warwick Road, Henley in Arden;

  Market Harborough Cattle Market, Foxton Road, Lubenham, Market Harboroug;

  The Grange Farm, Boon Hill, Bignall End, Stoke on Trent;

  Lichfield Auction Centre, Woodend Land, Fradley;

  Prospect Farm, Millmeece, Eccleshall, Staffs;

  Walnut Croft, Poole, Nantwich;

  Crewe Livestock Market, Barker Street, Crewe;

  Beeston Smithfield, Tarporley, Cheshire;

  Chester Auction Centre, Bumpers Lane, Chester;

  Hilltop Farm, Newton by Frodsham, Warrington;

  Elm Bank, Whitchurch Rd, Rowton, Chester;

  Chelford Agricultural Centre, Chelford, Cheshire;

  Bank Farm, Hough, Crewe;

  Ross-on-Wye Livestock Centre, Overross, Ross on Wye, Herefordshire;

  Hereford Cattle Market, Hereford Market, (Market Office), Hereford;

  Shrewsbury Livestock Auction, The Smithfield, Harlescott Lane, Shrewsbury;

  Market Drayton, Cattle Market, Addreley Rd, Market Drayton, Shropshire;

  Oswestry Cattle Auctions, New Smithfield, Shrewsbury Rd, Oswestry, Shropshire;

  Kidderminister Cattle Market, Comberton Hill, Kidderminster;

  Salisbury Agricultural Centre, Salisbury Road, Netherthampton, Salisbury;

  Gloucester Market Auctioneers, The Cattle Market, St Oswalds Road, Gloucester;

  Forest Gate Farm, Pewsham, Chippenham, Wiltshire;

  Chippenham Livestock Market, Cocklebury Road, Chippenham, Wiltshire;

  Chowle Farm, Faringdon, Oxford;

  213

  Lodge Farm Calf Holding Shed, Lodge Farm, Barnard Gate, Witney Oxon;

  Banbury Market, Banbury, Oxfordshire;

  Homestead Farm, Petham, Canterbury, Kent;

  Abbotsland Farm, Capel Le Ferne, Folkstone, Kent;

  Kingsley Hill Farm, Warbleton, Rushlake Green, Heathfield, East Sussex;

  Coxhill Farm, Shepherdswell, Dover, Kent;

  Ashford Market, Ashford, Kent;

  Maidstone Market, Detling, Maidstone, Kent;

  'Wyjac' Ashill, Nr. Ilminster, Somerset;

  Chancellors Farm Calf Unit, Chancellors Farm, Wanstron, Nr. Shepton Mallet;

  Halsey Cross Farm, Over Stowey, Bridgwater, Somerset;

  Mendip Farm, Hornblotton, Shepton Mallet, Somerset;

  Frome Market, Standerwick, Frome;

  Truro Market, 58 Lemon St, Truro, Cornwall;

  Helston Market, St. Johns Rd, Helston, Cornwall;

  Penzance Livestock Market, Poniou Road, Long Rock, Penzance, Cornwall;

  Liskeard Market, Liskeard, Cornwall;

  St. Austell Market, Pentenan Rd, St. Austell, Cornwall;

  Wadebridge Market, Wadebridge, Cornwall;

  Upperwood Farm, Threapwood, Malpas, Cheshire;

  Gaerwen Livestock Market, Gaerwen, Ynys Mon;

  St. Asaph Market, The Roe, St. Asaph, Clwyd;

  Dolgellau Market, Dolgellau Smithfield, Dolgellau;

  'Davela', Llyswen, Brecon, Powys;

  Halifax Agriculral Services, 5 Walters Rd, Swansea;

  Cowbridge Cattle Market, The Buthe, Cowbridge;

  Newport Cattle Market, Newport, Gwent;

  Penderyn Market, Boedwiged Farm, Penderyn;

  Cardigan Market, Station Road, Cardigan, Wales;

  Whitland Livestock Market, West St, Whitland;

  Llanybydder Market, Carms, Wales;

  Dingwall Auction Mart, 15 Tulloch St, Dingwall Ross-Shire;

  Ben Nevis Auction Mart, Corpach, Fort Williams, Invernesshire;

  Thurso Auction Market, Ormlie Road, Thurso, Caithness;

  Lochmaddy Auction Mart, Lochmaddy, North Uist, Western Isles;

  Caithness Livestock Centre, Quoybrae, Watten, Caithness;

  Agricultural Marketing Centre, Staneyhill, Lerwick, Shetland;

  Orkney Auction Mart, 44 Junction Rd, Kirkwall, Orkney;

  Huntley Auction Market, The Ward, Huntley, Aberdeenshire;

  Thainstone Agricultural Centre, Thainstone, Inverurie, Aberdeenshire;

  Glenfield Market, Glenfield Road, Paisley;

  Stathaven Auction Mart, Station Road, Strathaven;

  Stirling Auction Mart, Kildean, Stirling;

  Oliver and Son, New Mart Rd, Edinburgh.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30066]
  214
  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The 1995–96 annual budget for the MAFF deregulation unit covering pay and non-pay costs was approximately £96,000. The unit consists of four permanent members of staff, one at each of the following grades: grade 7, higher executive officer, executive officer and administrative assistant. In addition, there is involvement at more senior grades including the grade 5 head of division to whom the deregulation unit reports. All members of staff are career civil servants, none of whom has been seconded from the business sector. The grade 5 has some experience of the private sector through a non-executive directorship.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union covering the period October 1995 to April 1996. [30790]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  India
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what representations he has made to the Indian Government since the general election; and if he will make a statement; [30442]

  (2) if he will invite the next Prime Minister of India to visit the United Kingdom to discuss the resolution of the Kashmir dispute; and if he will make a statement. [30439]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 23 April,Official Report, columns 191–92. Our policy on Kashmir remains unchanged. I look forward to an early opportunity to discuss bilateral and other issues, including Kashmir, with the new Indian Prime Minister.

  Ministers (Overseas Travel)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those occasions on which Ministers from Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices have participated in overseas trade or goodwill missions on official business during(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) in the programme for 1996–97. [29941]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: Ministers promote British business and British jobs at every available opportunity. The information requested is as follows:

  Minister

  Country

  Welsh Office

  1994

  Right hon. John Redwood

  Japan

  Mr. Gwilym Jones

  Australia/New Zealand/ France/Belgium

  Sir Wyn Roberts

  Spain/Sweden/Italy

  Rod Richards

  Saudi Arabia

  215

  Minister

  Country

  1995

  Right hon. William Hague

  Japan/Korea/Hong Kong/Spain

  Rod Richards

  Argentina/Dubai/United Arab Emirates

  Gwilym Jones

  Italy/Germany

  1996

  Right hon. William Hague

  USA

  Rod Richards

  Indonesia

  Gwilym Jones

  Luxembourg/Spain

  Scottish Office

  1994

  Right hon. Ian Lang

  USA/Belgium

  Allan Stewart

  Japan/Germany

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Finland

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

  USA/Greece

  Sir Hector Monro

  Norway/Canada/France

  1995

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Norway

  George Kynoch

  Taipei/Finland/USA/Spain

  The Earl of Lindsay

  Germany/Canada

  1996

  Right hon. Michael Forsyth

  USA/Canada

  The Earl of Lindsay

  France

  Northern Ireland Office

  1994

  Tim Smith

  Belgium/USA

  1995

  Baroness Denton

  Belgium/Canada/USA/Hong Kong/Japan/France/Italy/Singapore

  1996

  Baroness Denton

  Canada/Netherlands/France/USA/ Japan/Korea/Indonesia

HEALTH

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the NHS summarised accounts, 1994–95, in respect of how many cases the use of general practitioners' fundholder savings has been(a) outside the scope of the regulations since the inception of the fundholding scheme and (b) outside the scope of the regulations, in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95. [23062]

  Mr. Malone
  Two such cases have been formally identified, one by the Audit Commission and the other by a regional health authority.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much general practitioner fundholders in each health authority area, by region, have spent on health care from outside the NHS, in each of the last four years. [29664]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: The information will be placed in the Library.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the spending on pay and administrative costs of health authorities in each region in each year since 1991–92. [29400]
  216
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 November 1995 at column 974, for spending on pay and administration costs of health authorities in each region for the years 1991–92 to 1993— 94. The comparable information for 1994–95 will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the number and percentage of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentage of these staff that are women, in his Department on 1 April. [30557]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table. The grades of staff in the national health service regional offices which became part of the Department of Health on 1 April are not comparable with civil service grades. A separate entry has been made for these.

  Whole-time equivalents

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Female percentage

  UG1

  3

  0

  3

  0

  UG2

  5

  0

  5

  0

  UG3

  18

  6

  24

  25

  UG4

  17

  9

  26

  35

  UG5

  128

  60

  188

  32

  UG6

  55

  39

  94

  41

  UG7

  335

  172

  507

  34

  SEO

  186

  68

  254

  27

  HEO

  343

  264

  607

  43

  EO

  361

  436

  797

  55

  AO

  263

  736

  999

  74

  AA

  117

  225

  342

  66

  NHS

  372

  570

  942

  61

  Total

  2,203

  2,585

  4,788

  54

  Staff out on secondment or on loan to other Government Departments, on maternity leave more than three months, or on unpaid career breaks/study leave are excluded.

  Renal Services Review
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) of 4 March,Official Report, column 68, if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting in April 1996 with the National Kidney Federation about the national review of renal services; and when his Department's renal services review will be published. [30688]

  Mr. Horam
  I had a constructive meeting with the National Kidney Federation on 2 April at which its concerns about the provision of renal services were discussed. I was able to inform it that the national renal review, and purchasing guidelines for health authorities based on the review, would be published soon. The review and purchasing guidelines were published on 7 May.
  217
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to consult patients in the contracting process in the implementation of the renal services review; [30219]

  (2) if he will publish a timetable for the implementation of the renal services review; [30220]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure the recommendations outlined in the renal services review are fully implemented. [30221]

  Mr. Horam
  The renal review, which we published on 7 May, makes several recommendations about the development of services for patients with renal failure. On the same day the national health service executive published guidelines, EL(96)35, for health authorities drawing attention to the important issues raised in the review and advising how these might best be tackled. The majority of recommendations are being taken forward locally by purchasing authorities and national health service trusts in accordance with local needs and priorities which take account of the views of patients locally. Copies of the review will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions he has made for extra funding for renal services in the United Kingdom. [30222]

  Mr. Horam
  In England health authorities are given general allocations for hospital and community health services to purchase health care services for their resident population. It is for individual health authorities in consultation with the providers of services to decide the level and type of services purchased, taking account of local circumstances and national policies and priorities. Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Staff out on secondment or on loan to other Government Departments, on maternity leave more than three months, or on unpaid career breaks/study leave are excluded.

  Pressure Sores
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 479, if he will make it his policy (a) to collate statistics and (b) to establish estimated costs in respect of statistics in relation to the incidence of pressure sores among NHS hospital patients. [30212]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health is seeking to reduce the burden of data collection by the national health service and rationalise data flows within the NHS and between the NHS and the centre. The collection of additional information on pressure sores would not be in line with this policy.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; which agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30568]
  218
  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the improvements in productivity of pharmacists in each of the last 10 years, together with the change in NHS payments to pharmacists for each of those years. [29577]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The table shows that amount of national health service payments to pharmacists in cash terms for the years 1985–86 to 1994–95. There is no overall measure of pharmacists' productivity. The number of prescriptions dispensed over the period is shown as one indicator of their NHS activity.

  Pharmacists' NHS payments amount paid1

  Prescriptions dispensed

  Year

  £ millions

  Year on year percentage change

  Millions

  Year on year percentage change

  1985–86

  1,240.6

  —

  337.4

  —

  1986–87

  1,401.8

  13.0

  350.8

  4.0

  1987–88

  1,583.2

  12.9

  367.4

  4.7

  1988–89

  1,743.5

  10.1

  370.3

  0.8

  1989–90

  1,911.6

  9.6

  384.3

  3.8

  1990–91

  2,068.8

  8.2

  391.5

  1.9

  1991–92

  2,345.3

  13.4

  412.8

  5.4

  1992–93

  2,634.1

  12.3

  429.4

  4.0

  1993–94

  2,903.8

  10.2

  447.3

  4.2

  1994–95

  3,148.9

  8.4

  462.2

  3.3

  1 Amount includes net ingredient costs of drugs (i.e., excluding discount and including container allowance) and pharmacists' remuneration. Adjusted to account for payback and clawback of under/overpayment of pharmacists' remuneration in previous years.

  Breast Screening Programme
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount the national health service breast screening programme spends on screening women aged 65 years or over; and what percentage of the total budget this is. [29676]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1994–95—the latest year for which figures are available—the national health service breast screening programme spent approximately £840,000 on screening women aged 65 years and over. This represents approximately 3.1 per cent. of the total expenditure of the NHS breast screening programme.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish how many women were tested or screened under the national health service breast screening programme as a result of self or GP referral for each year since 1992–93 broken down by age bands(a) 50 to 54, (b) 55 to 59, (c) 60 to 64, (d) 65 to 69, (e) 70 to 74 and (f) 75 years and over; [29677]

  (2) how many women were tested or screened under the national health service breast screening programme as a result of first invitation or routine recall broken down by age bands (a) 50 to 54, (b) 55 to 59, (c) 60 to 64, (d) 65 to 69, (e) 70 to 74 and (f) 75 years and over in the last year for which figures are available. [29678]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information is shown in the table. Data for 1994–95 are provisional.
  219

  Breast screening programme: number of women screened by age and type of invitation.

  Thousands

  Age

  Type of invitation

  Years

  50–54

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75+

  Self or GP referral

  1992–93

  7.7

  6.7

  5.8

  13.0

  4.1

  1.1

  1993–94

  7.4

  7.0

  5.7

  13.4

  4.9

  1.2

  1994–95

  9.0

  7.4

  7.0

  19.3

  1(for age 65+)

  First invitation or routine recall

  1992–93

  317.3

  312.4

  283.4

  29.8

  1.1

  0.1

  1993–94

  324.2

  314.4

  291.1

  29.9

  0.2

  0.0

  1994–95

  337.5

  320.8

  280.7

  10.4

  1(for age 65-)

  1 Information not available by separate age bands for women over 65 for 1994–95.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per woman screened on the national health service breast screening programme. [29679]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, the approximate cost per woman screened on the national health service breast screening programme was £27.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) those non-unitary local authorities in England with populations over 90,000 and (b) those unitary authority local authorities with populations under 120,000 (i) at present and (ii) following completion of the local government reorganisation. [30000]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All county councils have a population over 90,000. The following district councils which are currently non-unitary, have populations over 90,000—using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys figures as at mid-1994. For those districts marked with an asterisk, either orders establishing unitary authorities have been made or draft orders have been consulted upon.

  Luton* 180,848

  Mid Bedfordshire 114,853

  Bedford 137,001

  South Bedfordshire 110,389

  Bracknell Forest* 104,635

  Newbury* 141,581

  Reading* 138,503

  Slough* 104,945

  Windsor and Maidenhead* 137,781

  Wokingham* 141,735

  Aylesbury Vale 152,033

  Chiltern 91,432

  Milton Keynes* 188,447

  Wycombe 162,588

  Cambridge 113,009

  Huntingdonshire 149,869

  Peterborough* 158,654

  South Cambridgeshire 123,563

  Chester 120,622

  Crewe and Nantwich 111,422

  Halton* 123,727

  Macclesfield 151,503

  220

  Vale Royal 114,695

  Warrington* 186,749

  Allerdale 96,125

  Carlisle 103,335

  South Lakeland 100,263

  Amber Valley 114,451

  Chesterfield 101,104

  Derby* 230,473

  Erewash 107,142

  North East Derbyshire 99,180

  East Devon 122,839

  Exeter 104,537

  Plymouth* 255,815

  Teignbridge 114,088

  Torbay* 122,990

  Bournemouth* 160,139

  Poole* 138,100

  Darlington* 100,612

  Easington 97,980

  Sedgefield 91,405

  Brighton* 154,942

  Hove* 91,338

  Wealden 134,936

  Basildon 162,114

  Braintree 123,648

  Chelmsford 155,800

  Colchester 149,621

  Epping Forest 118,943

  Southend-on-Sea* 169,948

  Tendering 130,915

  Thurrock* 131,368

  Cheltenham 106,782

  Gloucester 104,735

  Stroud 106,271

  Basingstoke and Deane 147,193

  East Hampshire 108,209

  Eastleigh 110,780

  Fareham 101,764

  Havant 119,430

  New Forest 166,354

  Portsmouth* 189,270

  Southampton* 211,718

  Test Valley 105,318

  Winchester 101,848

  Bromsgrove 93,968

  Wychavon 104,577

  221

  Wyre Forest 97,239

  Dacorum 134,231

  East Hertfordshire 121,624

  Hertmere 94,195

  North Hertfordshire 114,303

  St. Albans 128,739

  Welwyn Hatfield 94,682

  Ashford 94,765

  Canterbury 133,859

  Dover 106,938

  Gillingham* 96,165

  Gravesham 92,914

  Maidstone 138,456

  Rochester upon Medway* 145,463

  Sevenoaks 109,919

  Shepway 96,464

  Swale 117,195

  Thanet 125,301

  Tonbridge and Mailing 102,765

  Tunbridge Wells 102,727

  Blackburn* 140,147

  Blackpool* 153,971

  Burnley 90,530

  Chorley 96,854

  Lancaster 134,991

  Preston 133,127

  South Ribble 103,592

  West Lancashire 110,226

  Wyre 103,927

  Charnwood 153,144

  Hinckley and Bosworth 97,707

  Leicester* 293,387

  East Lindsey 121,431

  South Kesteven 115,229

  Breckland 112,171

  Broadland 110,069

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk 130,958

  North Norfolk 94,300

  Norwich 127,778

  South Norfolk 104,467

  Northampton 187,608

  Harrogate 148,412

  Scarborough 108,654

  Ashfield 109,863

  Bassetlaw 105,479

  Broxtowe 112,170

  Gedling 111,659

  Mansfield 102,127

  Newark and Sherwood 104,149

  Nottingham* 282,440

  Rushcliffe 102,967

  Cherwell 127,456

  Oxford 132,758

  South Oxfordshire 121,823

  Vale of White Horse 113,195

  West Oxfordshire 94,981

  Shrewsbury and Atcham 94,622

  The Wrekin* 143,430

  222

  Mendip 98,017

  Sedgemoor 101,443

  South Somerset 148,298

  Taunton Deane 98,158

  Cannock Chase 90,789

  East Staffordshire 98,972

  Lichfield 93,619

  Newcastle under Lyme 123,137

  South Staffordshire 104,379

  Stafford 122,458

  Staffordshire Moorlands 95,072

  Stoke on Trent* 254,197

  Ipswich 114,065

  St. Edmundsbury 92,840

  Suffolk Coastal 113,163

  Waveney 107,604

  Elmbridge 119,717

  Guildford 126,162

  Reigate and Banstead 118,340

  Spelthorne 91,448

  Waverley 114,758

  Nuneaton and Bedworth 119,142

  Stratford on Avon 109,462

  Warwick 119,758

  Arun 134,328

  Chichester 103,078

  Horsham 114,324

  Mid Sussex 125,109

  Worthing 97,392

  North Wiltshire 118,899

  Salisbury 110,015

  Thamesdown* 173,516

  West Wiltshire 110,035

  The following local authorities have populations under 120,000. Those marked with an asterisk are unitary authorities at present; for the reminder, either orders establishing unitary authorities have been made or draft orders have been consulted upon.

  City of London* 5,222

  Bracknell Forest 104,635

  Slough 104,945

  Hartlepool* 92,228

  Darlington 100,612

  Rutland 33,639

  Isles of Scilly* 2,017

  Energy Efficiency Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many households received voucher booklets offering discounts on energy efficiency products and services; [30497]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely take-up of 25 per cent. grants under the home energy efficiency scheme from the results of energy efficiency voucher scheme; [30498]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of households taking up one or more of the discounted offers under the energy efficiency voucher scheme. [30499]
  223
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The home energy efficiency scheme is the Government's major domestic energy efficiency programme and almost 2 million grants have been paid since it began in 1991. We expect a significant number of householders aged over 60 who qualify for HEES only on age grounds to take advantage of the 25 per cent. grant. This discount is a substantial incentive to adopt the energy efficiency measures under this scheme with its good reputation for quality. There is, however, no specific link between HEES and the voucher book scheme which was a separate promotion to encourage energy saving under the "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" campaign.

  For information about distribution and take-up of the voucher book I refer the hon. Member to answers given to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) on 22 November 1995, column 111, and 23 April, column 63.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the current level of capital receipts now held by each local authority as a result of the sale of council houses; and in what form such assets are currently held. [30447]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of the amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts for each English local authority at 31 March 1995 was placed in the Library of the House in response to the question of Monday 22 January 1996,Official Report, column 85, from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). About 90 per cent. of these receipts are held by authorities whose responsibilities include housing, but it is not possible to say how much of the total derives from the sale of houses.

  Figures for the amounts of set-aside capital receipts are not available. These form part of the provision for credit liabilities, which is reported to the Department, but which also includes amounts set aside from revenue.

  Information on the way these assets are held is not available, but they are likely to be mainly invested in bank and building society accounts. Some may have been used temporarily to finance expenditure.

  Bankside Power Station, London
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the expected date for completion of the demolition works at Bankside power station in London. [30469]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Demolition works are taking place in two stages. I understand that minor works are being carried out at the moment to allow for the removal of the redundant boilers and electrical equipment. This work should be completed by the end of the summer. There will then be further demolition to remove extensions and additions to the original building to turn the power station into the Tate gallery of modern art. These works are likely to continue until April 1997.
  224

  Building Projects
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that Britain retains a leading position in the design and construction of innovative building projects. [30467]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department is producing, jointly with the Department of National Heritage, new guidelines on architectural competitions which will help to promote high-quality building and design. It also has a research budget which provides funding towards an extensive programme of research into the built environment, including projects carried out on a collaborative basis with the construction industry. This programme covers the design, planning and carrying out of the construction process, as well as the products and materials used in it.

  Rented Housing Starts
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new rented homes housing associations will be able to start in 1996; and what were the figures for each of the past three years. [29901]

  Mr. Curry
  The Housing Corporation has granted approvals for 27,000 new rented homes to be provided by housing associations using funding from the approved development programme during the financial year 1996–97. In addition, local authorities may also provide new rented homes using local authority housing association grant. Current indications are that an additional 11,000 social lettings will arise from LAHAG funding during 1996–97. Most of these approved schemes will be started during 1996–97.

  These approvals will contribute significantly to the 61,100 new social lettings expected to become available during 1996–97 from housing association and local authority activities under the rental and home ownership programmes.

  Figures for rental provision for the past three years are:

  ADP funded (approvals)

  LAHAG funded (completions)

  1993–94

  45,781

  7,159

  1994–95

  44,422

  9,018

  1995–96

  26,516

  11,394

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas where the proposed packaging waste regulations will be more extensive than the requirements set by the European Union directive on packaging waste regulations; and what are the reasons for such a policy. [29923]

  Mr. Clappison
  The EC directive on packaging and packaging waste (92/62/EC) is a framework directive which requires member states to put in place systems which they determine and which are intended to implement its provisions. The directive provides a single market framework for the free circulation throughout the European Community of packaging which meets certain essential requirements reflecting environmental and other considerations. It also contains environmental objectives,
  225
  including the need to achieve an overall recovery rate of 50 to 65 per cent. by the year 2001, with a minimum of 15 per cent. materials recycling per material.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set out in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 7 May 1996, Official Report, columns 73–75, the Government have accepted industry's view that we should provide for the directive to be implemented by business-led schemes. The regulations which we hope to publish shortly for consultation will reflect that as well as the industry agreement achieved on 15 December 1995 on how the burdens might be shared between the sectors of the packaging chain.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of the cost for the packaging waste industry of complying with the proposed new packaging waste regulations; and what was the outcome of this assessment. [29924]

  Mr. Clappison
  A preliminary cost compliance assessment for implementation of this directive was set out in "Producer Responsibility for Packaging Waste— A Consultation Paper"—published in May 1995, a copy of which is in the Library. That assessment is currently being revised. I hope to publish it shortly for consultation alongside the draft regulations on implementation of the directive on the basis set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eastbourne on 7 May 1996,Official Report, columns 73–75.

  Pollution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many days in the last year for which figures are available pollution levels in British cities have exceeded limits set by his Department. [30474]

  Mr. Clappison
  A summary of exceedences of national and international guidelines and standards for pollution levels in air, water and soil across the United Kingdom is included in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Statistics No. 17, 1995", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. The 18th volume of this report will be published in mid-June.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many fraudulent claims for legal aid were pursued in 1995–96 and how much was recovered from claimants in the same year. [29927]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Following investigations carried out by the Benefits Agency into applicants' financial eligibility for civil legal aid, 29 cases were referred to the police in 1995–96. In the same period, the Legal Aid Board assisted police in their investigations into five assisted persons in receipt of criminal legal aid.
  226
  Amounts recovered in respect of these cases are not recorded separately from amounts recovered by the board from all assisted persons whose legal aid has been withdrawn for various reasons. The total amount recovered in 1995–96 from all assisted persons was over £1.4 million.

  In 1995–96, the board also referred to the police seven cases of suspected fraudulent claims by solicitors. During the same period, £1,174,000 was recovered from solicitors in respect of costs which were either wrongly or fraudulently claimed.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each of his Department' agencies what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide; and what were the results. [30046]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, the chief executives of the agencies have been asked to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about market testing.
  Since April 1995, the date on which the Court Service was established, no market testing has been carried out.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 16 May 1996, regarding market testing carried out, the services provided and the results.
  The Public Trust Office market tested the typing service in 1993. The proposal made by the in-house team was successful.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the market testing of services provided by the agencies for which he is responsible.
  The Public Record Office has market tested the following:
  1. Security services
  The contract was awarded to the in-house bid team. Savings have amounted to £275,000 p.a. on pre-test costs of £ 1.14m p.a.
  2. General office copying
  It was decided, as part of the market testing process, that this service should be contracted out. The tender process did not produce a bid from the private sector which would have provided running-cost savings. The service remains in-house but is likely to be considered again within a proposed facilities management market test.
  Additional services costing £1.79m p.a. have been subject to other efficiency techniques under the Public Record Office's Competing for Quality programmes, producing savings estimated at £174,500 p.a. for 1996–97.
  227
  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 May 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the results of market testing within HM Land Registry. I can supply the following information:

  Service

  Result

  Saving (£ per annum)

  Inspection Surveys

  Retained in-house

  31,500

  Full surveys

  Outsourced

  167,250

  Building maintenance/Estate management

  Outsourced

  44,000

  Catering

  Outsourced

  398,000

  Records management

  Retained in-house

  99,000

  Security guarding

  Part outsourced Part retained in-house

  29,000

  Graphic Design/Printing

  Retained in-house

  19,000

  Legal services

  Outsourced

  4,000

  IT procurement/Hardware support/Training

  Part outsourced Part retained in-house

  62,600

  Local file management

  Retained in-house

  rising to 1,200,000

  Local reprographics

  Function disbanded Machinery outsourced

  422,000

  Finance—payments

  Tender in progress

  —

  Payroll administration

  Tender in progress

  —

  IT services

  In progress

  —

  Finance—Receipts/Debts

  In progress

  —

  Pensions administration

  In progress

  —

  Transfers and removals

  In progress

  —

  Probate Offices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from trade unions, members of the public and public bodies concerning the proposed closure of probate offices. [30361]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about representations received on the proposed restructuring of the Probate Service.
  Written responses were received from the Lord Chancellor's Department Whitley Council Trade Union Side, the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union (PTC), and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants (NUCPS). 99 individual members of the public wrote in to make representations against the closure of specific Probate Sub-Registries and Probate Offices, of whom three lodged petitions bearing the signatures of a combined total of 696 people.
  228
  Nationally, replies were received from the Law Society and the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners. Locally, representations about the proposed closure of specific Sub-Registries and Offices were received from local authorities, local Citizens Advice Bureaux, local Law Society offices, solicitors, local branches of banks and other financial institutions, Family History Societies and local branches of Age Concern.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received in respect of deaths caused by suffocation of inmates in Rwandan prisons; and what representations he has made to the Rwandan Government about conditions in Rwandan jails. [30334]

  Mr. Hanley
  The human rights field operation in Rwanda reports that five detainees died from suffocation during April. A further 37 died as a result of various illnesses. Our ambassador has made representations to the Rwandan Government about prison conditions, including these latest incidents.

  Zaire
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current security situation in Zaire, with particular reference to the recent ethnic clashes in eastern Zaire. [30218]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are extremely concerned about the ethnic conflict in eastern Zaire and the recent reports of further killings. We make regular representations to all the Governments in the region to encourage a return to peace and stability.

  Angola
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of breaches of the peace plan in Angola. [30330]

  Mr. Hanley
  As the UN Secretary-General noted in his report of 30 April to the Security Council, the level of ceasefire violations has diminished. However, the implementation of the Lusaka protocol has been delayed considerably, particularly in the key areas of quartering of UNITA troops and reaching agreement on the incorporation of UNITA personnel into the joint armed forces. The overall achievements still fall well short of what we and other members of the Security Council expected. We have made our dissatisfaction clear to both sides, and continue to use every opportunity to encourage progress.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process in Angola. [30332]

  Mr. Hanley
  Implementation of the Lusaka protocol remains behind schedule. We have urged both sides to honour their commitments without delay. Dr. Savimbi's recent undertaking to quarter 50,000 UNITA troops by 15 June is a welcome step forward.
  229
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the sale of diamonds in international markets on behalf of UNITA. [30333]

  Mr. Hanley
  The sale of diamonds from Angola is a matter for the Angolan authorities, but we look forward to a time when Angola's natural resources are used for the benefit of the Angolan people as a whole.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list, for his Department's agency, what market testing has been carried out into the services it provides and what were the results. [30113]

  The Attorney-General
  The two agencies for which I am responsible have participated in the following market tests in the year 1995–96. Contracts were won by the agencies in the cases shown.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department (TSD)

  Whether bid successful

  Provision of legal services

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  No

  Welsh Development Agency

  No

  Funding Agency for Schools (jointly with GPL)

  Yes

  ODA

  Yes

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

  Yes

  Department for Education and Employment (Employment Service)

  No

  The Government Property Lawyers (GPL) Provision of legal services in relation to property matters

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  No

  Department of Transport

  No

  Highways Agency (London and Dorking areas)

  Yes

  Highways Agency (Exeter, Bedford and Manchester areas)

  No

  Funding Agency for Schools (jointly with TSD)

  Yes

  Welsh Development Agency

  No

  Inland Revenue

  No

  DSS/BA Estates

  No

  English Nature (Cumbria team)

  No

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Yes

  Public Order Offences and Assaults
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions proposes to issue further guidance on charging standards relating to public order offences and assaults. [31053]

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers guidance to assist police and prosecutors select the right charge for people alleged to have 230
  committed public order offences. The charging standard will be implemented with effect from Monday 3 June 1996.

  The main offences covered by the standard are those contained in part I and part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Those provisions penalise individuals or groups who use violence and/or intimidating behaviour. Special guidance is given in dealing with racially motivated conduct. Violent and/or intimidating behaviour which is directed at particular individuals or groups of individuals as the result of racial motive is liable to be dealt with under part I of the Act or other provisions of the general law with the motive being drawn to the attention of the court as an aggravating feature. On the other hand, conduct intended or likely to incite racial hatred is liable to be dealt with under part III of the Act.

  The previous charging standard relating to offences against the person has been revised and will also be implemented with effect from Monday 3 June 1996. The revised standard contains guidance on the handling of cases of assault where the allegation is made by a person who was, at the material time, himself engaged in criminal activity, such as a burglar alleged to have been assaulted by the occupier of the premises concerned. Police and prosecutors must examine such cases by reference to all the surrounding circumstances including the suspect's state of mind and the common law and statutory provisions which permit the use of reasonable force in self-defence, the defence of another, the defence of property, the prevention of crime and the effecting of a lawful arrest. The difficulties facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack must always be taken carefully into account but excessive force may not be used.

  Copies of the charging standard relating to public order offences and the revised charging standard relating to offences against the person have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Development
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 103, what are the time scale and programme for the BAA investigation into less environmentally damaging options for runway development. [29569]

  Mr. Norris
  The study of options for a close parallel runway at Gatwick, initiated by BAA in April 1995, is expected to take two to three years to complete. The study is being conducted in three phases, examining in turn the technical feasibility of a close parallel runway, the supporting airport infrastructure that would be required, and finally the impacts of any options which have survived the first two stages.
  231

  Aircraft Movements
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 594, on whom the responsibility falls to collate statistics on information concerning aircraft taking off or landing without an allocated runway slot. [30006]

  Mr. Norris
  The co-ordinator for the major UK airports, Airport Co-ordination Ltd., is required under the EC legislation to monitor the use of slots at the airports for which it is responsible. The ACL therefore maintains records of aircraft landing or taking off without a slot, by comparing slots it has allocated with data supplied by the airport operator on actual aircraft movements operated.

  British Rail (Political Donations)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each of the last five years, the amount paid by British Rail's Sapphire accounts system in respect of political donations, under its G/L code 686200. [30044]

  Mr. Watts
  Sapphire is a proprietary accountancy system used by all the British Railways Board-owned train operating companies, together with those in the private sector. The G/L code 686200 is a specific accounting code relating to donations to political parties. It was part of the original package bought from the manufacturer.

  As a nationalised industry, British Rail is prevented by statute from making donations to political parties.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30130]

  Mr. Norris
  Between October 1992 and January 1996, the following services of the Department's agencies have been market tested, with the following results:

  Results

  The Coastguard Agency

  Property Management

  Contracted out

  Messengers

  Contracted out

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Personnel

  Restructured

  Accommodation

  Restructured

  Training

  Restructured

  Micrographics

  Restructured

  VED refunds

  Restructured

  Legal services

  Restructured

  Procurement

  Restructured

  Security

  In house win

  Stores and Waste Management

  In house win

  Messengers

  In house win

  Reproduction

  In house win

  Despatch

  In house win

  Telesales

  Contracted out

  Forms despatch

  Contracted out

  Internal Audit

  Contracted out

  Waste Collection

  Contracted out

  232

  Results

  The Driving Standards Agency

  Driver test booking (subsequent restructuring)

  In house win

  Regional Property Management

  Contracted out

  Property Maintenance

  Contracted out

  The Highways Agency

  Graphics

  Restructured

  Winter maintenance operations

  Restructured

  Valuation Office Agency

  In house win(trial area only)

  Government Property Lawyers

  In house win/contracted out

  The Vehicle Certification Agency

  Microfilming

  Contracted out

  The Vehicle Inspectorate

  Training Finance and Management IS

  Restructured

  Roller brake maintenance

  Contracted out

  Weighbridge maintenance

  Contracted out

  Workshop

  Contracted out

  Building and Estate Management

  Contracted out

  IT Strategy

  Contracted out

  Library

  Contracted out

  Operational legal and casework

  In house win

  Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance Line
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the trans-European networks feasibility funding application for the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance line; and if he will make a statement. [30400]

  Mr. Watts
  A bid for TENs funding support for a study into options for enhancing the main lines from Paddington to the west country was included in the UK's bid for 1996 TENs funding. The European Commission is currently considering the bids made by the UK and other member states, to draw up a proposed allocation for member states' consideration at the next meeting of the TENs financial committee, currently planned for 10 July.

  Funds cannot be disbursed, however, until guidelines for the development of transport TENs have been adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. The draft guidelines are presently at the conciliation stage and an agreed text is expected to be available in mid-June and will then require separate approval by the Council and Parliament.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the proposed closure of traffic area offices; and if he will make a statement. [30464]

  Mr. Norris
  I expect to make an announcement shortly on the future structure of the traffic area network.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the redundancy costs involved in closing the traffic area office in(a) Leeds, (b) Manchester, (c) Birmingham and (d) Cardiff. [30466]

  Mr. Norris
  It is not possible to give reliable estimates, as it would depend on how many and which staff were located.
  233
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those organisations or individuals who have made representations following the publication of the Curtis review, indicating those that were in favour of closing one or more traffic area offices. [30488]

  Mr. Norris
  Representations were received from those listed in the following table, following the publication of the Curtis efficiency scrutiny of the traffic area network. Of those who commented on proposals to restructure the traffic area network, no organisation specifically supported the closure of one or more offices. However, some supported moves towards a more centralised administrative system.

  Representations received from

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Passenger Transport Executive Group

  Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Road Haulage Association

  Association of District Councils

  Mr. Peter Snape MP

  Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers

  Trade Union Side

  Association of Transport COs (Scotland)

  Transport 2000

  BRAKE

  Transport Tribunal

  Cabinet Office

  Traffic Commissioners

  TAO

  Staff

  Total running costs £

  Accommodation costs £

  Lease expiry date1

  Goods licences

  PSV licences

  North Eastern

  49.5

  1,165,387

  230,401

  December 2006

  18,600

  1,260

  North Western

  57

  1,353,055

  302,371

  June 1999

  20,000

  1,180

  West Midland

  36.5

  1,053,446

  306,980

  September 2004

  13,100

  720

  Eastern

  43.8

  1,282,071

  341,054

  June 1997

  19,250

  990

  South Wales

  24

  609,025

  191,280

  2020

  5,900

  470

  Western

  49.3

  1,185,500

  269,897

  2015

  16,050

  1,170

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  46

  1,154,923

  218,794

  March 1998

  14,500

  940

  Scottish

  45

  1,115,746

  267,802

  2012

  10,100

  990

  1 In some cases there is provision to terminate the lease earlier.

  Unit costs

  TAO

  Unit cost goods vehicle operator licensing £

  Unit cost public service vehicle operator licensing £

  Unit cost bus registration £

  North Eastern

  10.79

  12.97

  5.45

  North Western

  11.19

  24.66

  6.27

  West Midland

  13.26

  26.27

  6.81

  Eastern

  10.31

  12.60

  4.86

  South Wales

  14.64

  26.69

  6.25

  Percentage

  Service standards

  North eastern

  North western

  West midland

  Eastern

  South Wales

  Western

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  Scottish

  Goods vehicle operator licensing

  New, replacement and major variation without Public Inquiry within deadline

  96

  91

  87

  84

  98

  91

  82

  97

  New, replacement and major variation with Public Inquiry within deadline

  89

  78

  72

  37

  70

  58

  59

  87

  234

  Representations received from

  Confederation of Passenger Transport UK

  Welsh Office

  Council on Tribunals

  Freight Transport Association

  Lancashire County Council

  Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on

  Food and Trading Standards

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his Department's overall budget is allocated to the traffic area office network. [30491]

  Mr. Norris
  Some 3.98 per cent. of the Central Transport Group's running cost budget net of VAT receipts.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office(a) the current number of staff in post, (b) the total running costs, (c) the accommodation costs, (d) the unit costs, (e) the service standard achievements, (f) the expiry date for the building lease and (g) the number of goods and public service vehicle operator licences held in that area. [30465]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested, for the financial year 1995–96, are in the tables:

  Unit costs

  TAO

  Unit cost goods vehicle operator licensing £

  Unit cost public service vehicle operator licensing £

  Unit cost bus registration £

  Western South Eastern and

  13.12

  24.66

  6.16

  Metropolitan

  11.70

  21.74

  5.07

  Scottish

  17.15

  21.54

  7.27

  235

  Percentage

  Service standards

  North eastern

  North western

  West midland

  Eastern

  South Wales

  Western

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  Scottish

  Non-publishable variations within deadline

  98

  95

  95

  93

  96

  96

  61

  96

  Refunds issued within deadline

  100

  90

  97

  85

  98

  96

  86

  99

  Public service vehicle operator licensing

  New and Continuous applications without Public Inquiry within deadline

  100

  99

  99

  98

  97

  98

  93

  100

  Variations without PI within deadline

  100

  99

  98

  100

  98

  94

  82

  100

  New and Continuous applications with Public Inquiry within deadline

  100

  100

  100

  77

  100

  100

  96

  n/a

  Variations to licences with Public Inquiry within deadline

  100

  n/a

  100

  n/a

  100

  n/a

  100

  n/a

  Refunds issued within deadline

  100

  99

  84

  99

  98

  99

  96

  100

  Bus registration

  Registrations processed within deadline

  100

  96

  76

  95

  100

  96

  91

  92

  Heavy Vehicle Licensing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of checks undertaken(a) on a weekend and (b) outside normal office hours in order to collate the statistics for the recently published report into the illegal operation of heavy goods vehicles. [30472]

  Mr. Norris
  There were 114 check sites used during the survey altogether. During the survey, 3,927 vehicles were checked. Six sites were used at weekends, where 210 checks were undertaken. On Monday to Friday, four sites were used entirely outside office hours and a further 80 were used partly outside office hours. In total, 880 checks were conducted outside office hours—between 0900 and 1700—on Monday to Friday. Therefore, in total, 1,090 checks were undertaken outside office hours.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the goods and public service vehicle operator licensing fees is transferred to Treasury funds. [30463]

  Mr. Norris
  All fee revenue is paid into the Consolidated Fund.

  A2
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the A2 trunk road to accommodate the proposed Ebbsfleet station contained in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. [30831]

  Mr. Watts
  I have today announced that a scheme to widen the A2 between Cobham and Bean has been added to the national roads programme. The scheme will proceed in two phases. The first will complement work already in hand in association with the Blue Water park development and will result in additional capacity on the A2 in both directions between Bean and the A227 at Tollgate junction. The second will add a fourth lane in both directions between Tollgate and Cobham.

  The first phase will be contained within the existing highway boundary. The other requires additional land.

  Fares (London)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce a capping formula for London Transport fares. [30338]
  236
  Mr. Norris
  None; I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 9 May 1996,Official Report, columns 195–6.

  Rail Contracts
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list (i) all contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Eurorail Ltd. and (b) Eurorail CTRL Ltd. (ii) the date those contracts were awarded, (iii) the length of those contracts, (iv) the purpose of those contracts and (v) the total value of those contracts. [30339]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department has not entered into any contracts with either of these firms.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list (i) all contracts awarded by Union Railways to(a) Eurorail Ltd. and (b) Eurorail CTRL Ltd. (ii) the date those contracts were awarded, (iii) the length of those contracts, (iv) the purpose of those contracts and (v) the total value of those contracts. [30342]

  Mr. Watts
  Union Railways has not let any contracts to these firms since it was formed as a separate company from the BR Board, but it did take over two contracts with Eurorail Ltd. from the British Railways Board rail link project group in connection with the channel tunnel rail link project. These are(a) for the provision of personnel on secondment, awarded in December 1990 and (b) for the provision of engineering design services, awarded in April 1992. Both contracts are still in force as at 21 May 1996. The commercial terms and value of the contracts are commercially confidential.

  "Transport: The Way Forward"
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which recommendations made by the royal commission on environmental pollution in its 18th report have been specifically addressed in the Government's report "Transport: The Way Forward"; [29282]

  (2) which recommendations made by the royal commission on environmental pollution in its 18th report have not been specifically addressed in the Government's report "Transport: The Way Forward". [29283]

  Sir George Young
  The Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward" is a response to the national debate on transport, and as such it picks up most of the major points
  237
  made by the royal commission in its call for sustainable transport policies. It did not include a point by point response to the royal commission report.

  I recently met the chairman of the royal commission to discuss how to take forward the debate, including further consideration of the commission's recommendations and its views on the Green Paper.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent submissions he has received from Central Railway plc. [30678]

  Mr. Watts
  On Monday 20 May, an application was received from Central Railway plc for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. I have decided that Parliament should have an opportunity to debate the principle of the proposals before a public local inquiry is held. A notice to this effect will appear in the London Gazette on Friday 24 May and in local newspapers along the route of the proposed railway as soon as practicable.

DEFENCE

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland will remain in his ownership following the sale of the married quarters estate; and how many of these require upgrading to bring them to a satisfactory condition. [30002]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The sale of the married quarters estate does not involve properties in Scotland or Northern Ireland, where my Department owned 6,707 and 3,130 married quarters respectively at 31 March 1996. Of these totals, 159 in Scotland and 120 in Northern Ireland require work in order to bring them back into use.

  The sale of the married quarters estate in England and Wales is being progressed as an integrated package and separating the two for the purpose of this reply would incur disproportionate costs. Figures for the sale have yet to be finalised, but I am able to advise that, after the sale, my Department will continue to own some 3,000 married quarters in England and Wales not included in the sale, and will continue to own the freehold on the properties in the sale which we will then take back for service use through underleases. Out of all the properties involved, some 1,700 require work to bring them back into use.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were flown in the Borders tactical training area in each of the last five years. [30320]

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of operational low flying movements authorised into the Borders tactical training area—TTA—in each of the last five years are as follows:

  1991: 1,256

  1992: 2,067

  1993: 2,389

  1994: 1.127

  1995: 1,545

  238
  From July 1988 to September 1993, the Borders TTA was divided into east and west sectors. Movements for the two sectors were counted separately so that sorties that crossed the border between the two sectors generated additional movements. The figures for 1991 to 1993 therefore overstate the amount of activity in comparison with later years.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received on the subject of low flying in the Borders tactical training area in each of the last five years. [30321]

  Mr. Soames
  Since July 1988, when the Borders tactical training area—TTA—was extended to include what was at the time referred to as the western sector, complaints from that sector have continued to be counted in the totals for low flying area 16 within which the TTA lies, rather than being recorded as coming from the TTA. Accurate records of the number of complaints received from the Borders TTA as a whole are therefore not available and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. Action is being taken to ensure that complaints from the TTA are identified as such in future.

  Service Personnel (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total financial cost to date in providing legal aid for the three British military personnel who were charged and convicted of the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [30206]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of defending the three soldiers convicted of the abduction and manslaughter of Miss Louise Jensen is, so far, about £260,000.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the terms of the Army legal aid scheme under which the legal expenses of the three British service men convicted of the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide are paid until all legal processes have been exhausted. [30201]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 20 May 1996,Official Report, column 52.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many search and rescue helicopters are currently based in the United Kingdom. [30204]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 19 RAF Sea King and seven RAF Wessex search and rescue helicopters in the UK. There are also four RN Sea Kings available for search and rescue duties, although search and rescue is not their primary role.

  Retention Bonus
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the loyalty bonus scheme to the Royal Logistics Corps; and if he will make a statement. [30486]

  Mr. Soames
  The bonus referred to is, in fact, known as the retention bonus. The scheme is open to soldiers in the Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery and Infantry, where the most serious manpower shortages currently exist. There are no plans at present to extend the retention
  239
  bonus scheme to any other corps, although the possibility of doing so in future is being examined. The retention bonus is one of a number of measures which have been taken to improve recruitment and retention.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts paid out in loyalty bonuses to soldiers since the introduction of the new bonus scheme on 1 October 1995. [30487]

  Mr. Soames
  The total amount of retention bonuses paid to soldiers between 1 October 1995, when the scheme was introduced, and 31 March 1996 was £2,248,000.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to call out any more Army reserve and Territorial Army personnel in support of the operations in the former Yugoslavia. [30819]

  Mr. Soames
  Approval has been given to call out up to 240 members of the Army reserve and Territorial Army to provide support to operations in the former Yugoslavia. They will report from 12 June 1996 to mobilisation centres for selection and a short period of training before deployment. All are volunteers.

  Fixed Telecommunications System
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the factors underlying the delay in the announcement on the Defence fixed telecommunications system. [30318]

  Mr. Soames
  An invitation to tender for the defence fixed telecommunications system was issued on 27 March 1995 and bids were received from four companies on 29 June 1995. Following evaluation of the companies' proposals, on 21 December 1995 two companies were invited to submit best-and-final offers—BAFOs. The BAFOs were received on 21 February 1996, and initial analysis showed that neither bid provided a basis for the MOD to proceed to contract. Discussions with both the companies have since taken place and they are due to submit updated proposal on 30 May 1996. The evaluation of the bids is a complex process, but it is hoped that the preferred contractor can be announced in the autumn. Subject to a satisfactory outcome of the final negotiations, a contract will be awarded early in the new year.

  Nimrod Maritime Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod maritime aircraft are currently out of operational use at RAF Kinloss; what are the causes of the technical difficulties affecting the aircraft; what will be the total cost to public funds to repair these aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [30317]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 20 May 1996 there were no Nimrod maritime aircraft out of operational use at RAF Kinloss, nor were there any technical difficulties to give cause for serious concern. The estimated cost of the current support contract for maintaining the Nimrod maritime force is some £ 15 million for a five-year period.
  240

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by his Department in each of the last five years. [29431]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The Ministry of Defence does not classify the thousands of contractors with which contracts are placed each year by the size of the contractor. Researching the answer to this question could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29461]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her of 19 December 1995, Official Report, columns 1108–109. The 1996 edition of "UK Defence Statistics" will be published on 18 July and will provide details for 1994–95. Figures for 1995–96 will appear in the 1997 edition.

  Larkhill Garrison (Electricity Supply)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost per unit of electricity purchased from Southern Electric plc to supply Larkhill garrisson in Wiltshire; what costs are attributed to the budget of consuming units who are nominated account holders; and what is the charge per unit levied on domestic occupants at Larkhill married quarters. [29868]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: Electricity is supplied to Larkhill garrison by PowerGen under the terms of a contract awarded after a competitive tender process, the details of which are commercial in confidence. Costs are attributed to consuming units at the rate provided for in the contract. Current policy is, however, to charge other customers of publicly negotiated contracts of this kind a rate consistent with the published tariff of the local utility company. Domestic occupants of Larkhill married quarters are therefore charged the Southern Electric rate of 7.1p per unit.

  Military Equipment Expenditure
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outturn expenditure on military equipment during 1995–96. [30200]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The 1995–96 provisional outturn figures will be available in the public expenditure outturn White Paper to be published in July.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the overseas visits made by Ministers in his Department since 1992 indicating the places visited, the reasons for the visit, the cost to public funds and whether the Ministers concerned were accompanied by members of their family. [29958]
  241
  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on 1 April at column 62. Since then, there has been one ministerial overseas visit. This was made by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to The Hague on 1 and 2 April to discuss British and Dutch co-operation on drugs matters. He was not accompanied by any member of his family. The cost of the visit, including that of accompanying officials, was £1,093.

  Mixed Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mixed prisons there are currently in England and Wales. [29718]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of mixed prisons there are currently in England and Wales.
  There are currently five prisons that hold both male and female prisoners on the same site. These are Brockhill prison, Durham prison, Low Newton remand centre, Risley prison and Winchester prison.

  London Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which London prisons overspent their allocated budget in 1995. [29719]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about which London prisons overspent their allocated budget in 1995.
  Budgets are allocated for a financial year and adjusted periodically during the year. Provisional outturn figures for 1995/96 show that Belmarsh, Brixton, Holloway, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs prisons exceeded their revised budget allocations for that year.

  Young Offenders (Secure Units)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many secure units for young offenders there were within the Greater London area on 30 March. [29725]

  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.
  242
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of secure units in London for young offenders.
  On 30 March 1996 there were two local authority secure units in the Greater London area approved by the Secretary of State for Health for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children.
  One is at Stamford House in Hammersmith; the other one is at Orchard Lodge, Annerley.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned into the supply of illegal drugs to prison inmates by prison staff; and what plans he has to make a further evaluation of the extent of such smuggling and to adopt policies to reduce its occurrence. [29680]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about research which has been commissioned into the supply of illegal drugs to prisoners by prison staff; for further evaluation of the extent of such smuggling; and the policies which have been adopted to reduce its occurrence.
  Centrally-held records show that no members of staff have been disciplined for trafficking in drugs since the introduction of the new Prison Service Code of Conduct and Discipline in July 1993. No research has been commissioned into the smuggling of drugs by staff and there are no plans to undertake any. Governors have the discretion to search staff on entry to the prison. Staff searches should also be a part of local searching strategies.

  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) on 10 May,Official Report, column 306, (i) how many prisoners were tested for drugs in each month since February 1995; [29873]

  (2) how many prisoners have tested positive for each type of drug, in each month since February 1995. [29819]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of prisoners tested for drugs and the numbers tested positive for each drug in each month since February 1995.
  Tables setting out the number of tests conducted each month (Table A) and the numbers tested positive for each drug (Table B) under the random testing programme are attached. Results for other forms of mandatory drug testing are not yet centrally collated.

  243

  Table A: Mandatory drug testing random testing programme: numbers tested February 1995 to February 1996

  Month

  Number tested

  1995

  February

  207

  March

  319

  April

  324

  May

  239

  June

  342

  July

  317

  August

  191

  September

  521

  October

  717

  Table B: Mandatory drug testing random programme: prisoners tested positive for each type of drug February 1995 to February 1996

  Month

  Cannabis

  Opiates

  Cocaine

  Amphetamines

  Benzodiazepines

  Methadone

  Barbiturates

  LSD

  1995

  February

  70

  5

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  March

  111

  5

  1

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  April

  106

  14

  1

  0

  12

  1

  1

  0

  May

  75

  8

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  June

  95

  11

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  July

  110

  11

  2

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  August

  53

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  September

  142

  36

  8

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  October

  242

  66

  7

  0

  29

  4

  0

  0

  November

  236

  58

  1

  1

  22

  0

  0

  0

  December

  273

  74

  6

  1

  30

  3

  0

  0

  1996

  January

  618

  148

  5

  0

  60

  5

  0

  0

  February

  791

  178

  6

  5

  82

  2

  2

  0

  Total

  2,922

  616

  33

  7

  278

  12

  3

  0

  Because prisoners may test positive for more than one drug, the total number of drug positive is greater than the number of prisoners found positive. Checking of statistical returns for January and February 1996 has revealed a number of errors. Error checking continues and this data must be regarded as provisional.

  Preston Prison
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what maintenance and modernisation work is to be deferred at Her Majesty's prison, Preston as a result of the reduction in the prison maintenance budget. [29758]

  Miss Widdecome
  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 Mr. Richard Tilt to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about deferred work at Preston prison.
  The maintenance fund for routine work at Preston prison has increased by 91 per cent this year from £91,266 in 1995/6 to £175,000 in the current financial year.
  The only work to be deferred at this stage is the planned refurbishment of C wing which will now probably take place in 1997 instead of 1996 as originally planned.

  Mr. Patrick Kelly
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Patrick Kelly was transferred from the United Kingdom to a prison in the Republic of Ireland; how many years of his original 25-year sentence remains; what assessment he has made 244

  Table A: Mandatory drug testing random testing programme: numbers tested February 1995 to February 1996

  Month

  Number tested

  November

  1,254

  December

  1,698

  1996

  January

  2,316

  February

  3,304

  Total

  11,749

  Checking of statistical returns for January and February 1996 has revealed a number of errors. Error checking continues and this data must be regarded as provisional.

  of the financial implications for the United Kingdom of Mr. Kelly's detention in an Irish prison; and if he will make a statement. [29904]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Patrick Kelly was repatriated to the Republic of Ireland on Tuesday 14 May. Including time spent on remand before sentence, Mr. Kelly has completed three years and six months of his 25-year sentence. No assessment has been made of the financial implications for the United Kingdom of Mr. Kelly's detention in an Irish prison since these costs fall to the Irish authorities.

  Prisons (Assaults)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of assaults,(a) by prisoners on prison officers, and (b) by prisoners on prisoners at Her Majesty's prison, Doncaster during the financial year 1995–96; and what were the average rates for its public sector equivalent comparator group. [29820]

  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.
  245
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the number of assaults at Doncaster prison during the financial year 1995–96 and the average rates for its public sector equivalent comparator group.
  As I stated in my reply of 23 April (col. 90), a report has been commissioned from consultants Coopers and Lybrand to assess the relative costs and performance of contractually managed prisons against comparable establishments in the public sector during 1994/5. This report will be published soon and I will write to you, following publication, with information on the periods mentioned in your Questions.

  Durham Prison
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the governor of Her Majesty's prison, Durham is debarred from tendering for the courts and escorts service for the area covered by Durham prison in July 1997. [29855]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking why the governor at Durham prison has not been allowed to tender for the provision of the court and escort services for the area covered by Durham prison in July 1997.
  Invitations to tender for the work—which covers the north of England rather than just the Durham area—were issued at the end of April. It is intended to award the contract in October or November this year and for phased implementation to commence in April 1997.
  The contract will cover work currently undertaken both by the police and the Prison Service. It involves taking prisoners to and from court and their custody while at court. It does not constitute a part of the core duties and responsibilities of either police or prison officers, however, and has in the past often either been under resourced or has drawn valuable and highly trained personnel away from their core tasks. Contracting-out the work has led to higher standards of service to the courts and to lower costs.
  In-house bids are time consuming and costly to mount, and would therefore only be undertaken if there was a reasonable prospect of achieving better value for money than contracting-out. This would be difficult to achieve in the case of court escorts. The geographic make-up of the contract area is intended both to stimulate and maintain private sector interest and offer the potential for economies of scale. Durham prison could therefore neither bid solely for its own catchment area nor the work that it currently performs. Any proposal would also need to incorporate police input to the activity.
  In view of all these considerations, the decision was taken at the outset to exclude in-house bids and to contract out the work.

  Advertising Standards
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent representations he has received about offensive or disturbing advertising on billboards; [30195]

  (2) what monitoring he routinely undertakes of the Advertising Standards Authority. [30196]

  Mr. Sackville
  This year my right hon. and learned Friend has received four letters from Members of Parliament and one letter from a member of the public about offensive advertisements.
  246
  Government contracts with the Advertising Standards Authority are conducted principally through the Department of Trade and Industry, but my right hon. and learned Friend would not hesitate to approach the authority directly if there were grounds for concern over particular advertising material.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30122]

  Mr. Howard
  Services provided by Home Office agencies which has been market tested since their creation are as follows:Prison Service

  Operation of Manchester prison—won by the in-house bid team.

  Operation of Buckley Hall prison—contract awarded to Group 4.

  Warehousing and distribution, Prison Service stores at Branston—won by the in-house bid team.

  Prison Service College, Newbold Revel, administration and maintenance—won by the in-house bid team.

  The value of Prison Service business conducted under contract or service level agreement after a market test, exceeds £27 million per annum at 1994–95 prices. Estimated savings are £9.26 million per annum.

  No market tests have been completed by the Forensic Science Service, Fire Service College or United Kingdom Passport Agency of the services that they provide to external customers.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons resident in the United Kingdom for over 20 years have been refused British citizenship in each year since 1979. [30399]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  This information is not available.

  Maidstone Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications were made to undertake rehabilitation courses at Her Majesty's prison, Maidstone per month since April 1993; [30209]

  (2) what has been the number of available places on rehabilitation courses at Her Majesty's prison, Maidstone per month since April 1993. [30210]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about (i) the number of available places and (ii) the number of applications to undertake rehabilitation courses at Her Majesty's Prison Maidstone per month since April 1993.
  This information is not available in the form requested.
  Sixteen places are provided monthly for prisoners on the sex offender treatment core programme. Records are not kept of how many applications have been received for the sex offender treatment

  247
  core programme. Since April 1993, 60 prisoners have attended the core programme and 81 have attended the extended programme. There are currently 38 prisoners waiting for a place on the core programme and 113 for the extended programme.
  Records are not kept of how many applications have been received for the social skills course. This course lasts for two weeks and has 12 prisoners. In 1993 there were two courses; one in 1994; four in 1995; and so far in 1996 there has been one course, with three more planned.
  The group work programme, which is run by the probation department in the prison, started in September 1995. There are an average of two groups running per month, which offer 8–10 places per group. There have been 912 applications for places on these groups. Since September 1995, 12 groups have run involving 108 prisoners.
  One-to-one counselling sessions are run by the probation and psychology departments in the prison and by outside drug counsellors. Occasional courses on problem drinking, anger management and on relationships are also run. No record is kept of the number of applications for these sessions.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) parole applications and (b) successful parole applications were made at Her Majesty's prison, Maidstone in each month since April 1993. [30208]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  British Board of Film Classification
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department has given the British Board of Film Classification regarding its powers to review its certification of films for video release at the request of the film maker. [30243]

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the provisions of the Video Recordings (Review of Determinations) Order 1995, the British Board of Film Classification may, if it thinks fit, review any classification certificate issued before 3 November 1994. It is for the board to decide which video works should be reviewed in this way. There is no power for the board to review any classification certificate issued on or after that date.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the British Board of Film Classification regarding the application of section 4(a) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 in respect of harm to potential viewers to the certification of films containing gratuitous violence for video release. [30244]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for the British Board of Film Classification to apply the classification criteria in section 4A of the Video Recordings Act 1984 to individual video works.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that independent scientific expertise is included in the membership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [30247]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission will have access to independent scientific expertise and will be able to request independent scientific tests and reports. It is important that the commission's248
  members should reflect as wide a range of relevant skills and experience as possible, however, and we therefore have no plans to specify that scientific expertise must be included among the membership.

  Forensic Science Advisory Board
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the establishment of an independent forensic science advisory board; and if he will make a statement. [30246]

  Mr. Maclean
  According to our records, representations from three organisations or individuals have been received about the establishment of a forensic science advisory board since the publication of the report of the royal commission on criminal justice.

  Women (Protection Against Violence)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the protection available to women against violence and the threat of violence. [30257]

  Mr. Maclean
  The response to violence against women involves a number of Government Departments, whose work is co-ordinated at ministerial level. Effective action also requires the commitment and involvement of local agencies, working together to develop local preventive strategies, and to provide help and support to women who are victims of violent or sexual crimes. In order to encourage an effective co-ordinated response by local agencies, the Government published an inter-agency circular on domestic violence in August 1995. In addition, wide-ranging advice on personal safety is contained in the Home Office booklet "Your Practical Guide to Crime Prevention", a copy of which is in the Library. The booklet also contains information on what men can do to help women feel more secure.

  We will continue to take measures to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice; that victims receive the necessary emotional and practical support; and that steps are taken, through education and community initiatives, towards prevention in the long term.

  Dr. Bayo Omoyiola
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons a re-entry visa was not granted to Dr. Bayo Omoyiola following a visit to the British Crown colony of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement. [30452]

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

  Merseyside Police
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects on operations of the Merseyside police of the police grant report (England and Wales) 1996–97. [30504]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. It is for the police authority and the chief constable to determine spending and operational priorities on the basis of the resources made available to them.
  249

  Under-age Prostitutes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of police prosecutions, during 1995, against adults in England and Wales for having sexual relationships with prostitutes under the legal age of consent. [29995]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  John Mathews
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review exclusion orders that are currently in force in respect of the case of John Mathews; and if he will review the forensic evidence in the case. [30253]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The order excluding Mr. Mathews from Great Britain is due to expire shortly and is therefore already under review. All relevant considerations will be taken into account.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual budget for his departmental deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many(a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30057]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The annual staff budget of my Department's deregulation unit, which co-ordinates the deregulation activities of the Department, is £62,870. The unit has one full-time and one part-time member of staff dedicated to deregulation: one higher executive officer and one senior executive officer, respectively, who report to a head of unit. All three members of staff are career civil servants. None has been seconded from business or has had any direct experience of the private sector. Many other officials in the Department contribute to taking the deregulation initiative forward.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the documents which an employer will have to recognise, other than national insurance documents, under clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [29951]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: In cases where no documented national insurance number was available it is currently envisaged that any one of the following documents would provide an employer with a defence:
  birth certificates issued in the United Kingdom;
  passports describing the holder as a British citizen or as having the right of abode in the United Kingdom;
  certificates of registration or naturalisation as a British citizen;
  passports issued by a state which is a party to the European Economic Area agreement;
  identity cards issued by a state which is a party to the EEA agreement and which describes the holder as a national of a state which is party to that agreement;
  250
  passports or other travel documents endorsed to show that the holder has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
  passports or other documents endorsed to show that the holder has current leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and is not precluded from taking the employment in question; and
  certain letters issued by the Home Office or Department for Education and Employment indicating that the person named in the letter has permission to take any or specified employment.

  Appropriate guidance about these documents will be made available to employers in due course. A telephone helpline facility will also be made available.

  Repatriation (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to decide on the application of Michael O'Brien to be repatriated to prison in the Irish Republic; when he received the latest response from the Irish authorities concerning Mr. O'Brien's sentence; and if he will make a statement. [29746]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The repatriation of prisoners between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is governed by the Council of Europe convention on the transfer for sentenced persons. The convention requires the consent of both states involved as well as that of the prisoner concerned before repatriation can take place. Under the terms of the convention the receiving state must provide, among other things, details of how they intend to continue to enforce the sentence. In the case of Mr. O'Brien, information on this was provided by the Irish authorities on 14 February. The Government's long-established policy is not to agreed to prisoners transferring to other jurisdictions, save in exceptional circumstances, if, as a consequence, a prisoner is likely to receive a substantial reduction in time to serve. The information provided by the Republic of Ireland is currently under consideration and Mr. O'Brien's request will be determined as soon as possible.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he announced that Patrick Kelly was to be repatriated to prison in the Irish Republic; on what date Mr. Kelly was transferred from Northern Ireland to the Republic; and if he will make a statement. [29747]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: Patrick Kelly was advised on Thursday 9 May of the decision to grant his request for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland. He was transferred there on Tuesday 14 May.

  Prison Service (Education Programmes)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all education programmes in the Prison Service which have been dropped, in the last year for which the information is available; and if he will make a statement. [29395]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: 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.
  251
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 22 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service education programmes which have dropped in the last year.
  Courses which are provided in prisons vary constantly in response to local needs and priorities. Details of programmes which begin and end are not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  The guidance on cost reductions which the Prisons Board has issued to governors makes it clear that emphasis should be on securing greater efficiency and that reductions in regime activities such as education should come as a last resort.
  Where reductions do take place, governors have been advised to look at courses which have few prisoners and are costly to run and also those which do not offer worthwhile qualifications or are not of any clear use to prisoners in helping them lead law-abiding and useful lives after release.

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody within the administrative counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd 1984, 1989–1994

  Petty sessional division1

  1984

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Within the County of Clwyd

  Berwyn

  15

  12

  9

  9

  9

  11

  8

  Colwyn

  58

  66

  44

  74

  58

  57

  55

  Dyffryn Clwyd

  15

  13

  6

  9

  18

  18

  23

  Flint

  35

  40

  54

  51

  53

  53

  43

  Hawarden

  42

  29

  35

  33

  43

  30

  40

  Mold

  67

  46

  36

  77

  52

  70

  104

  Rhuddan

  117

  101

  86

  76

  74

  100

  114

  Wrexham Maelor

  167

  140

  136

  162

  113

  121

  123

  Within the county of Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  101

  99

  76

  105

  56

  56

  53

  Bangor

  68

  51

  40

  31

  29

  37

  41

  Caernarfon and Gwyrfai

  33

  36

  35

  43

  30

  38

  29

  Eifionydd and Pwllheli

  6

  30

  24

  12

  4

  26

  17

  North Anglesey

  54

  56

  36

  35

  21

  39

  37

  North Meirionnydd

  17

  22

  8

  10

  10

  7

  10

  South Anglesey

  24

  16

  21

  13

  16

  40

  19

  South Meirionnydd

  14

  36

  21

  24

  11

  12

  20

  1 Includes persons convicted at the Crown court where the committing court was one of those listed.

  252
  Some prisons are likely to reduce expenditure on non-essential education courses, others will be maintaining their existing provision and some are planning to expand education provision.

  Sentencing Statistics (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for the last 10 available years the number of people(a) sentenced to terms in prison, (b) on remand and (c) the total of (a) and (b) for each the present boroughs of Ynys Môn, Gwynedd, Conwy, Sir Dinbych, Sir Fflint and Wrexham. [28657]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 May 1996]: The available information on persons sentenced to immediate custody is given in the table. Information for 1985 to 1988 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Comprehensive data about remands by petty sessional division are not available.
  253

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Educational Selection
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding educational selection. [29109]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend receives frequent representations on this subject.

  Employment (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to increase employment in the west midlands. [29110]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's aim is to continue to promote a free and flexible labour market to encourage employment in the west midlands region as elsewhere— a market that during the last three months has supported 20 overseas companies investing in the west midlands, bringing with them £188 million of investment and creating almost 1,300 new jobs.

  Performance and Spending
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the relationship between performance standards and spending in schools. [29111]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The most important factors in school performance are leadership and the quality of teaching. There is no close correlation between performance and spending on education.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the correlation between performance and spending on education. [29090]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The most important factors in school performance are leadership and the quality of teaching. There is no close correlation between performance and spending on education.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the United Kingdom's record on reducing unemployment in relation to that of other major EU countries. [29112]

  Mr. Forth
  The UK, free of the burden of unnecessary regulation, has the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country—at 8.4 per cent., well below the 11 per cent. average throughout Europe.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to meet her European counterparts to discuss current levels of unemployment in EU countries. [29124]

  Mr. Forth
  I expect to meet European Union Employment Ministers at the next meeting of the Social Affairs Council on 3 June at which we will be discussing 254
  a draft report to the Florence European Council on employment issues. We will also discuss the employment situation with Economic and Finance Ministers.

  Departmental Amalgamation
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the benefits to date accruing from the amalgamation of the former Departments for Education and of Employment. [29113]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The amalgamation has given us the opportunity to develop more coherent policies in critical areas such as lifetime learning and the framework of qualifications. We are beginning to see the first fruits of the new approach.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received from universities about higher education funding. [29114]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a substantial volume of correspondence about higher education funding from the universities in recent months.

  Failing Schools (Inner London)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to assist failing schools in inner London. [29115]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The primary responsibility for the improvement of failing schools lies with governing bodies and local education authorities. LEAs can provide financial assistance and advice; but, where necessary, the Government will transfer failing schools to the conduct of an education association.

  Primary Education (Standards)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparisons she has made between different local education authorities with regard to standards in primary education. [29116]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The national measure of standards of achievement in primary education is performance in national curriculum assessments. The Government have announced their intention to publish next spring school level performance tables of achievement at key stage 2. It will be possible from these tables to derive a measure of the relative achievement of schools in different local education authorities.

  Primary Schools (Class Sizes)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she intends to take to reduce class sizes in primary schools. [29117]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Decisions about class sizes are a matter for local education authorities and schools taking account of local circumstances and priorities.
  255

  Jobseekers Act 1995
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on progress in respect of the implementation of the Jobseekers Act 1995. [29118]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobseeker's allowance, as set out in the Jobseekers Act, is on course for implementation on 7 October 1996.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on publicity in phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme. [29120]

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent to date on publicity in phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme. [29127]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, some £1.1 million has been spent on providing information to parents and providers nationwide. It is not possible to break down expenditure between the phase 1 areas and the rest of the country.

  Technology Grants
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the technology grants already awarded have gone to estate schools which are neither opted out, nor voluntary aided nor city technology colleges. [29121]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Since the specialist schools initiative was launched in November 1993, a total of £37.9 million has been allocated to the initiative up to the end of 1996–97. Of this total, £3.4 million has been allocated in capital grant and £5.3 million in recurrent grant to participating state schools which are neither grant maintained, nor voluntary aided nor CTC.

  Secondary Modern Schools
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received urging the reintroduction of secondary modern schools. [29122]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Secondary modern schools continue to contribute to the diversity of educational provision in England. Some 160 schools are classified as secondary modern in the secondary school performance tables.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to improve the competence of United Kingdom children in respect of information technology. [29123]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has given a central lead to the development of IT in schools since the early 1980s. Following Sir Ron Dearing's review of the national curriculum in 1993, we took the opportunity to make information technology a separate subject within the national curriculum. It is a mandatory area of study from five to 16.
  256
  Since 1990, financial support for IT in schools totalling over £132 million has been provided under grants for education support and training.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to publish the results of her Department's statistical survey into the provision of IT equipment in schools. [30225]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department plans to publish the 1996 survey of information technology in schools in November. A press notice listing a schedule for the publication of statistics, including the IT survey, was issued on 28 March 1996.

  Teaching Standards
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she intends to take to improve teaching standards in schools. [29125]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Following the Office for Standards in Education report on the teaching of reading in three London boroughs, my right hon. Friend has announced a number of additional measures designed to expose and tackle poor teaching standards—and to monitor the performance of local authorities and teacher trainers.

  Full-time Employment
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans her Department has to increase full-time employment in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [29126]

  Mr. Forth
  We shall continue with the policies that have enabled businesses to create more than 350,000 full-time jobs since autumn 1993.

  Part-time and Temporary Jobs
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the number of employees who are in part-time and temporary jobs because they can not find permanent work and as to trends in the number; and if she will make a statement. [29128]

  Mr. Forth
  The labour force survey provides routine information on part-time and temporary work, and shows that the vast majority of part-timers are in permanent employment.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils, and for what period of time, have been excluded from schools in the Easington constituency in each year since 1992. [30214]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally.

  The Department has this year started collecting figures on permanent exclusions through the annual census returns sent to all schools in January. Data on exclusions in the school year 1994–95 should be available by the early autumn.
  257

  Truancy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the recorded rates of truancy in schools in England and Wales(a) at the latest available date and (b) in 1980. [30202]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Rates of unauthorised absence for maintained primary and secondary schools in England for the 1994–95 school year were as follows:Primary Schools

  Percentage of half days missed: 0.5 per cent.

  Average number of half days missed per absent pupil: 10

  Secondary Schools

  Percentage of half days missed: 1.0 per cent.

  Average number of half days missed per absent pupil: 22

  Equivalent information was not collected centrally in 1980.

  Information on pupil absence rates in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to reform procedures for the appointment of head teachers; and if she will make a statement. [29107]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Teacher Training Agency to establish a national professional qualification for headship—NPQH. The Government anticipate that, in time, those being appointed as head teachers will be expected to have gained the NPQH.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the expenditure plans for teacher recruitment by the Teacher Training Agency for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [30453]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for the Teacher Training Agency. I will ask the chairman of the agency, Geoffrey Parker, to write to the hon. Member direct.

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she received a report of the quinquennial review of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications; and if she will make a statement. [30788]

  Mr. Paice
  The report is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library. The review has informed our recent consultation document, "Building the Framework", on the future of NCVQ and School Curriculum Assessment Authority, in the light of Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations.

  EU Trade Talks
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she plans next to meet 258
  European Community Ministers to discuss trade; and if he will make a statement. [30306]

  Mr. Lang
  I have been asked to reply.

  My colleagues and I meet our European Union counterparts regularly to discuss a wide range of trade issues particularly those arising in preparation for the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Singapore in December.

SCOTLAND

  Drug Users (Tayside)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of funding allocation by the national services division to Tayside health board for services for drug users in the current year; and what was the figure in each of the three previous years. [29756]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The level of funding allocated by the national services division to Tayside health board for drug misuse services in the four financial years from 1993–94 to 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  1993–94: £265,0001

  1994–95: £850,000

  1995–96: £1,091,000

  1996–97: £1,090,302

  1 The figure for 1993–94 does not include allocations for HIV drugs-related services which, since 1994–95, have been included in the general drug misuse allocations.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of funding allocated by Tayside health board in the current year and for last year to(a) Dundee drugs and AIDS project, (b) Wishart centre, (c) Body Positive and (d) Scottish drugs forum. [29757]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information, which has been provided by Tayside health board, is set out in the table.

  1995–96 Actual £

  1996–97 Intended allocations £

  Dundee drugs and AIDS project

  1220,000

  3158,500

  Wishart center

  242,000

  20,000

  Body Positive

  —

  15,000

  Scottish drugs forum

  60,000

  42,000

  1 This amount includes non-recurrent funding of £82,000.

  2 This amount includes non-recurrent funding of £22,000.

  3 This amount includes non-recurrent funding of £20,500.

  Scottish Drugs Forum
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of core funding provided by the Scottish Office to the Scottish drugs forum in the current year and in 1995–96. [29731]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The core funding provided by the Scottish Office to the Scottish drugs forum for the two years in question is as follows:
  259

  Financial year

  Total core grant £

  1995–96

  88,000

  1996–97

  150,000

  Betaferon
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the arrangements adopted in each health board area in Scotland for the prescription of the drug betaferon to patients suffering from multiple sclerosis; and what estimate he has made of the number of patients in each health board area potentially able to benefit from this drug. [29732]

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

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that his Department's guidance on the use of the drug betaferon for patients suffering from multiple sclerosis is being consistently applied in each health board area in Scotland. [29733]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  NHS circular MEL (1995) 73 issued on 16 November 1995 to all health boards and NHS trusts offering guidance in the context of their responsibilities to develop and plan local arrangements to manage the entry of beta interferon into the NHS.

  The use of the drug for the treatment of patients suffering from multiple sclerosis is, in each case, a matter for the clinical judgment of the responsible medical practitioner.

  Woodcot and Arduthie Hospitals
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure a full public consultation before the proposed closure of Woodcot and Arduthie hospitals in Grampian, and that the award of the contract for the replacement hospital is announced before the consultation is completed. [29734]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Public consultation carried out by Grampian health board through the local health council between June and September 1995 established strong support for a new hospital in Kincardineshire to replace the two existing old and unsuitable facilities. I look forward to learning the outcome of the tendering exercise currently being undertaken by the health board, and I will wish to be satisfied that any proposals put forward for an alternative model of service provision represent an improvement on what exists at present before I agree to the closure of any hospital.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the drop-out rate of student nurses in Scotland in each year of Project 2000 courses, for each of the last three years for which there are figures; and if he will make a statement. [29816]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. It gives the overall wastage rates for each year of training for intakes commencing during the fiscal years 1992–93 to 1994–95.260

  Percentage

  Year of commencement

  Lost during first year

  Lost during second year

  Lost during third year

  1992–93

  12.2

  9.4

  3.6

  1993–94

  9.6

  7.5

  —

  1994–95

  9.1

  —

  —

  Note:

  All losses are expressed as percentages of the original intake sizes at commencement.

  Source:

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland.

  Project 2000 courses were introduced in August 1992 in Scotland; therefore only one cohort have completed; their three-year training courses. A valid wastage rate cannot be calculated from one cohort. As Project 2000 becomes established, trends in wastage rates will become apparent. An evaluation of Project 2000 has been commissioned and the results will be known in early 1997.

  Health Boards (Administration Costs)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his statement of 9 May on administration costs of health boards in Scotland. [29945]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Copies of my news release concerning administration costs of health boards in Scotland have now been placed in the Library.

  Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the mechanisms which he employs for the acquisition of land for the provision of smallholdings under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919. [30506]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  No land has been acquired under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 since 1947.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the provisions of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 have been used for the provision of smallholdings since 1966; and in each case what was the date and the location. [30507]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 provisions for the creation of small holdings have not been used since 1966.

  Health Boards (Shields Report)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the Shields report on the role and responsibilities of health boards in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [29944]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The Shields report is to be published shortly. I will then place a copy in the Library.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual budget for his departmental
  261
  deregulation unit; how many staff it employs; and of these how many (a) are career civil servants and of what grades, (b) have been seconded from business, and (c) have experience of the private sector. [30067]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The Scottish Office deregulation unit comprises one member of the senior civil service, one grade 7, two higher executive officers, one executive officer and two administrative assistants. The officers concerned are all career civil servants and none has worked recently in the private sector. These staff also perform other functions within the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department and for that reason it is not possible to assign a specific cost to their deregulation activities.

  Home Energy Conservation Act 1995
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he plans to issue guidelines relating to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; [28470]

  (2) if local authorities in Scotland will be eligible for grants during 1996–97 under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 action scheme; and if he will make a statement. [28471]

  Visits since 1 January 1991

  Date

  Place

  Reason

  Delegation

  1991

  25 March

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  Secretary of State. Private Secretary and official

  17–18 June

  Brussels

  Meeting EC Commissioners

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  10–13 September

  Munich

  Scottish Trade Mission

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  13–21 November

  Japan

  Inward investment promotion

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  1992

  20–23 June

  Thessalonika

  Europartenariat

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  12–19 September

  Japan

  Inward investment promotion

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  12–19 September

  Boston

  Inward investment promotion

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  1993

  12 February

  Munich

  Trade Fair and tourism promotion

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and official

  25–27 March

  Florida

  Inward investment promotion

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  6–8 June

  Madrid

  Trade Mission

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  17–18 June

  Lille

  Europartenariat

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  17–23 September

  Jedda/Dubai

  Trade Mission

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  20–21 September

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  5–15 October

  New York and Hong Kong

  Tourism promotion

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Private Secretary and one official per visit

  2–9 October

  USA

  Inward investment promotion

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  29 November-1 December

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Fraser, Private Secretary and 3 officials

  1994

  February

  Oslo

  Meet Norwegian Fisheries Minister and visit Winter Olympic Team

  Sir Hector Monro and 2 officials

  18 March

  Holland

  Tourism promotion

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Private Secretary and official

  11–12 April

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Fraser and Private Secretary

  26–29 May

  Crete

  Criminal Justice Conference

  Lord Fraser, Private Secretary and official

  2–5 June

  Corfu

  Informal meeting of Ministers

  Allan Stewart and official

  9 June

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro and Private Secretary

  8–10 June

  Golansk

  Europartenariat

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  262
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 May 1996]: Guidance on the operation of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 will be issued to Scottish local authorities, following consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, later this year. It is expected that the Act will be brought into force in Scotland in 1997.

  While Scottish local authorities are eligible to apply for assistance under the Energy Saving Trust Home Energy Conservation Act demonstration project, if they meet the criteria for the scheme, it is more likely to be of interest to Scottish authorities in 1997–98.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17498]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: Details of overseas visits as from 1 January 1991 are listed in the table. Information before 1991 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Non-ministerial members of the delegations have not been named as it is not normal practice to do so. They were in attendance to provide support for Ministers.

  263

  Visits since 1 January 1991

  Date

  Place

  Reason

  Delegation

  14–15 June

  Munich

  Scotland/Bavaria Economic Forum

  Allan Stewart and Private Secretary

  8–9 September

  Brussels

  Anniversary of the liberation of Brussels

  Secretary of State and Private Secretary

  August

  Canada

  Visit Commonwealth Games

  Sir Hector Monro and Private Secretary

  24 September-1 October

  USA

  Inward investment promotion

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  24 September-2 October

  Japan

  Inward investment promotion

  Allan Stewart, Private Secretary and official

  27 September

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro and Private Secretary

  24 October

  Paris

  SIAL Food Fair

  Sir Hector Monro, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  23 October

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro and Private Secretary

  18 December

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro and Private Secretary

  22 December

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Fraser and Private Secretary

  Visits since 1991

  Date

  Place

  Reason

  Delegation

  Cost £

  1995

  15–17 March

  Rome

  Forestry Meeting

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  1,942.80

  20–21 March

  Brussels

  Meet MEPs

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  1,956

  31 March

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro, Private Secretary and 3 officials

  2,610

  14 June

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  1,440

  26–31 August

  Taipei

  Trade Mission/Inward investment promotion

  George Kynoch, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  14,508

  15–19 September

  Helsinki

  Inward investment promotion

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Private Secretary and official

  2,309.13

  24–30 September

  Boston

  Trade Mission/Inward investment promotion

  George Kynoch and Private Secretary

  8,294

  4–5 October

  Cologne

  ANUGA Food Exhibition

  Earl of Lindsay, Private Secretary and 3 officials

  2,017.66

  8–10 October

  Stockholm

  Health Conference

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  3,029.81

  17 October

  Brussels

  Meet with Commissioner Bonino UK Rep and MEPs

  Raymond Robertson, Private Secretary and official

  748.50

  26 October

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  2,968

  1–3 November

  Washington

  United Nationals meeting

  Earl of Lindsay and Private Secretary

  7,162

  7–9 November

  Oslo and Tromso

  To meet with Mr. Olsen,Norwegian Fisheries Minister

  Raymond Robertson, Private Secretary and official

  2,582.40

  8–10 November

  Toronto and Ottawa

  Attend Royal Winter Fair Agricultural Show and fact funding visit about Canadian film industry

  Earl of Lindsay, Private Secretary and official

  7,246.83

  24 November

  Madrid

  Tourism promotion

  George Kynoch and Private Secretary

  982

  17–19 December

  Brussels

  EU Council of Ministers

  Earl of Lindsay and Private Secretary

  948

  20–22 December

  Brussels

  Meet with Commissioner Bonino UK Rep and MEPs

  Raymond Robertson, Private Secretary and officia

  1748.50

  1996

  5 March 1996

  Brussels

  Meet with Commissioner Bonino UK Rep and MEPs

  Raymond Robertson, Private Secretary and official

  748.50

  8–11 March

  USA

  Film Initiative

  Earl of Lindsay, Private Secretary and official

  10,309.10

  1 April

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  Earl of Lindsay, Private Secretary and official

  2,444.06

  17–19 April

  USA/Canada

  Tourism and Inward investment promotion

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  14,379.94

  22 April 1996

  Brussels

  Meet with Commissioner Bonino UK Rep and MEPs

  Raymond Robertson, Private Secretary and official

  748.50

  24 April

  Brussels

  Visit to Brussels Fisheries Exhibition

  Raymond Robertson, Private Secretary and official

  696.75

  29–30 April

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  Earl of Lindsay, Private Secretary and official

  2,150.80

  15–17 May

  Cannes

  Cannes Film Festival

  Earl of Lindsay, Private Secretary and official

  2,899.20

  264 265

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28576]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1996]: The total expenditure on official hospitality by the Scottish Office during the financial year 1995–96 was £82,978. In addition, the Scottish Office spent £34,680 on hospitality as part of the Government's contribution to the VE and VJ-day commemorations.

  The actual expenditure on official hospitality during the financial year 1995–96 for each of the agencies associated with the Scottish Office is set out in the table.

  Agency

  Outturn of expenditure £

  Scottish Office Pension Agency

  973

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  2,063

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  3,059

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  215

  Historic Scotland

  5,362

  Scottish Courts Service

  2,502

  Scottish Prisons Service

  6,824

  Scottish Record Office

  1,166

  Registers of Scotland

  6,249

  Total

  28,413

  Cattle
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of(a) dairy and (b) beef cattle in Scotland at the latest available date. [29912]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  December 1995

  Total dairy cattle1

  342,541

  Total beef cattle1

  664,587

  Other cattle2

  1,124,305

  1 The totals in each class include breeding cows, breeding heifers and other female cattle for breeding.

  2 Other cattle includes bulls for service and all other cattle not for breeding.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exchange Rates (EU Funds)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the implications of recent changes in exchange rates upon the amounts Her Majesty's Government may receive from regional development funds and social funds from the European Union. [30166]

  Mr. Eggar
  Governments do not apply for grants from these funds; the Commission, following criteria laid down in Council regulations, makes a number of block allocations for each member state.
  266
  These allocations, like the whole of the EC budget, from which they are drawn, are denominated in ecu. Changes in exchange rates therefore affect the value in national currencies of the structural funds grants received by all member states.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business link chief executives have been dismissed from that post; and what proportion this is of the total. [30126]

  Mr. Page
  No business link chief executives have been dismissed.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many chief executives of business links are the first appointments to such posts. [30127]

  Mr. Page
  Sixty-six business link chief executives are first appointments to their posts.

  Nuclear Privatisation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his Department's response to the second report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee on nuclear privatisation, HC 383, what estimates his Department has received from British Nuclear Fuels plc in respect of the extent of the future growth in the market for plutonium-based mixed oxide fuel. [30007]

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives have been taken to date to implement the recommendations in Sir Richard Scott's report on(a) military and (b) dual-use equipment sales to Iraq in respect of the tightening of export controls and scrutiny of export licence applications; and if he will make a statement on the role of different Government Departments in executing the revised export control policy. [30008]

  Mr. Lang
  I plan to publish a consultative paper on export licensing procedures in the summer. The Government will consider fully all representations made in response to that paper before making proposals for a revised export control policy.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make a decision on the future of the public sector research establishments under the first tranche of the prior options review; and if he will make a statement. [30323]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the timetable for the reviews on 26 January 1996,Official Report, columns 421–23, and made it clear that the results were to be considered by Ministers collectively.

  The Government are currently considering the outcome of the first tranche of reviews. I expect an announcement to be made shortly.
  267

  British Energy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assumptions informed the adoption of a 135-year time scale for the full dismantling of British Energy's nuclear power generating plants; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the full dismantling of nuclear power generating plants could be undertaken in a shorter period; [30391]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) of 14 May, Official Report, column 409, what are the determinants of the future agreed strategy; and if he will make a statement. [30395]

  Mr. Lang
  Government policy on decommissioning is set out in the July 1995 White Paper "Review of Radioactive Waste Policy". This concluded that there are a number of potentially feasible and acceptable decommissioning strategies for nuclear power stations, including "safestore". British Energy's preferred strategy will be set out in the pathfinder prospectus. To ensure that operators' decommissioning strategies remain soundly based as circumstances change, they will be reviewed quinquenially by the Health and Safety Executive, which will consult the environment agencies. The agreements establishing the segregated fund provide for changes in the level of payments into the fund in the event that British Energy's agreed strategy changes.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made of the assumptions and calculations used by BZW in its paper "The Cash Generator". [30455]

  Mr. Lang
  The research paper "The Cash Generator" was written by independent analysts from the utilities sector of BZW Research. It is one of a number of research papers by independent analysts on British Energy. The analysts at BZW Research are completely independent of the team from BZW advising the Government on the privatisation.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to underwrite future contributions by British Energy to its segregated fund in circumstances where(a) British Energy could not meet the payment and (b) British Energy became insolvent. [30344]

  Mr. Lang
  The agreements contain cross and parent company guarantees which make Nuclear Electric Ltd. and Scottish Nuclear responsible for each others' obligations and require British Energy to act as guarantor.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what would be the level of payments of British Energy to its segregated fund if the time scale for the full dismantling of the nuclear power generating plants was(a) 20 years, (b) 50 years and (c) 70 years after the end of production. [30346]

  Mr. Lang
  The level of payments into the fund are based on British Energy's expected costs of decommissioning its advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations 70 years after the end of generation and 50 years after generation for the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor. Figures for other time scales are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  268
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the segregated fund would have preferential creditor status on the company's assets if British Energy became insolvent. [30345]

  Mr. Lang
  As with other parties with whom British Energy has contractual arrangements, the fund will be able to enforce its contractual rights against the assets of British Energy.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) to what extent British Energy's segregated fund will meet liabilities from the privatised assets; [30382]

  (2) what proportion of the initial endowment towards the segregated fund of British Energy will be provided from public funds. [30381]

  Mr. Lang
  The initial endowment to the segregated fund will be paid for by British Energy, not from public funds. This endowment, and subsequent quarterly payments will be paid by the privatised companies.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the shortfall between total undiscounted liabilities of British Energy and the sum generated by the segregated fund will be met by British Energy revenues. [30335]

  Mr. Lang
  British Energy will be responsible for meeting all its liabilities.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds West, of 14 May,Official Report, column 409, from what source intermediate-level waste and high-level waste disposal costs are to be funded. [30394]

  Mr. Lang
  All ILW and HLW disposal costs for ILW and HLW arising from the operation of British Energy's power stations and the treatment of spent fuel from these stations will be funded by British Energy.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the undiscounted liabilities of British Energy will be met by the segregated fund. [30337]

  Mr. Lang
  BE's accounts for the year ended 31 March 1996 have not yet been finalised. BE provided provisional financial information in respect of the year ended 31 March 1995 at an analysts' briefing on 4 March 1996.

  The provisional financial information indicated that BE's undiscounted nuclear liabilities at 31 March 1995 were £14.3 billion, consisting of £10.3 billion for fuel cycle and £4 billion for decommissioning. The majority of the fuel cycle liabilities are covered by contracts. The segregated fund deals with all decommissioning costs except defuelling costs. As at 31 March 1995, the segregated fund arrangements cover just over 90 per cent. of the undiscounted decommissioning liabilities.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated annual cost for(a) each advanced gas-cooled reactor and (b) the pressurised water reactor of reprocessing after shut-down and stage 1 decommissioning. [30341]

  Mr. Lang
  This detailed information is a commercial matter for British Energy plc.
  269
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the undiscounted value of the liabilities of British Energy; and if he will give a breakdown of the constituent parts of the total. [30336]

  Mr. Lang
  Details of the undiscounted value of the nuclear liabilities of British Energy will be included in the prospectus.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the financial forecasts indicating when British Energy will generate income sufficient to meet the post-shut-down reprocessing costs and stage 1 decommissioning costs of the advanced gas-cooled reactors as they close. [30340]

  Mr. Lang
  This is a commercial matter for British Energy plc.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public funds will be used to meet the liabilities arising from the assets of British Energy. [30383]

  Mr. Lang
  None. British Energy will be responsible for meeting all its liabilities.

  Magnox
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) pursuant to paragraph 8.21 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860, if he will estimate the extent to which sufficient funds will be(a) generated by the Magnox stations and (b) realised by the privatisation of the advanced gas-cooled reactors and pressurised water reactors to meet the cost of the liabilities which remain in the public sector; [30384]

  (2) what is the undiscounted cost of the liabilities remaining in the public sector; and how those liabilities will be met; [30393]

  (3) when the Magnox stations will exhaust their existing sources of funding including, income from generation and outstanding fossil fuel levy and cash and investments currently held on current assumptions and calculations; and when the Government expect to contribute to reprocessing waste management and decommissioning costs. [30385]

  Mr. Lang
  The undiscounted cost of Magnox Electric plc's nuclear liabilities will be shown in the company's annual report and accounts, which I understand will be published shortly. The sources of funding of these liabilities were described in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy to the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) on 10 May 1996,Official Report, columns 294–96.

  The timing and amount of funding of these liabilities by Magnox and the Government are dependent on a number of factors. These include the level of Magnox's future income, which is dependent on among other things, interest rates and electricity prices, the potential for further improvements in the understanding and control of decommissioning costs and other nuclear liabilities, and the benefits to be derived from the proposed integration of Magnox with British Nuclear Fuels plc.
  270

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has reached a decision on the future of the BBSRC's agriculture and plant sciences institutes; and if he will make a statement. [30818]

  Mr. Lang
  Prior options reviews have been completed of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environment Research, the John Innes Centre and the Silsoe Research Institute. I am satisfied that the functions of these institutes are needed and that they should retain their separate existence.

  They are currently constituted as distinct legal entities with charitable status but are regulated by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Their staff are members of the research councils pension scheme and BBSRC carries contingent liability for staffing. They are consequently subject to public sector financial controls.

  I have concluded that full independence from the public sector, with the greater freedom this will provide the institutes to direct their own affairs, would be a desirable option which merits further consideration. This will therefore by the subject of further work led by the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene. The institutes would remain eligible to compete for research funding from BBSRC and other public sector funders. [30329]

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement on the current review of the research establishments under the control of the BBSRC.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the timetable for the reviews on 26 January 1996, Official Report, columns 421–23.

  Four BBSRC institutes were included in the first tranche of reviews. These were the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, the John Innes Centre and the Silsoe Research Institute. I expect an announcement on the outcome of these reviews to be made shortly.

  Four further BBSRC institutes were included in the timetable. The reviews of the Babraham Institute, the Institute for Animal Health and the Roslin Institute are due to be completed by the end of July 1996. The review of the Institute of Food Research is due to be completed by the end of December 1996. Announcements on the outcome of each of these reviews will be made as soon as possible.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the prior options review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. [30817]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have accepted the review team's recommendations that NWML should remain an executive agency of DTI.
  271
  In reaching this decision the Government took into account the advantages of maintaining the existing integration between NWML's technical and policy functions, for which support has been received from industry.

  Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has reached a decision on the future of the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils; and if he will make a statement. [30814]

  Mr. Lang
  I announced to the House on 17 November 1995,Official Report, column 10, that the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories, which together form the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, were to be the subject of a prior options review.

  The review found that the functions performed by the CLRC are needed and that it should remain in the public sector as a non-departmental public body of the Department of Trade and Industry, through the Office of Science and Technology. The Government are content to proceed on this basis while asking that further work on the involvement of the private sector should be carried out as described later. I am also satisfied that the current arrangements, whereby CLRC obtains the great majority of its income from competitively won contracts and service level agreements, bring suitable market forces to bear on it and that these should continue.

  The Government have agreed with the recommendations of the steering committee for the review that the laboratory should work to achieve further reductions in its overhead costs, and that work should be done to put in place a sound, longer-term planning model between CLRC and its research council customers. In addition, I have agreed that the CLRC should be set targets for broadening its customer base, and that further work should be carried out to identify and overcome, where appropriate, any barriers to greater private sector involvement with the laboratory, and on potential private sector interest in operating the establishment. These matters will be investigated by my Department.

  I believe that these steps will enable the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils to build upon the success of the first year of its existence and will ensure that it remains well placed to contribute fully to the science and engineering base of the UK.

  Public Sector Research Establishments
  Mr. Wiltshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made on the prior options reviews of public sector research establishments. [30815]

  Mr. Lang
  I announced the timetable for the prior options reviews of public sector research establishments on 26 January,Official Report columns 422–23. The reviews are being conducted in three tranches, with a view to the major part of the work being completed by the end of 1996.

  The Government have been considering the outcome of the first tranche of reviews. Our objective is to ensure that the Government receive the best quality scientific and technical services, with the best possible value for money for the taxpayer.
  272
  An announcement on the Building Research Establishment was made on 2 April, Official Report, columns 163–64, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs are today making announcements on a number of establishments for which I have responsibility:

  Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  Institute of Arable Crops Research

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  John Innes Centre

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Silsoe Research Institute

  Announcements are also being made today by the responsible Minister for each of the following establishments:

  Directorate of Fisheries Research

  Fisheries Research Services

  Forestry Commission Research Division

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Decisions on other establishments will be announced as soon as possible.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current state of industrial relations between management and employees. [29119]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There has been an immense improvement in relations between management and employees in recent years, as shown by the 94 per cent. reduction in the strike rate since the 1970s. The Government's step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union law has undoubtedly contributed significantly to this improvement.

  Enterprise Agencies (Employment Initiatives)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on enterprise agencies in relation to employment initiatives. [29091]

  Mr. Page
  Enterprise agencies are independent local companies whose boards are drawn from local industry and the community. They offer a range of business services to new and established small firms including advice and counselling, specialist financial services, business skills training and the provision of managed workspace. A majority of enterprise agencies are partners in business link and are often local deliverers of training and enterprise council and business link services to start-up and micro firms.

  Steelworkers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that there is a fair distribution of(a) Rechar, (b) Resider, (c) Retek and (d) Konver funds to address the needs of unemployed steelworkers. [29975]
  273
  Mr. Eggar
  I will announce the allocations as soon as possible, after giving full consideration to the representations I have received from the hon. Gentleman and others.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 495, when he expects to be in a position to state on what date his Department will be publishing the table of results of all Departments and their agencies for 1995–96. [30437]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: I refer to my answer of 15 May on this subject. The figures are currently being collated and I would expect to be able to announce a publication date shortly.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the top 10 recipients of export credit guarantees granted by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the last five years. [30154]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about commercial relations between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and individual companies unless the relevant parties have agreed to this.

  Coal Investments Ltd.
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extra funding requirement needed by the Coal Authority as a result of the administrative receivership of Coal Investments Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [30260]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Current

  Science Group

  Higher scientific officer

  2

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  5

  6

  4

  3

  5

  6

  Senior scientific officer

  8

  7

  8

  8

  8

  6

  6

  5

  4

  4

  5

  4

  Professional and technology group

  Higher professional and technology officer

  2

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  5

  6

  7

  6

  9

  7

  Senior professional and technology officer

  6

  7

  8

  6

  4

  5

  7

  10

  10

  10

  9

  9

  Unified grades (with science or engineering discipline)

  Grade 6

  2

  Grade 7

  7

  Senior civil service

  2

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 526–28, how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each of the unified grades in the headquarters division of his Department in each year since 1991. [29830]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: Data on the specialisms held by staff in the unified grades are not
  274

  Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects to publish draft regulations to implement the environmental impact assessment directive 85/337/EEC for offshore oil and gas exploration activities; and if he will make a statement; [29584]

  (2) when he gave an undertaking to implement the environmental impact assessment directive 85/337/EEC for offshore oil and gas exploration activities; what consultations he had undertaken with interested parties; and when that consultation period ended. [29587]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: The Government are committed to implementing directive 85/337/EEC in so far as it applies to offshore oil and gas activities and I intend to seek comments from interested parties on our proposals in the near future.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of
  Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 526–28; how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade, including unified grades, in each year in the regional offices from their inception. [29831]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The data requested are not available from the inception of regional offices. Records are available for the period since 1985 and are shown in the table, with the position as at 1 January in each year. Integrated Government offices were created out of regional offices on 1 April 1994. The figures for 1995 and 1996 reflect the number of relevant DTI officials in the integrated Government offices.

  Data on the specialisms held by staff in the unified grades are not maintained historically, but the current position is shown in the table.

  maintained historically. The current number of officers in the headquarters divisions of the Department with a science or engineering discipline is 117 at grade 7 level, 23 at grade 6 level and 17 in the senior civil service.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 526–28, how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each

  275
  grade, including unified grades, in each of his Department's agencies in each year since 1991. [29833]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The table shows data for all agencies since 1991 with the position as at 1 January in each year for which relevant information is available. The environmental work of the Warren Spring Laboratory executive agency were merged with that of the Atomic Energy Authority in April 1994; the National Physical Laboratory became a contractually operated agency in October 1995; the National Engineering

  Science group

  Professional and technical group

  Assistant scientific officer

  Scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer (development)

  Senior scientific officer

  Professional and technology officer

  Higher professional and technology officer

  Senior professional and technology officer

  Companies House

  1991

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1992

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Insolvency Service

  1992

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  1991

  66

  63

  63

  0

  33

  5

  2

  6

  1992

  64

  61

  67

  1

  41

  5

  3

  6

  1993

  49

  60

  69

  1

  38

  2

  4

  3

  1994

  43

  63

  68

  0

  40

  3

  4

  4

  1995

  32

  60

  64

  0

  35

  3

  3

  4

  1996

  28

  60

  54

  0

  34

  3

  3

  3

  National Engineering Laboratory

  1991

  14

  21

  67

  0

  50

  17

  6

  4

  1992

  11

  22

  59

  0

  55

  16

  10

  4

  1993

  9

  23

  57

  0

  54

  16

  10

  3

  1994

  9

  23

  53

  0

  49

  14

  11

  2

  1995

  5

  21

  37

  0

  34

  12

  8

  2

  Year

  Professional and technical group

  Assistant scientific officer

  Scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer (development)

  Senior scientific officer

  Professional and technology officer

  Higher professional and technology officer

  Senior professional and technology officer

  National Physical Laboratory

  1991

  57

  87

  133

  0

  111

  7

  8

  14

  1992

  44

  96

  137

  0

  113

  7

  8

  14

  1993

  33

  86

  144

  1

  111

  7

  8

  15

  1994

  26

  73

  150

  1

  108

  5

  8

  17

  1995

  32

  71

  161

  1

  100

  5

  6

  17

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  1991

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  4

  9

  7

  1992

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  5

  9

  9

  1993

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  6

  10

  8

  1994

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  7

  10

  7

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  10

  7

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  10

  7

  276
  Laboratory executive agency was privatised on 1 November 1995; and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist executive agency was sold on 1 April 1996.

  Historical data on the specialisms held by staff in the unified grades are not maintained, but of the Department's agencies, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory currently has two grade 7s and one in the senior civil service with a science or engineering disciple and the Radiocommunications Agency has 19 at grade 7 level, six at grade 6 and two in the senior civil service.

  277

  Year

  Professional and technical group

  Assistant scientific officer

  Scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer

  Higher scientific officer (development)

  Senior scientific officer

  Professional and technology officer

  Higher professional and technology officer

  Senior professional and technology officer

  Patent Office

  1991

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Radiocommunications Agency

  1991

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  17

  1992

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  20

  1993

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  27

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27

  26

  1995

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  28

  22

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  25

  Warren Springs Laboratory

  1991

  24

  30

  63

  0

  45

  2

  2

  0

  1992

  27

  34

  59

  0

  51

  2

  2

  0

  1993

  23

  25

  52

  1

  48

  1

  2

  0

  1994

  16

  22

  48

  0

  44

  1

  1

  0

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the United Kingdom currently(a) draw their state retirement pension at a post office and (b) have it paid into a bank or building society. [29724]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many pensioners in the United Kingdom currently (a) draw their state Retirement Pension at a post office and (b) have it paid into a bank or building society.
  As of 31 March 1996, the latest date for which figures are available, 6,105,653 pensioners collect their Retirement Pension at the post office and 3,126,053 pensioners are paid direct into a bank or building society account. A further 279,995 pensioners receive payment by payable order which subsequently will be paid into a bank or building society account. These figures are provisional and subject to amendment.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Motability
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to clear the report of the National Audit Office into Motability and related matters. [30051]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 30 January,Official Report, column 735.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he received in the first three months of 1996, regarding the working of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [29726]
  278
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Ministers received 640 letters and representations from hon. Members on child support issues during the first three months of 1996. This compares with 969 received in the first three months of 1995 and reflects the improvements we have made to the scheme since then.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each of her Department's agencies, the market testing which has been carried out into the services and what were the results. [30133]

  Mr. Burt
  The information for the period up to March 1995 has been placed in the Library.

  "Competing for Quality" results for the period between April 1995 and March 1996 are being compiled for the Department's efficiency plan. It is anticipated that this information will be published in the 1996 next steps review.

  Benefits (Loans)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances loans, other than student loans, are counted as income when applying for social security benefits. [26851]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Money from a loan may be treated as income if it is a sum received regularly—weekly, monthly or even annually—and will be taken into account at an equivalent weekly rate.

  Lump sums received as one-off loans will generally be treated as capital and will not affect benefit if a claimant's overall capital remains below the lower capital limit— £3,000 for most claimants or £10,000 for people in residential care or nursing homes.

  Compensation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will exempt persons who successfully
  279
  claim compensation as a result of disability arising from asbestosis and other similar conditions from the compensation recovery scheme; [30388]

  (2) if he will raise the small payments limit for the compensation recovery scheme; and if he will make a statement; [30389]

  (3) if he will ensure that the costs of any community care or aids and adaptations required, arising out of an injury or illness, where such medical conditions result in successful claims for compensation, are taken into account in any compensation recovery undertaken by the compensation recovery unit; and if he will make a statement. [30255]

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Social Security benefit expenditure (a)

  15,873

  18,777

  22,658

  27,698

  31,628

  35,332

  Means-tested benefits (b)

  2,692

  2,940

  3.830

  5,587

  7,917

  9,449

  (b) Expressed as a percentage of (a)

  17.0 per cent.

  15.7 per cent.

  16.9 per cent.

  21.1 per cent.

  25.0 per cent.

  26.7 per cent.

  £ million

  Year

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Social Security benefit expenditure (a)

  38,225

  41,699

  44,913

  46,697

  47,333

  50,174

  56,509

  66,382

  Means-tested benefits (b)

  10,755

  12,163

  13,171

  13,398

  13,265

  14,050

  16,804

  20,328

  (b) Expressed as a percentage of (a)

  28.1 per cent.

  29.2 per cent

  29.3 per cent.

  28.7 per cent.

  28.0 per cent

  28.0 per cent.

  29.7 per cent.

  30.6 per cent.

  Attendance Allowance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland over the age of 65 years were in receipt of attendance allowance in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1995–96. [29247]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Scotland, over the age of 65 years were in receipt of Attendance Allowance in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1995–96.

  The information requested is as follows:

  At 31.3.93: 73,800

  At 29.2.96: 109,600

  (latest data available)

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the number of people in Scotland aged(a) five to 15 years, (b) 16 to 29 years, (c) 30 to 64 years and (d) over 65 years (i) in receipt of and (ii) refused disability living allowance mobility component at the higher and lower levels in (1) 1992–93 and (2) 1995–96; [29214]

  (2) if he will list the number of people in Scotland aged (a) five to 15 years, (b) 16 to 22 years, (c) 30 to 64 years and (d) over 65 years (i) in receipt of and (ii) refused
  280
  Mr. Roger Evens
  Extensive consultation has taken place on the implications of changes to the compensation recovery scheme is appropriate and will announce their decision in due course.

  Means tested Benefits
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the total cash value of all benefits paid out were means tested,for each year between 1979 and 1991. [29854]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  disability living allowance care component at the higher, middle and lower levels in (1) 1992–93 and (2) 1995–96; [29209]

  (3) if he will list the number of people in Scotland aged (a) five to 15 years (b) 16 to 29 years, (c) 30 to 64 years and (d) over 65 years in receipt of the mobility and care components of disability living allowance in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1995–96. [29210]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of people in Scotland aged (a) 5–15 years, b) 16–29 years, and (c) 30–64 years and (d) over 65, (i) in receipt of and (ii) refused Disability Living Allowance (DLA) mobility component at the higher and lower levels of the mobility and care components of disability living allowance in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1995–96.

  Appendix A gives details of DLA mobility component.

  Appendix B gives details of DLA care component.

  Appendix C gives details of DLA mobility and care components.

  Unfortunately the information for refusals is not available in the format requested, as it is not possible to give a breakdown of disallowances by component or component level. However I am able to provide the total figure for all refusals of DLA following new claims received at both Edinburgh and Glasgow disability benefit centres for both the years.

  1992/93: 25,890

  1995/96: 35,148.

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  281

  Appendix A

  Age

  Mobility Higher

  Components Lower

  DLA Recipients in Scotland at 28 February 1993

  5–15

  2,100

  1,300

  16–29

  4,200

  2,700

  30–64

  58,600

  8,400

  Over 65

  35,300

  1,000

  DLA Recipients in Scotland at 29 February 1996

  5–15

  3,900

  3,700

  16–29

  6,600

  6,200

  30–64

  95,300

  20,300

  Over 65

  33,100

  1,500

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Appendix B

  Care components

  Age

  Higher

  Middle

  Lower

  DLA Recipients in Scotland at 28 February 1993

  5–15

  3,100

  4,200

  200

  16–29

  2,300

  3,700

  900

  30–64

  10,600

  13,600

  12,400

  Over 65

  2,800

  4,200

  3,800

  DLA Recipients in Scotland at 29 February 1996

  5–15

  4,600

  6,000

  1,100

  16–29

  3,500

  5,800

  2,400

  30–64

  21,900

  31,100

  27,700

  Over 65

  4,400

  7,500

  5,100

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Appendix C

  Age

  Both components

  DLA recipients in Scotland at 28 February 1993

  5–15

  3,100

  16–29

  5,100

  30–64

  32,100

  Over 65

  9,900

  DLA recipients in Scotland at 29 February 1996

  5–15

  7,000

  16–29

  9,800

  30–64

  71,600

  Over 65

  15,600

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of people in Scotland aged(a) 16 to 29 years and (b) 30 to 64 years, (i) in receipt of and (ii) refused severe disablement allowance in (1) 1992–93 and (2) 1995–96. [29213]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of severe disablement allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  282
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the number of people in Scotland aged (a) 16 to 29 years and (b) 30 to 64 years, (i) in receipt of and (ii) refused Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) in (1) 1992–93 and (2) 1995–96.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The total number of people in Scotland who were in receipt of SDA as at 31 March 1993 was 34,920 and at 31 March 1996 was 41,205.
  However a statistical sampling exercise was completed and the information derived is as follows:

  Aged 16 to 29

  Aged 30 to 64

  As at 3.4.931

  8,000

  25,000

  As at 30.11.952

  9,680

  28,500

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  1 These figures are taken from a 1 % sample of all claims to benefit in Great Britain, and are rounded to the nearest thousand. Regional information is recorded and has been used to produce this data.

  2 The latest figures available are for 30.11.95. These are taken from a sample of the Pensions Strategy Computer System for Incapacity Benefit, and do not include a small number of cases which are not held on this system.

  The number of people in Scotland who were refused SDA can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people is Scotland currently in receipt of(a) the care, (b) the mobility and (c) both components of disability living allowance have been awarded the benefit for life. [29211]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Scotland currently in receipt of (a) the care, (b) the mobility and (c) both components of Disability Living Allowance have been awarded the benefit for life.

  The information requested is as follows:

  At 29 February 19961

  Care component

  87,500

  Mobility component

  134,300

  Both components

  77,800

  1 Latest date available. Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland were(a) in receipt of and (b) refused incapacity benefit at (i) the short-term lower rate, (ii) the short-term higher rate and (iii) the long-term rate in 1995–96. [29212]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  283
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Scotland were (a) in receipt of and (b) refused incapacity benefit at (i) the short-term lower rate, (ii) the short term higher rate and (iii) the long-term rate in 1995–96.
  The information is not available in the format requested, such information that is available is shown in the attached tables.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  1995–96

  Short term lower rate

  Short term higher rate

  Long term rate

  April

  31,100

  1,700

  240,400

  May

  29,500

  4,300

  243,500

  June

  28,700

  6,200

  236,500

  July

  30,800

  8,000

  233,300

  August

  31,400

  9,300

  233,300

  September

  31,000

  11,000

  232,300

  October

  32,000

  12,400

  231,000

  November

  26,600

  13,100

  227,700

  December

  26,400

  13,300

  225,800

  January

  27,800

  14,300

  222,200

  February

  28,700

  14,800

  221,000

  March

  28,900

  15,600

  220,600

  Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Figures are not cumulative but a snapshot at the end of the month.

  Figures are shown to nearest 100 cases.

  Number of customers in Scotland disallowed incapacity benefit 1995–96

  1995–96

  Short term lower rate

  Short term higher rate

  Long term rate

  April

  —

  2

  —

  May

  —

  13

  —

  June

  —

  452

  —

  July

  60

  190

  492

  August

  104

  216

  529

  September

  118

  267

  381

  October

  153

  452

  518

  November

  160

  436

  726

  December

  134

  255

  530

  January

  164

  375

  1,010

  February

  157

  333

  1,154

  March

  147

  324

  1,255

  Notes:

  1. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  2. Includes cases disallowed for own occupation test, failure to return questionnaire, failure to attend examination without good cause and found capable of all work.

  3. Excludes cases disallowed on initial application for Incapacity Benefit as the contribution condition is not satisfied.

  4. Figures for April to June 1995 were not broken down and are only available as a total of all three rates.

  Source:

  100 per cent. count of cases on the Incapacity Benefit system.

  Excludes a small number of clerically processed cases.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland were(a) in receipt of and (b) refused disability working allowance in (i) in 1992–93 and (ii) 1995–96. [29248]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  284
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 May 1996 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Scotland were (a) in receipt of and (b) refused Disability Working Allowance (DWA) in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1995–96.
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Data is not available for 1992/93 as it has been destroyed in line with our current document destruction policy. Data for the period January 1996 to March 1996 will not be available until August 1996. However information is available for the calendar years 1993 and 1995 in the following table:

  Number of customers

  1993

  1995

  In receipt of DWA1

  503

  1,073

  Disallowed DWA2

  457

  947

  Data is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Notes:

  1 Customers who have received DWA at some time during the year (i.e. if the award is renewed the customer is only counted once).

  2 Customers who have had DWA disallowed during the year (i.e. if a customer has had more than one claim disallowed, they are only counted once).

  Source:

  DWA Computer System all claims.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland were(a) in receipt of and (b) refused invalidity benefit in 1994–95. [29249]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Scotland were in receipt of and refused Invalidity Benefit (IVB) in 1994–95.
  The number of people in Scotland in receipt of IVB on the last working day of each month is as follows:

  Number

  April 1994

  229,208

  May 1994

  229,761

  June 1994

  230,554

  July 1994

  231,819

  August 1994

  232,697

  September 1994

  233,850

  October 1994

  232,826

  November 1994

  234,889

  December 1994

  235,023

  January 1995

  236,565

  February 1995

  237,121

  March 1995

  238,918

  Data are provisional and subject to amendment. Information on the number of people refused IVB is not held centrally. To obtain the information requested would require an examination of the clerical papers held in all BA benefit offices in Scotland to identify those customers who were refused invalidity benefit during the period in question. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  285

  Benefits Agency Emergency Service
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants contacted the Benefits Agency out-of-hours emergency service for each of the last five years; and if he will break down the figures by(a) age and (b) reason for application. [29839]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claimants contacted the Benefits Agency out-of-hours emergency service for each of the last five years; and if he will break down the figures by (a) age and (b) reason for application.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are not kept which show the age of the customers referred to the out-of-hours service or their reason for application. Also, statistics were not kept of the number of referrals to out-of-hours prior to 91/92.
  However listed below is the number of referrals for the statistical years (ending October) 91/92, 92/93, 93/94 and 94/95. It should be noted that the term "referral" is defined as a contact by the customer or by a third party on their behalf.

  Statistical year

  Number of referrals

  1991–92

  21,709

  1992–93

  42,722

  1993–94

  47,994

  1994–95

  48,744

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Value of income support/supplementary benefit at current prices

  £ million

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Great Britain

  6,063

  7,053

  9,871

  9,930

  9,329

  10,431

  —

  11,378

  11,307

  10,963

  Value of income support/supplementary benefit at current prices

  £ million

  DSS administrative region

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  North Eastern

  1,613

  1,536

  1,811

  2,109

  2,582

  2,416

  2,346

  London North

  1,511

  1,608

  2,099

  2,722

  3,313

  3,187

  3,137

  London South

  1,434

  1,505

  1,924

  2,423

  3,104

  2,945

  2,801

  Wales and South West

  1,286

  1,296

  1,688

  2,051

  2,426

  2,223

  2,128

  Midlands

  1,625

  1,620

  1,895

  2,330

  2,852

  2,671

  2,600

  North western

  1,647

  1,595

  1,844

  2,153

  2,573

  2,407

  2,342

  Wales

  588

  587

  723

  852

  998

  929

  947

  Scotland

  1,109

  1,084

  1,243

  1,409

  1,610

  1,529

  1,479

  Great Britain

  10,226

  10,248

  12,504

  15,196

  18,462

  17,377

  16,833

  Source:Social Security statistics 1979 to 1988 (income support/supplementary benefit annual inquiries). Income support statistics annual inquiries 1989 to 1993, Income support statistics quarterly inquiry May 1994–95.

  Notes:

  1. Figures prior to 1988 are from November/December of the year. Figures from 1988 onwards are from May of each year.

  2. All expenditure figures have been rounded to the nearest million.

  3. No regional figures are available for the years 1979 to 1988.

  4. Figures are not available for 1985.

  5. Cash values have been inflated by the GDP deflator at market prices so that the whole series time is expressed in 1996–97 prices.

  6. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  7. DSS administrative regions are based on boundaries which existed before the Benefits Agency was introduced in April 1991 and have been used for reasons of consistency.
  286
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to make available emergency financial provision to claimants following the proposed abolition of the Benefits Agency emergency service. [29838]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 21 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what proposals he has to make available emergency financial provision to claimants following the proposed abolition of the Benefits Agency emergency service.
  As you will be aware I recently outlined the BA's plans for the future delivery of social security benefits based on the BA vision of "right money to the right person at the right time, every time".
  It is against this background that the Agency has declined to review the need for the out of hours service and the London Emergency Office which provides a service to customers at night and weekends. A decision on the future of the service is expected during this year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the figures given in his answer of 14 November 1995,Official Report, column 1018, for the amounts, at current prices, paid in (a) income support or its predecessor benefit and (b) housing benefit in each year since 1979, by region. [27846]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: The available information is set out in the tables.

  287

  Total housing benefit expenditure at current prices

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  London

  760

  830

  866

  894

  922

  964

  1,086

  1,275

  South East

  643

  663

  690

  712

  676

  650

  698

  822

  South West

  290

  305

  319

  340

  329

  314

  330

  395

  East Anglia

  126

  130

  139

  148

  142

  136

  142

  166

  East Midlands

  285

  296

  307

  315

  308

  299

  306

  321

  West Midlands

  469

  502

  522

  529

  513

  497

  507

  531

  Wales

  238

  263

  278

  289

  276

  280

  292

  305

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  401

  440

  470

  490

  482

  471

  488

  486

  North West

  579

  608

  652

  677

  679

  677

  711

  755

  North

  319

  345

  372

  385

  374

  376

  387

  383

  Scotland

  437

  474

  520

  591

  644

  635

  698

  702

  Total expenditure

  4,547

  4,855

  5,134

  5,369

  5,346

  5,298

  5,646

  6,142

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure has been rounded to the nearest million. Due to rounding totals may not tally.

  2. Cash values have been inflated by the GDP deflator at market prices so that the whole series time is expressed in 1996–97 prices.

  Source:

  Department of the Environment: statement of local authority housing revenue account and claimed entitlement to housing subsidies and grant. Welsh Office: statement of local authority housing revenue account and claimed entitlement to housing subsidies. Department of Social Security: summary of claim FD3D\13 (Scotland and new towns) and FD3D\132 England.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received in-work benefits in each year since 1980. [29156]

  Number2.3.4 in receipt of in-work benefits1 1980–95 (Great Britain)

  Family income supplement and family credit6

  Housing benefit and rent rebate allowance5

  Rates rebate8

  Community charge benefit and council tax benefit8

  Disability working allowance7

  1980

  88,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1981

  115,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1982

  146,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1983

  190,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1984

  204,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1985

  201,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1986

  202,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1987

  221,000

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  1988

  213,000

  256,000

  301,000

  —

  —

  1989

  303,000

  219,000

  8230,000

  8100,000

  —

  1990

  316,000

  236,000

  —

  780,000

  —

  1991

  347,000

  255,000

  —

  518,000

  —

  1992

  397,000

  268,000

  —

  430,000

  52

  1993

  489,000

  288,000

  —

  321,000

  2,793

  1994

  551,000

  316,000

  —

  332,000

  4,251

  1995

  608,000

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  6,039

  Notes:

  1 Means-tested in-work benefits are defined as family income supplement, family credit and disability working allowance, plus housing benefit, rent and rates rebate, community charge benefit and council tax benefit paid direct to people with earnings but who are not on income support/supplementary benefit. Earnings for this purpose have been defined as employed or self-employed earnings.

  2 Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand except for disability working allowance, where exact figures are quoted.

  3 Figures are for May of each year and refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  4 Figures include estimates due to the data collection procedure in Scotland.

  5 Data on housing benefit and previous schemes providing financial assistance with domestic rents and rates cannot be broken down prior to 1988.

  6 Family credit replaced family income supplement in April 1988.

  7 Disability working allowance was introduced in April 1992.

  8 Community charge benefit—CCB—replaced rate rebate in Scotland for 1989 and Great Britain from 1990. CCB figures for 1989 refer to Scotland only; rate rebate figures refer to England and Wales only. Council tax benefit replaced community charge benefit from April 1993. Figures for council tax benefit exclude second adult rebate cases.

  Source:

  Social Security statistics 1980 to 1990.

  Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample taken at the end of May of each year given—1990 to 1994.

  Housing benefit management information system, 100 per cent. quarterly case load stock counts taken at the end of May for 1988 and 1989.
  288
  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: Such information as is available is set out in the table. Individuals may be in receipt of more than one benefit at the same time and figures for individual years cannot therefore be totalled.
  289

  Income Support
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in relation to income support of pensioners of reducing the assumed income from savings of between £3,000 and £8,000 to £1 per week per £1,000. [28898]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: The estimated annual cost in 1996–97 is £60 million.

  Notes:

  1.Estimates are based upon date drawn from the 1991, 1992, and 1993 family expenditure surveys uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels.

  2.Estimates exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  3.Adjustments to these estimates are made using data drawn from the May 1995 quarterly statistical inquiry for income support.

  4.Pensioners are taken to be all cases where at least one member of a couple, or a single person, is aged over 60 years.

  5.Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  6.The estimate is based on assumed income of £1 per week for each £1,000 of capital held above £3,000 or part thereof.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of bringing the savings allowance for income support for pensioners into line with those for housing benefit and council tax benefit, and of setting the assumed income from savings above £3,000 to £1 per week per £1,000 for(a) income support for pensioners, (b) housing benefit for pensioners and (c) council tax benefit for pensioners. [28899]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: The lower and upper capital limits which apply in the calculation of income support are currently £3,000 and £8,000 respectively, and £3,000 and £16,000 in housing benefit and council tax benefit. For people living permanently in residential care or nursing homes, the lower and upper capital limits are £10,000 and £16,000 respectively in income support and housing benefit—from April 1996.

  The estimated annual cost in 1996–97 of raising the upper capital limit in income support to £16,000 and reducing the assumed income from savings above £3,000 to £1 per week per £1,000 for pensioners on (a) income support is £220 million, (b) housing benefit is £140 million, and (c) council tax benefit is £80 million.

  Notes:

  1.Estimates are based on data drawn from the 1991, 1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels.

  2.Estimates exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  3.Adjustments to these estimates are made using data drawn from the May 1995 IS quarterly statistical inquiry for income support, and the May 1994 HB/CTB(MIS) for housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  4.Pensioners are taken to be all cases where at least one member of a couple, or a single person, is aged over 60 years.

  5.Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  6.The estimate is based on assumed income of £1 per week for each £1,000 of capital held above £3,000, or part thereof.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on his changes to the payment of mortgage interest for claimants. [19706]
  290
  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 March 1996, c. 162]: Unfortunately, there was an error in my oral reply. The correct reply is as follows:

  Our intention was that the system of add back should protect the benefit entitlement of existing claimants at the point of change when the standard rate was introduced in October last year. It was never our intention that add-back should provide permanent protection. Where Mr. Tickle's case is concerned I have caused further inquires to be made. I am told that he has a mortgage that is fixed up to a certain level and then variable above that level. It also appears that the system of add back is working as we intended. It provided Mr. Tickle with complete protection at the point of change, and is continuing to provide some protection.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children aged(a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18 and (d) 19 years in receipt of child benefit attend (i) school, (ii) sixth form college, (iii) tertiary college, (iv) further education college and (v) the youth training scheme. [30139]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. Child benefit data are not available on the nature of the education being undertaken, and education data have no regard to the receipt or otherwise of child benefit. The figures are therefore not directly comparable. However, child benefit is not payable for any young person undergoing a youth training course, and all entitlement ceases at the 19th birthday. Available data on the number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds for whom child benefit is paid, and the number in education and training, are in the tables:

  Number of children for whom child benefit is paid:

  16-year-olds: 577,100

  17-year-olds: 400,700

  18-year-olds: 177,600

  Educational establishments attended by 16 to 18-year-olds

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  18-year-olds

  Schools

  246,000

  175,000

  19,000

  Sixth form colleges

  53,000

  40,000

  10,000

  Tertiary colleges

  35,000

  30,000

  13,000

  Further education

  125,000

  112,000

  74,000

  Youth training

  69,000

  46,000

  40,000

WALES

  Abattoirs (Rendering)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the rendering capacity available to Welsh abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [29608]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have been closely monitoring the rendering provision for Wales and have listened carefully to the many representations from hon. Members, the farming unions, abattoirs and individuals.
  291
  We have strongly put the case for appropriate provision for Wales and officials are in constant contact with the Intervention Board which is operating the scheme.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each of his Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services it provides and what were the results. [30128]

  Mr. Hague
  Cadw—Welsh Historic Monuments—has market tested the provision of its conservation repair service. The in-house bid was successful.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from voluntary bodies working in the anti-alcohol abuse field concerning the level of funding to Alcohol Action Wales in the year 1996–97; and which successor bodies he has nominated to provide continuation of anti-alcohol abuse advice. [30502]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received two representations from voluntary bodies expressing concern at the decision not to fund Alcohol Action Wales this year. The Welsh drug and alcohol unit will provide expert advice and practical support to the Welsh Office, health and local authorities and other statutory and voluntary bodies that are involved in tackling drug and alcohol misuse.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on consultants in connection with the market testing of the materials management service, the contracts unit and the prescription pricing division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. [30503]

  Mr. Hague
  Some £176,190 for materials management and contracting which was a joint exercise and £120,609 for prescription services. In addition, £15,736 has been paid for legal advice to the authority covering these and other activities included in the market-testing exercises.

  Inward Investment Project Broadcast
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up an inquiry into the premature disclosure of the major inward investment project broadcast by the BBC on Friday 10 May. [30695]

  Announced

  Recipient

  Region

  Location

  Amount £

  30 October 1995

  Tate Gallery of Modern Art

  London

  Southwark

  50,000,000.00

  2 October 1995

  The Earth Centre

  Y & H

  Conisbrough

  50,000,000.00

  23 February 1996

  Millennium Stadium: S Glamorgan County Council/Welsh Rugby Union

  Wales

  Cardiff

  46,000,000.00

  11 September 1995

  Sustrans: National Cycle Network

  UK Wide

  UK Wide

  42,500,000.00

  2 October 1995

  The Renaissance of Portsmouth Harbour

  SE

  Portsmouth & Gosport

  40,000,000.00

  1 March 1996

  British Museum: Great Court

  London

  London

  30,000,000.00

  15 December 1995

  Queen's Park Football Club

  Scotland

  Hampden Park, Glasgow

  23,000,00.00

  292
  Mr. Hague
  I have already looked into the matter and do not believe that the source of any information was the Welsh Office or its executive agencies. Further speculation and publicity would not be in the best interests of Wales.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Performing Arts (Young Offenders)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the value of performing arts programmes for the rehabilitation of young offenders. [28696]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is a matter for the Prison Service and the Arts Council of England which decides its own funding policy.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what has been(a) the number and (b) the amount of national lottery grants awarded by each of the national lottery boards in each English county, metropolitan authority and London borough; [29055]

  (2) what has been (a) the number and (b) the amount of national lottery grants awarded by each of the national lottery boards in each parliamentary constituency; [29053]

  (3) how many applications there have been to each of the five national lottery boards from each parliamentary constituency; [29052]

  (4) how many applications have been made to each of the five national lottery boards by each English county, metropolitan authority and London borough. [29054]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is not available. The Department of National Heritage is developing a new lottery database that will allow for these breakdowns to be made.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the projects so far accepted for funding by the millennium fund(a) by value and (b) by local authority area. [29284]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Millennium Commission has made 55 awards totalling £494,033,411. These awards cover a total of 1,145 projects throughout the United Kingdom. The information is contained in the table.

  Figures for national lottery funds broken down by local authority areas are not currently available. The Department of National Heritage is developing a new lottery database that will shortly allow for these breakdowns to be made.

  293

  Announced

  Recipient

  Region

  Location

  Amount £

  11 September 1995

  Changing Places: The Groundwork Foundation (21 projects)

  UK Wide

  UK Wide

  22,100,000.00

  23 February 1996

  Middleton Botanic Garden Trust

  Wales

  Middleton, Llandello, Dyfed

  21,700,000.00

  22 December 1995

  Millennium Seed Bank: Royal Botanic Gardens

  London

  Kew

  21,547,500.00

  22 February 1996

  The Lowry Centre

  NW

  Salford, Greater Manchester

  15,650,000.00

  22 December 1995

  Llanelli Borough Council: Llanelli Coast Park

  Wales

  Llanelli

  14,500,000.00

  22 February 1996

  Mile End Park

  London

  Tower Hamlets

  12,322,010.00

  30 October 1995

  Rochdale Canal Trust

  NW

  Manchester to Halifax

  11,923,500.00

  26 April 1996

  21st Century Halls: ACRE-Action with Communities in Rural England (180 projects)

  All England

  All England

  10,000,000.00

  26 April 1996

  Millennium Greens: Countryside Commission— 250 projects

  All England

  All England

  10,000,000.00

  30 October 1995

  National Museums of Scotland: SCRANS

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  7,474,200.00

  30 October 1995

  The Woodland Trust: Woods On Your Doorstep (200 projects)

  UK Wide

  UK: England and Wales

  6,637,000.00

  2 October 1995

  Millennium Forest for Scotland (45 projects)

  Scotland

  n/a

  5,750,000.00

  22 February 1996

  Peterborough Green Wheel

  E

  Peterborough, Cambs.

  5,554,881.00

  2 October 1995

  Trans Pennine Trail

  UK Wide

  UK Wide

  5,330,000.00

  22 December 1995

  Durham County Council: Turning the Tide

  NE

  Eastingdon/Horden

  4,537,760.00

  2 October 1995

  Welsh Highland Railway Restoration

  Wales

  Porthmadog, Gwynedd

  4,300,000.00

  30 October 1995

  Black Country Urban Forest

  WM

  Sandwell, Walsall, Dudley and Wolverhampton

  4,247,540.00

  30 October 1995

  Pickaquoy Project

  Scotland

  Kirkwall, Orkney

  3,700,000.00

  22 December 1995

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

  SW

  Slimbridge, Glos.

  2,810,195.00

  18 December 1995

  Belfast 2000

  N Ireland

  Belfast

  2,640,900.00

  18 December 1995

  St. Patrick Visitor Centre

  N Ireland

  Downpatrick

  2,551,775.00

  26 April 1996

  Church Floodlighting: Church Floodlighting Trust— 400 projects

  UK Wide

  UK Wide

  2,288,788.00

  2 October 1995

  London Zoo Conservation Education Centre

  London

  Regent's Park

  2,200,000.00

  26 April 1996

  Kingdom of Fife Cycling Initiative: Fife Enterprise

  Scotland

  Fife

  1,793,450.00

  20 November 1995

  National Wildflower Centre

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  1,668,500.00

  26 April 1996

  Weather Watch Discovery Centre

  SE

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  1,500,000.00

  11 September 1995

  Countryside Access for All/Northamptonshire County Council

  EM

  Northants.

  736,000.00

  22 December 1995

  Pensilva Village Hall

  SW

  Cornwall

  713,000.00

  18 December 1995

  Giant's Causeway and Bushmills Railway

  N Ireland

  North Antrim Coast

  700,000.00

  20 November 1995

  Clonoe Community Centre, Coalisland

  N Ireland

  Co. Tyrone

  613,000.00

  30 October 1995

  Thames Salmon Trust

  SE

  Berkshire: The River Kennet

  588,000.00

  11 September 1995

  Agnew Park Seafront Development/Wigtown District Council

  Scotland

  Stranraer

  547,000.00

  2 October 1995

  The Courtyard Community Project

  Y & H

  Goole

  462,000.00

  11 September 1995

  The Visions Centre

  NW

  Manchester

  435,000.00

  2 October 1995

  Restoration of the Glan-Llyn Youth Centre

  Wales

  Gwynedd

  390,282.00

  26 April 1996

  The Millennium Centre, Eastbrookend Park

  London

  London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

  360,000.00

  18 December 1995

  Enterprise Leisure

  N Ireland

  Trillick

  350,000.00

  11 September 1995

  Bennachie Community Centre, Insch

  Scotland

  Grampian

  311,000.00

  22 December 1995

  Wokingham District Council: Millennium Bridge

  SE

  Wargrave

  280,000.00

  22 February 1996

  St. Martha's Community Project

  EM

  Nottingham

  243,600.00

  2 October 1995

  Meanwood Valley Urban Farm

  Y & H

  Leeds

  175,000.00

  11 September 1995

  New Lock at Great Cornrad: River Stour Trust

  E

  Suffolk

  167,890.00

  22 February 1996

  Grayswood Village Hall

  SE

  Grayswood, Surrey

  150,000.00

  22 December 1995

  Ingleton and District Village Hall

  NE

  Ingleton, Co. Durham

  150,000.00

  20 November 1995

  Church Community Hall

  Wales

  Sully, S. Wales

  146,500.00

  2 October 1995

  Lawrenny Village Hall and Youth Hostel

  Wales

  Dyfed

  131,170.00

  20 November 1995

  Moulsoe Millennium Hall

  SE

  Bucks.

  126,000.00

  2 October 1995

  Larne Borough Council: The Gobbins Cliff Path (feasibility study)

  Co. Antrim

  N Ireland

  30,000.00

  Total

  494,033,441.00

  55 awards, 1,145 projects

  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many charities have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [28880]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: As at 15 May, 6,685 awards have been made, totalling over £1.54 billion. More than 80 per cent. of these grants have gone to charities or voluntary organisations and account for around half of all the money awarded.

  The National Lottery Charities Board is distributing 20 per cent. of the proceeds of the national lottery exclusively to projects proposed not only by registered charities but by voluntary organisations and organisations
  294
  with a philanthropic aim. The board has made 2,460 grant awards, totalling £159 million, to charitable organisations both large and small.

  Canoeing
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the grant available from the Sports Council and other public bodies in support of canoeing in the year 1994–95, expressed in terms per capita of those participating in this sport; and what are the corresponding figures for the sport of angling. [29333]
  295
  Mr. Sproat
  In 1994–95 the British Canoe Union received a grant of £320,000 from the Sports Council. A further £6,500 was also provided for canoeing schemes in awards from sportsmatch, a business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport launched by the Government in 1992 to increase the amount of business sponsorship going into grass roots sport and physical recreation. This represents a sum of £3.26 on a per capita basis for the estimated 100,00 people who take part in the sport. In 1994–95 Sports Council grants to the governing bodies of angling totalled £54,125. In addition to this, sportsmatch provided £42,250 in awards for angling schemes. This represents a sum of 3p on a per capita basis for the estimated 2.9 million people participating in freshwater and seawater angling in England and Wales.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the technical definition for canoeing in the Scottish/NVQ, for coaching. [30325]

  Mr. Sproat
  The awarding bodies forum has accepted the technical definition for canoeing, and it therefore meets the normal requirements for S/NVQs. In relation to health and safety, the technical definition was developed by the British Canoe Union following principles and procedures agreed by the forum, and it is for the BCU to review this definition on a regular basis.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the extent of business sponsorship of innovative arts projects and small arts bodies. [29932]

  Mr. Sproat
  A significant percentage of smaller arts companies have attracted business sponsorship. Based on statistics collected by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and analysed by the Arts Council of England, I understand that some 51 per cent. of arts organisations with a turnover of between £10,000 to just under £50,000 were in receipt of commercial support during 1994–95. Innovative projects also continue to receive sponsorship from the business sector. Recent examples include Barclays stage partners and the Guinness ingenuity awards for pub theatre.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed. [29933]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Arts Council on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues. Details of the discussions are not given.

  Listed Buildings (North Frith House)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice she has received from English Heritage on whether North Frith house, Tonbridge, Kent, should be listed. [29736]

  Mr. Sproat
  English Heritage has advised my right hon. Friend that North Frith house should be listed. My right hon. Friend has decided to accept that advice and North Frith house and two bathing boxes in its grounds were added to the statutory list on 17 May 1996.
  296

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has in respect of the repair and refurbishment of museums and galleries. [29934]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is for those responsible for individual museums and galleries to make plans for the repair and refurbishment of their buildings. In 1996–97, the Department will provide over £205 million of grants in aid to 17 museums and galleries, plus a further £9 million to the Museums and Galleries Commission to help the wider sector, but these bodies each decide how much of their grant is to be directed towards repair and refurbishment. In addition, museum and galleries throughout the UK can apply for funds from the national lottery to refurbish and improve their buildings.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information she collates on the level of admissions to national galleries and museums. [29931]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department collates figures on visitor numbers for each museum and gallery it sponsors. The latest such information was provided in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on 8 May 1996,Official Report, columns 170–71.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects the Scottish/NVQ technical definition for(a) cricket, (b) windsurfing, (c) trampolining, (d) tennis, (e) rugby union, (f) rugby league, (g) rowing, (h) swimming, (i) sub-aqua, (j) orienteering, (k) netball, (I) movement and dance (recreational), (m) judo, (n) hockey, (o) gymnastics, (p) fencing and (q) basketball, to be produced. [30324]

  Mr. Sproat
  Judo, cricket, tennis, movement and dance, hockey, swimming, rowing, orienteering, netball, and sub-aqua are all at an advanced stage of development of their technical definition. Windsurfing, basketball, gymnastics, and fencing are at the forefront of S/NVQ development in coaching. Consequently, their technical definition as part of their approval for centre status. In due course, these sports will develop a separate technical definition, which is the current practice for new NVQs. Rugby union, rugby league and trampolining are not, at present, involved in working towards the S/NVQ process of developing a technical definition.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if groups not recognised by the Sports Council are permitted to submit contextual definitions within the Scottish national vocational qualifications for coaching. [30326]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is the responsibility of the sport concerned to develop the technical definition by consulting widely throughout the sport. Any non-recognised body would be able to contribute to this process through the recognised governing body. One of the criteria for recognising a governing body is that they are truly representative of the specified sport.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many sport groups have taken up NVQs; and of these how many(a) are live, (b) have approved technical definitions and (c) can deliver NVQs. [30328]
  297
  Mr. Sproat
  Twenty-one sports have now developed materials to allow the technical content of S/NVQs to be assessed. This figure includes those sports with separate technical definitions and those where technical definitions were approved when they received centre status.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list, for each of her Department's agencies, what market testing has been carried out into the services they provide and what were the results. [30118]

  Mr. Sproat
  In the period from the formulation of my two agencies until March 1995 they have market tested the elements of their services to the public listed in the table.

  The "Competing for Quality" figures for the period between April 1995 and March 1996 are being compiled for our agencies' efficiency plans. It is anticipated that this information will be published in the 1996 next steps review.

  Let by

  Activity

  Name of successful bidder

  Won by in-house bid

  1993–94

  The Royal Parks

  Property maintenance Management

  Tarmac Facilities management

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kew Palace— Security Services

  Royal British Legion

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace— Gardens Litter Clearance

  SITA

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palaces

  Initial Cleaning Service

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace Catering

  De Blanks

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace Cleaning

  Swanlux

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House— Catering

  10 companies used—selected by tender

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House— Floristry

  Nancy Ford

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House— Security

  RBLA

  No in-house bid

  1994–95

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London— Window Cleaning

  Metropolitan

  No in-house bid

  The Royal parks

  Management of Car Parking Facilities

  Apcoa Parking Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London— Commercial Guarding

  RBLA

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London— Costumed Interpretation

  Past Pleasures

  No in-house bid

  298

  Let by

  Activity

  Name of successful bidder

  Won by in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London— Garden Maintenance

  Ground Control

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace— Catering

  Town and Country

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace— Costumed Interpretation

  Past Pleasures

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace— Recorded Tour Service

  Acoustiguide

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace— Warding Services

  Group 4

  In-house bid unsuccessful

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace— Catering

  De Blanks/Digby Trout

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace— Cleaning

  Securicor

  No in-house bid

  Concessionary Television Licence Scheme
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the concessionary television licence schemes currently operating in the United Kingdom. [29991]

  Mr. Sproat
  In addition to the accommodation for residential care concessionary television licence scheme, a reduction in the licence fee is available for registered blind people.

  Football Pools Industry
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will assist the football pools industry from the receipts of the national lottery, with special reference to measures to assist those recently made redundant in the industry; if she will consult representatives of the pools industry regarding this matter; and if she will make a statement. [30475]

  Mr. Sproat
  It was recognised during the passage of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 that the pools companies would face a considerable challenge when the lottery was up and running. The Government have, therefore, made important changes to their regulatory and tax regime to help the pools firms compete effectively. These are:

  lowering the minimum age for play from 18 to 16;

  allowing pools companies to advertise on television and radio;

  allowing pools companies to roll over jackpots not won;

  allowing them to sell coupons in retail outlets; and, most important, reducing the rate of pools betting duty by 10 per cent.

  A measure allowing the payment of football pools winnings in licensed betting offices is expected to come into force this summer. The Home Office is also considering further deregulatory measures proposed by the Pools Promoters Association and is consulting them and my Department about this matter.
  299
  All areas and sections of society are benefiting from the funds raised by the lottery for the five good causes. There are no current plans to change the beneficiaries or the method of distributing national lottery funds to allow the pools industry to benefit directly.

  Advertising Standards Authority
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what monitoring she routinely undertakes of the Advertising Standards Authority. [30197]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. Matters relating to advertising controls in the non-broadcast media are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Arts, Sport and Heritage Funding
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the funding provisions for the arts, sport and heritage. [28770]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: The areas for which I am responsible benefit from a wide range of funding. The partnership between public money in the form of central and local Government support and the lottery, and private money through sponsorship, provides well over £3 billion for arts, sport and our heritage. This partnership supports all our sectors on a scale never enjoyed before.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her departmental funding of the arts for 1996–97; what estimate she has of the funding of the arts by other European Union states; and if she will make a statement. [22720]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: My Department's funding for the arts in England amounts to £194.25 million in 1996–97, of which £186.1 million is channelled through the Arts Council of England. The parallel figures for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices are £24.47 million, £15.49 million and £7.67 million, of which £24.47 million, £15.49 million and £7.15 million respectively are channelled through the relevant Arts Councils. Local authorities spend an amount on the arts similar to that provided by central Government through the four Arts Councils which in 1996–97 totals more than £233 million. On top of this, lottery awards of more than £400 million have been made so far, all of which are helping to improve the quality and increase the availability of the arts for everyone in the UK. It is anticipated that the arts' share of lottery awards will be in excess of £300 million this year. This adds up to public funding in the UK for the arts in excess of £775 million in 1996–97. No comparative figures exist for funding provision for the arts by other European Union member states.

  Council of Europe Meetings
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe since January 1995 have been attended by Ministers or officials of her Department; and if she will make a statement. [29362]
  300
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 May 1996]: No separate record of attendance at meetings of, or organised by, the Council of Europe is kept by the Department of National Heritage.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many firms with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20 and (d) 10 employees were used by her Department in each of the last five years. [29439]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: In the past, neither my Department nor its agencies have kept a specific record of a supplier's size. This historical information could therefore be obtained only by incurring disproportionate cost.

  However, my Department and its two agencies are now recording the size of suppliers invited to tender and this information will be available in future.

  Sports Broadcasting
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she intends to publish the results of her consultation document on sport on television. [28784]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: "Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate" was not a formal consultation document, but a discussion paper published to assist the public and parliamentary debate. The Government's conclusions are reflected in the clauses on listed events which now form part of the Broadcasting Bill.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 370, what consultations she has had with the home rugby unions concerning the possibility of adding the Five Home Nations international championship to the schedule of listed events under the Broadcasting Act 1990. [30407]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: I have had several informal discussions.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [29454]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: While the information requested is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, my Department paid a total of £10.1 million for goods and services in 1995–96.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if her Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29423]
  301
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: My Department and its agencies have made some use of bonds for building contracts in accordance with the advice on the use of performance bonds set out in the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 48, "Bonds and guarantees", copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The guidance makes it clear that bonds are not always necessary and are no substitute for considered judgments about the risks of a particular contract and the capabilities and financial resources of the available contractor. These factors will vary for each contract independent of the size of the contractor. My Department has made claim against only two bonds, one in 1994–95 by the British library project for approximately £100,000 and another in 1995–96 by the Royal Parks agency for approximately £4,000.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will introduce measures to ensure that the National Lottery Charities Board in Scotland is able to provide funding for credit unions. [29828]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]: We have no plans at present to introduce changes to the legislation governing the National Lottery Charities Board. But, as with all legislation, we will keep the operation of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 under review, and bring forward proposals for change where we consider it right to do so.

  Euro 96
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what mechanism was used to divide moneys made available to local authorities for Euro 96; and in allocating funds what consideration was given to the fact that the ground of Manchester United is located in the borough of Trafford. [29967]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The Association of Metropolitan Authorities requested the funding and the Secretary of State agreed to provide it.
  302
  The AMA identified in each case the local authority that would receive funding. In the case of Manchester, it has informed us that, although Old Trafford football stadium is in the borough of Trafford, the cultural events themselves will take place in areas under the jurisdiction of Manchester city council. Trafford council has a representative on the steering group which is overseeing that cultural programme.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what moneys have been made available to local authorities in respect of Euro 96; and for what purposes these sums have been granted. [29966]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The Department of National Heritage agreed in June 1995 to a request by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities for a contribution of £400,000 towards a core funding package of £800,000 for cultural events organised by the eight cities where Euro 96 matches are taking place. The Department has committed £100,000 in direct grant aid and a further £150,000 was earmarked within both the sportsmatch and Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts schemes. The AMA assured us this would enable funds of about £2.5 million to be generated from other sources.

  In addition, the Sports Council is contributing £130,000, the Football Association is contributing £160,000 and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has approved £78,000 for specific cultural events. The national music festival will also focus this year on Euro 96 and help promote events in the eight cities.

  Premier League Tickets
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will refer the pricing regime of premier league football tickets for the 1996–97 season to the Office of Fair Trading. [30248]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: I have no plans to refer the ticket pricing regime of the premier league to the Office of Fair Trading as I have no evidence of either monopoly abuse or anti-competitive practice by clubs in the league.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Wisley Airfield
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have received for development of the Wisley airfield site.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received no firm proposals for development of the Wisley airfield site. The site is, however, one of several being investigated by Surrey County Council in their waste local plan as a possible site for a large-scale waste treatment and processing facility.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, how is it possible for seemingly sensible people to put forward proposals for a large-scale industrial waste disposal processing plant on this site which would result in an industrial complex covering some 28 acres, with buildings 100 feet high, chimney-stacks more than 200 feet high, resultant heavy traffic, noise and widespread air pollution causing lasting damage to the long established, world renowned gardens of the Royal Horticultural Society on the other side of the road? Will my noble friend ensure that such a proposal never gets off the ground?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend cools it. As part of the local plan process, objections to Surrey's waste plan, including those to the inclusion of Wisley airfield in the list of potential sites, will be heard at a public local inquiry due to open on 5th November 1996. My right honourable friend sees no ground for his intervention in the plan at this time.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I must declare an interest in this site in that as a DoE Minister I was taken to the ombudsman on the grounds of maladministration when I took a decision on the future of Wisley Airport in the early 1980s? However, at that time there was no question of any nonsensical development like this even being considered.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am interested in my noble friend's background to this whole situation. Under the Government's policy for green belts, industrial development of this nature is inappropriate in the green belt. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development except in very special circumstances.
846
Your Lordships may be interested to know that when I lived in Cambridge I constantly had a sticker on the back of my car saying, "Keep Trumpington's Green Belt".
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in the week of the Chelsea Flower Show, would it not be appropriate for my noble friend now to give categoric assurance that such a gross act of vandalism should not be allowed to take place?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend again presumes that the matter has gone beyond a very early stage. One of the troubles with Surrey is that it is running out of existing landfill capacity. It has put forward a number of sites. Suitable sites outside the green belt are difficult to find because almost all open land is within the green belt and no major industrial sites are available for such use. However, I have already said that development of this nature is thoroughly inappropriate in a green belt.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Minister aware that in the United States of America, which has plans for such incinerating plants, the requirement is that they do not produce more than 0.001 per cent. of dioxin, which is produced when plastics are burnt? Can she assure us that no plant in this country will be allowed to emit greater levels of dioxin? Can she reassure us that any incineration plants will have scrubbers in their chimneys so that any effluent will be prevented from escaping?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, very tempting! I am not terribly good on dioxins. However, I believe that the best I can do is to give the noble Countess the Government's view on waste. They published their White Paper, Making Waste Work, on 12th December. It includes targets to reduce the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill to 60 per cent., and to recover the value—for example, through waste-to-energy—of 40 per cent. of municipal waste by the year 2005. I commend the White Paper to the noble Countess.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, did I hear the noble Baroness aright when I understood her to say that development of this nature is "thoroughly inappropriate" in a green belt? If that is so, will she indicate that the Government take that view, and will she convey it to Surrey—whatever the disadvantages that the noble Baroness described—so that the noble Lord, Lord Eden, is satisfied?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, any planning application for development which is regarded as inappropriate in a green belt, and which the planning authority is minded to approve, must be treated as a departure from the development plan and referred to the Secretary of State. This gives him the opportunity to decide whether there are any issues which merit his intervention to call in the application for his determination.

Beef Industry: Vegetable Protein Exports
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the difficulties being experienced by the United Kingdom beef industry, whether they consider it appropriate that most of the distillers dark grains (a high protein vegetable feed) produced in Scotland is currently being exported to Finland.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the decision on where to sell the material residues of the distilling process is a matter for the industry itself.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that fairly informative and fairly helpful reply. Does he not agree that in all fairness, if other countries ban the import of our beef, we should ban the export of Scottish vegetable protein with which most of our beef cattle are currently being safely fed? That is particularly so since, when winter comes, such cows as we have left will need protein vegetable food.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Protein is of extreme importance during the winter months. There are other sources of protein such as peas, beans, soya bean and linseed. As concerns banning exports from this country, the European Union ban was imposed under Community law. Unilateral action by any individual member state is illegal.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the Minister explain why America and Canada banned the import of British beef and to what extent those bans adversely affect the United Kingdom beef industry? Secondly, did we contest those decisions at the time?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord whether the decisions were contested at the time. However, the banning of British beef imports by America and Canada is a matter for those countries, although we might not like their decision.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the producers of brewers mash, distillers dark grains and what used to be called millers offal often achieve a better price if such produce is put aboard a ship for export rather than distributed to farmers in this country?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, perhaps it would be a good idea to give my noble friend Lord Balfour the figures relating to the export of distillers waste in 1995. The total production of distillers waste in this country was 207,000 tonnes. The total production of dark grains was 39,000 tonnes. That is the dried protein supplement which I believe is treated with molasses. The total export of waste was 8,000 tonnes. My noble friend Lady Strange mentioned Finland in her Question. I believe that only 190 tonnes of waste were exported to that country. We import waste from other countries amounting to 160,000 tonnes.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, what steps have been taken so far, as indicated by the noble Earl's colleague
848
in another place in the recent debate, and what progress has been made in relaxing the rules on set-aside so that beef cattle in the log jam on farms at the moment can be grazed on that land in the meantime?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, many acres designated for set-aside are totally inappropriate for grazing by beef cattle. The animals might get fodder or gut fill out of it, but there is certainly no protein level from the green herbage growing there.
The other question concerned progress. I assume that the noble Baroness refers to the Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister which was repeated in this House. My right honourable friend said of the proceedings aimed at lifting the ban:
"Those proceedings will begin this week … the application for these interim remedies should be heard within two to six weeks".
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister in relation to the question I put initially. Contrary to my understanding of what was said in the debate in another place, am I right that no attempt is to be made by the Government to approach the Commission to relax the rules on set-aside for the hard pressed beef farmers?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, a number of options are available and we shall consider all those points. I shall pass on the noble Baroness's query to my right honourable friend.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many acres of set-aside are quite suitable for grazing?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Scottish beef industry is an excellent industry which produces the highest quality beef? It should be encouraged to continue producing high quality beef and to do that it needs protein. Is the Minister aware that grass contains protein, with a particularly high level in the spring? Is he further aware that some manufacturers still produce animal or mineral licks which contain urea which I gather is obtained from chicken manure? What are the Government doing about that?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Countess has asked a number of questions. One of them related to mineral licks which are used as a mineral supplement to rations. I gather that the urea used in some licks is generally chemically manufactured and that on occasion it is manufactured from chicken droppings. The licks are not derived from mammals.
On the Scottish beef industry, yes, it is an important part of Scottish agricultural business. It amounts to half a billion pounds per annum and makes up almost 30 per cent. of the value of Scottish agricultural output,

849
with 160,000 jobs. When we look around butchers and supermarkets, we all know how often Aberdeen Angus beef is advertised.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it any wonder that we have a problem with our balance of payments when we now import 160,000 tonnes of distillers waste into Scotland? The crucial question is: are the dark grains from the Scottish distillers waste a better product than the English and the brewers grains? If so, how can we get hold of them instead of sending them to Finland?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, makes an important point. As concerns distillers and brewers waste, I understand that 25 per cent. of distillers grains is dry matter, so there is quite a high moisture content. It is comparable to brewers grains. Dark grains, which are a dry substance to which, I believe, molasses are added, are used in rations for ruminants.
On the balance of payments, if my memory serves me correctly, I gather that distillers waste is not an expensive form of protein at £20 to £25 a tonne. The noble Lord will probably correct me on that, but I do not believe that it will have an enormous effect on our balance of payments.

Central Africa: Humanitarian Needs
2.46 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest assessment of the humanitarian needs in the Great Lakes region of Africa with particular reference to Rwanda and Burundi.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the situation is fragile. Rwanda is making progress, but the security situation in Burundi is deteriorating. Almost 2 million refugees remain in the region. Britain has committed more than £126 million to the region bilaterally and through the European Union since January 1993.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is now essential for members of the Security Council to assist responsible leaders in the region to find a durable regional solution covering the destabilising effect of the refugee camps in Zaire, the repatriation of refugees or viable alternatives, the pursuit and punishment of those responsible for killings, adequate resources for the administration of justice and proper resources for reconstruction? In the meantime, can the Minister tell us what the Government are able to do to support the OAU and the former President Nyerere in his important mediation efforts in Burundi?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, it is a matter of considerable concern. We believe that the efforts of the former President Nyerere are extremely important and could be quite promising. With my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, I met former President Nyerere when he was here in
850
London and I shall meet him and former President Carter next Monday to try to find ways forward, to reach a solution which deals with the refugees, with the pursuit and punishment of those who are guilty of genocide, to help to bring about justice and to ensure that resources are available where they can be used.
The noble Lord is right; the problems need a durable solution. That is why we have been working not only with the persons mentioned but also with the European Union's special envoy, Aldo Ajello, and the Tanzanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kikwete. The issue is on our agenda almost daily at present while we try to find a solution. However, no one should underestimate how difficult it is, with all the different parties within the tribes, and with so much conflict, sometimes stirred up from outside either Burundi or Rwanda.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking to secure control of arms going into Burundi? We should bear in mind the appalling suffering to civilian populations and the extent to which the Hutu militia groups and the Tutsi-dominated army are creating havoc in that country.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a very difficult issue. The arms that have been entering Burundi have been going through third countries, and we do not know their source. We have sought to help the United Nations over this matter. The OAU and the UN are seeking ways of using the deployment of OAU military observers so that they may help in trying to impede the process of arms supply from outside. We hope that other governments who may have influence on neighbouring countries but are so far not using that influence might be persuaded to do so. That would cut down the supply of arms to Burundi and the central African region.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following my noble friend's supplementary question, will the Minister give the House more details about the progress of bringing to justice the instigators of the genocide in Rwanda? Would that not be an important step in bringing stability to the whole region?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in one sense. However, this is a situation in which things are easier said than accomplished, as he already knows. This country has been one of the key contributors to United Nations human rights operations in the area. We have also helped with the question of training people to carry out the tribunals. Progress is gradually being made. The situation is such that many people do not understand that there can be an amnesty, but that they should go for the leaders who have perpetrated the troubles. While we shall continue to help in bringing about peace in this high priority sector, including justice and dealing with those who have been arrested, their own governments must also be determined to solve the problem. It cannot all be done by outsiders, however willing they may be.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that the economic condition of the countries immediately concerned is such that any effort to resettle refugees must be financed from outside? Secondly, will my noble friend tell the House whether the condition of the judicial systems in the countries concerned is such that they are able to deliver the retribution for which noble Lords opposite ask without some judicial input from outside?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right about the parlous financial state of the countries concerned. It is interesting that in the year since January 1995 donors committed over £550 million towards Rwanda's programme of reconciliation and reconstruction. Some of that money is going towards trying to improve the justice system.
One of the difficulties is that, in a country that has lost all its leading personnel, there is very grave difficulty in absorbing the funds and the training to put them into practice. As a result of the lack of human resources, some who have been assigned to help are having to do a very basic training job before much progress can be made. However, we keep at it. A good deal of sound effort is going on to try to improve the situation, bad as it is.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 12th May 100 displaced Tutsi were massacred by Hutus in Zaire; and according to a report by Médecins sans Frontières a further 3,000 displaced Tutsi in Zaire are at immediate risk? Is the United Nations doing anything to evacuate the Tutsi who are at risk?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not think the evacuation of one group of Tutsi in Zaire to another area will necessarily solve the problem. The United Nations has looked into what happened in Masisi. The area is now predominantly Hutu; there is no reason why those Hutus should be pushing the Zairian Tutsi out of the area. Certainly at the moment there is real difficulty. The UNHCR has been trying to reach a resolution as to where the Zairian Tutsi should go. That has not yet been accepted by the Government of Rwanda. Until it is there will he something of a stalemate. All this is also affected by the attitude of the Government of Zaire. That government, whose citizens they are, have done absolutely nothing to calm the situation.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in the interests of UN effectiveness, which I know the Government hold dear to their heart, as do many noble Lords, does the Minister agree with the conclusion of the Joint Evaluation on Emergency Assistance to Rwanda that the Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) needs to be strengthened and properly funded if the UN is to do its work properly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the DHA would be able to do even more than it is trying to do now were it to be so funded. We have argued that case with Mr. Akashi; I did so personally at the end of March. I hope that the United Nations sees the value of this organisation. It was set up to bring together the skills of the other agencies, but also to fill the gaps that
852
were so evident in international crises from 1991 onwards. Yes, we do agree; but a way has to be found. As I said during our debate last week, that also means that those countries that are in arrears to the United Nations have to pay those arrears.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in this sad and rather hopeless situation of tribal attrition, what on earth is the United Kingdom supposed to do, or what more can it do? What on earth is it supposed that the United Nations could conceivably do? How is it proposed that the problem can be ameliorated?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend has a very real point. But if one improves conditions and teaches people who are willing to make peace how to progress from a situation which, two years ago, was simply a matter of blood-letting, one does see a learning process going on. We have certainly seen that among some of the leaders in Rwanda. In Burundi, where there are more than 13 different parties and incredibly difficult situations within the different tribes, we have not so far been able to make that progress. There is quite a large number of visitors going into Bujumbura to impress upon the government the importance of doing that. I shall be returning once more at the end of our summer Session here.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, a moment ago the Minister referred to some of the financial difficulties facing the DHA in Rwanda and Burundi. Is not the situation more critical than that? Will she comment on reports that all United Nations activities in the region are severely short of cash, to the point where many of the operations are in jeopardy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not only a question of money, as I sought to say in answer to another noble Lord a few moments ago. There is a need for resources; but the pledges that we and others have made would certainly be of more effect if the human resource development in the countries concerned were greatly improved. There is a terrible problem of people not being able to use the facilities that would be willingly given by the donor community. Part of it is a result of the psychological overhang from the terrible killings in Rwanda and the continuing killings in Burundi. The one thing we have to do is make good use of everything that we put there. That is exactly what Aldo Ajello and others are examining in their work on the ground, with the backing of the OAU, the EU and the UN agencies.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate the Government on opening a mission in Kigali addressing the concerns of both Rwanda and Burundi? But will she recognise that it is the element of fear that needs to be addressed and that a form of integration must be encouraged between all participants in the region?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the opening of a mission in Kigali followed on the British Liaison Office, which I set up in Kigali in 1994 in order to bring help to people there. I must warn the noble

853
Viscount that integration may sound a good thing, but it is not something that will happen either quickly or until a fair time has passed following the genocides of 1994 and all the other terrible happenings that have continued for so long in the region. That is why the Great Lakes conference that has been suggested, which we and our European partners wish to support, must examine not just peace and security, but stability over quite a long period. There needs to be planned action for quite a considerable time before people will even be prepared to live in the same village as those they know had a hand in perpetrating the atrocities of two years ago.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that her point about local human resources is extremely important? One of the problems must be the system of land tenure, which is very complex and can only be understood by the Hutu and Tutsi themselves. It is not easy to impose that from outside. Should not we recognise that there is a limit to the degree to which we can impose solutions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have never spoken of imposing solutions from outside. One of the things about which past President Nyerere is absolutely certain is that any imposition would probably worsen the current situation. My noble friend is absolutely right. There is the whole problem of land tenure and the tremendous competition for land. In both countries there are so many people per square kilometre of land that the pressure on land is worse there than it is certainly in any of the neighbouring countries. We can show the way; we will show the way. The Great Lakes conference, if it is properly prepared, could do a lot. But there has to be a willingness on the part of the leaders of the different communities in both countries, and indeed in Zaire too, to live peacefully side by side. Until that is there, I see little hope of putting an end to what is in fact a continuing tribal war.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Ezra to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anglo-German Relations
3.1 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to Anglo-German relations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this Motion two or three weeks ago because of a fear that Britain's relations with Germany were on a deteriorating course. I need hardly say that nothing has happened in the past
854
few days to diminish that fear. In the interval, apart from yesterday's excitements, we have had the successful Chirac state visit. President Chirac exhibited spontaneous good will, but he also left us in no doubt of the primacy for him of the Franco-German partnership and of the resolve of the two partners to stick to and achieve their European objectives.
I have watched with fascination for at least 20 years the deepening of that Franco-German partnership and Britain's gradual and unnecessary exclusion from it. Perhaps, indeed, as the only British President of the Commission so far—maybe the only British President ever—I saw during a crucial formative period more of the semi-inside of that partnership than has anyone else from this country.
It began well before my Brussels days, with a rather misty communion between de Gaulle and Adenauer. But by 1977 it had hardened into a genuinely close relationship at the top between those two utterly dissimilar but determined "best friends", Helmut Schmidt and Valèry Giscard d'Estaing. But beyond that possibly ephemeral personal closeness, its effects could be observed, spreading down like water seeping to the roots of a plant and thus being institutionalised and made more lasting.
Its strength was already such in those late 1970s years that I developed a tactic, in my European rather than British capacity, for beneficially exploiting it. If one of the two partners were standing out against a Commission proposal—it was most often the French but not invariably so—much the best tactic was not to try to win an argument across the Council table but to move round the table to the head of the other delegation within the partnership—it was most often the Germans—and say to him, "Can't you quietly get them to come off it?". It was surprising how often that worked. But it left a lot of room for reflection about the shape which Britain's semi-detachment was allowing Europe to assume.
It is worth contrasting that with the position immediately after the war, when Britain's contribution to German rehabilitation was incomparably greater than that of France. The British Zone, from Hamburg through the Ruhr to the Rhineland, was the powerhouse of German revival. The Hamburg based press and broadcasting stations, the Düsseldorf headquarters trade union and the post-Nazi education structure were greatly British influenced. A month ago I gave a lecture for the 50th anniversary of the refounding of the technical university in Berlin which had been relaunched in 1946 with a proclamation of remarkable academic liberalism by the British general commanding in the city. Undoubtedly, institutionally the British influence on what became the three-zone Western area and then the Federal Republic was greater almost than the American influence. I am very glad that two noble Lords who played a great part in those years—the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan—are to speak later in the debate.
At that time the French were occupying only a couple of semi-rural provinces and were indeed poised uneasily on the edge of a reversion to a 1923 policy of

855
suppression and even dismemberment. Once the Cold War set in, the Americans, of course, were crucial to German security. Adenauer, the first of the remarkable run of six—only six over 47 years—German Chancellor-statesmen, rather preferred the Americans to us, which was perhaps not surprising as he had been dismissed for incompetence when Oberbürgermeister of Cologne by a British brigadier.
In the third quarter of this century, throughout those 25 years, the influence on Anglo-German relations of the Königswinter conferences was very considerable and beneficial. There have been other bilateral imitations but, in my view, none has achieved the same role in fostering the free, sometimes argumentative but always unofficial, exchange of ideas not only between politicians but between commentators and academics as well. Partly as a result, even when Franco-German official relations became closer, the links between Germany and Britain—unofficial Anglo-German ones: habits of thought and methods of discussion—remained more intimate. That has been Königswinter's unique contribution. Typically, however, I am not sure that Königswinter retains its full vitality today. Throughout the last two or three decades, the Franco-German partnership has galloped ahead.
In 1962 de Gaulle went to Munich and before a vast crowd and to immense applause said in German, "You are a great people"—"Sie Sind ein grosses Volk". It may not have been very precise but, as a gesture of reconciliation, it was magnificent. It is strange that the imaginative gestures which have stuck have come from each of Germany's other principal Western allies but never from Britain. Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" was rather oddly phrased, but that did not destroy its impact on the audience, and it has certainly stuck. Such a gesture from Britain has long been lacking. I commend it to the next Prime Minister.
It is worth remembering that the suffering and degradation of the French, as indeed of the Dutch, under the Germans were greater than anything experienced by the British. And we have the moral compensation of it being our finest hour. The fact that we should nonetheless be the country in which wartime resentment appears most to linger is perverse. It is not only perverse, it is also damaging—primarily to us.
Chancellor Kohl is clearly today the most powerful statesman in Europe, mostly by virtue of Germany's strength, but also because of his commitment to an idea and his possession of leadership skills which enable him to rally support for that idea. No one with any knowledge of Helmut Kohl can doubt that the idea stems from his consciousness that he is the last leader from the generation of his countrymen who remember the war and the horrors of Nazi behaviour. That gives a special urgency to his determination fully to anchor Germany into an integrated Europe. It is a Europeanised Germany and not a German Europe that he wants. That is the reason he has got on so well with successive French Presidents, the heads of a nation which is historically dedicated to trying by one means or another to take the poison out of Germany and which now does so so brilliantly well through the partnership. I believe that that is the reason also why
856
I recently heard Helmut Schmidt—another outstanding German Chancellor, but one who used to like Herr Kohl about as much as Sir Edward Heath likes the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—pay a remarkable tribute.
Yet the increasing British reaction to Chancellor Kohl in large parts of the press and on the Euro-nihilist wing of the Conservative Party—a wing which seems more and more to be taking over the main building—increasingly seems, at the worst, to treat him almost as a reincarnation of Hitler and, at the best, he is promoted to Jacques Delors' vacant place as Britain's necessary European scapegoat, at which those who might otherwise be subject to road rage can amuse themselves by throwing rotten eggs.
A happy contrast to that was the good sense spoken at last night's CBI dinner both by the president of the CBI and by the General Secretary of the TUC—people who have a great responsibility for the economic consequences of our policies. Sir Bryan Nicholson delivered a mighty rebuke to those who seem to have omitted to notice that the war with Germany is over.
But there are serious consequences and dangers. For instance, a large part of the alienation of the Conservative Party from Europe, which I greatly regret, stems from a failure in differing ways of two British Prime Ministers to establish an effective centre-right partnership with Kohl, the only other big country centre-right leader in the Community.
The growing neurosis in our attitude to Germany has also contributed to our weak and unsteady hand in dealing with the beef issue. As I said yesterday, I support the Government's objectives, but their tactics have been and are appalling. Mr. Hogg's gross mishandling of his agricultural colleagues from day one onwards has been almost unbelievable. The concern of the British Government seems to have been not to eradicate BSE; not to restore confidence; not even to help the farmers; but to whip up a quarrel with Europe as a smokescreen for gross neglect of the problem over the past 10 years and as yet another sop for the Euro-nihilists.
I hope and believe that we will get the derivatives ban lifted in a week or so. But that will be in spite of and not because of yesterday's threats. It will be done because of the good will of the Commission and under the powers that it can carry a proposition by a simple majority at the second go—powers which the present Government and many of their supporters would like taken away.
Then we go to the European Court, which is also perfectly reasonable, though it is perhaps unfortunate that the Home Secretary chose last Friday to describe it as a "menace" and its members as "potential tyrants". Then up to and at the end of the European Council in Florence we will withhold "normal co-operation". What does "normal co-operation" amount to? It does not amount to a very serious threat. By that means we hope to end what we have come near to portraying as a German-led European conspiracy. That Euro-centric view of evil has come to look very odd as it has emerged that, so far from the ban being a special Euro-dodge, the Americans and the Canadians have had a ban for eight years, the Australians for about the same time and the

857
New Zealanders more intermittent. Are they all part of a Euro-conspiracy? If beef, as it may well do on present form, ever comes near to driving us out of the Union, should we for good measure and logical consistency resign from the Commonwealth and NATO also?
I fear that the mood of "romantic nationalism and churlish xenophobia"—to quote the chairman of the CBI last night once again—is liable to turn us into an ill-tempered old man, quarrelling with all his neighbours about dustbins, overhanging branches and parking in the road outside and as a result making himself more lonely and miserable and probably poor as well. I find too that Mr. Major's Statement bears all the unmistakable and rather pathetic signs of a weak man trying to use strong language.
The fact is that both from the short and the longer-term point of view our relations with Germany are as key and as central as they could be. They are crucial not only in themselves but also to our relations with our other principal allies and neighbours as well. There is no greater illusion than that we would improve our relations with the Americans by being more distant with Germany and the rest of the Union. Equally, Anglo-German relations provide much of the key to Anglo-French relations. That close partnership may sometimes seem awkward for us and occasionally may seem too close for the other 12 too. But if it were to collapse, with a reversion to the traditional hostility, it would be a disaster for Europe, Britain included, and for the world. Furthermore, there is no chance of Britain huffing and puffing it down from outside. If we want to make it less exclusive, our only proper, as well as our only practical, course is to behave to Germany—and indeed to France—more as they do to each other and less with the suspicion and non-cooperation which have become habitual to us.
The post-war German Government are not a particularly difficult government with which to get on. Taking the 42 years of the Federal Republic and the subsequent five years as a whole, they have a unique record of international responsibility, economic success and respect for liberal values and the supremacy of the rule of law. Their record has not been perfect of course. But if the question is posed as to which other country could push Germany off the gold medallist plinth as the consistently best-governed country in the Western world or outside it, it would be difficult to find an alternative candidate for the accolade. And that, even without the pre-1945 history, would be a formidable achievement. With that history the achievement is stupendous.
We will be very foolish, clumsy and shortsighted if we do not move quickly to restore our deteriorating relations with Germany. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his excellent introduction of this important subject. It has attracted many speakers to the debate so that each of us is restricted in time. I am myself very well aware of his long-term interest and participation in the subject. We
858
together attended at least one of the Königswinter conferences in the 1960s. I am only sorry that he felt it necessary to express criticism in the form he did of present Ministers. Königswinter was a way of promoting better understanding between Britain and Germany. The conferences have been very successful and still continue.
My family suffered considerably in both world wars, in casualties, killed and wounded. More than a year after the end of the war in Europe, I was myself still confined to hospital, recovering from wounds. All this made me, with others, the more determined to support reconciliation and building good relations with Germany, to prevent the seeds of a future war being sown in Europe. To me, the Schuman Declaration in the summer of 1950 was a most significant and welcome event. It has proved to be a landmark. Germany and France had agreed to pool their coal and steel resources and industries. The two industries were basic parts of their economies in those days. The two countries would be working closely to together. It was hoped that the old enmity would be dissipated. The Coal and Steel Community was born and became the core of the EEC which later developed around it.
Your Lordships will understand why I was glad to be a member of the Cabinet in 1970, 1971 and 1972, much involved in the negotiations which led to the United Kingdom joining the EEC in January 1973, more particularly as I believe we missed our chance when plans were being made at the Messina Conference in the mid-1950s and because our entry was later vetoed by President de Gaulle early in 1963 after our strenuous and successful negotiations. Had we joined on those earlier occasions, we could have participated in formulating a common agricultural policy very different from the one existing at our accession. We could have influenced the creation and development of other Community policies and institutions.
It is relevant to bear this recent history in mind because many of the issues on which Britain and Germany now differ arise from problems within the European Union and proposals for its future. It is as well to remember that evolution of the European Union began with the determination of Germany and France to bury hatchets and work together in 1950, a year when Germany was starting again to become an independent country. That led to an important relationship between Germany and France which has been beneficial in its effects and should be respected.
A substantial factor in German relations with Britain and other European neighbours is its size. After reunification, Germany greatly exceeds each of the others in population. That would still be the situation whether the European Union existed or not and whether we were in it or not. Reunification has been an upheaval for West Germany, which already possessed efficient industries and a strong economy. It has had to digest a run-down, heavily polluted East Germany. Moreover, it was a brave decision to extend the deutschmark to the East. West Germany has had to strain and suffer during the painful period of reunification. When that period is over, Germany will be larger and stronger than ever.

859
Of course there is concern that it will become the dominating nation in Europe. That is not new. It has been in view, on the horizon, for more than 40 years. At some time the Soviet Empire would contract or crumble, and East Germany would join West. Some of the British media and public fear that this largest member of the EU will exert most of the pressure for close integration. Recently, however, there have been signs of some misgivings within Germany on this.
For a moment, I shall draw attention to a simple misunderstanding. The word "federal" means different things to different people. Constitutionally, Germany, now including East Germany, is a federal system consisting of provinces—the Länder—each with its own legislature and administration. On that scene, "federal" means to Germans decentralisation, devolution and even subsidiarity. That is entirely different from integration and central control, which many British people take "federal" to mean. What most British people seem to want is a European Union of nation states. I am one of those. Those would be states taking their own decisions on subjects on which there was no need for central co-ordination or control. Most British parliamentarians appear to have the same objective.
Germany has been advocating, or appearing to advocate, a different policy, of close integration and an early start of a single currency. German trade unions and other German bodies have recently expressed alarm at the severity of the measures within Germany needed to attain the convergence criteria for qualifying to take part at the proposed starting date of 1999.
Time, and increasingly the wide realisation of difficulties, may help to resolve today's issues. Other problems will no doubt arise in the future between our two countries and good British-German relations must depend still on positive efforts on both sides.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in terms of defining the word "federalism". To avoid misunderstanding, I give the definition which I shall use in the course of my speech. I see "federalism" as a unified system which has a unified monetary system, which probably has a common currency and eventually perhaps a central bank, and which also has an agreed social policy and an agreed political purpose. That seems to be what people in the European Economic Community are aiming for, and I do not blame them for that.
I was slightly saddened by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with a great deal of whose speech, to my surprise, I agreed—because we have now been on separate sides for about 30 years—to the deterioration of Anglo-German relationships. I do not believe that there has been a deterioration in Anglo-German relationships. That may be because I speak as a proud Anglo-Saxon and the noble Lord speaks as a Celt, but I do not make too much of that. The fact is that German paranoia and sense of guilt about the 12 horrendous years between 1933 and 1945 are already exaggerated and a baleful influence among a particular generation in
860
Germany. It is not true that there is much anti-German feeling, certainly among the people I meet. The extent to which some Germans carry this burden, almost—I do not intend this to be offensive—wallowing in it, is not good for Germany and therefore cannot be good for Europe.
Anglo-German relations are dominated, as are Anglo-French relations, by a desire to see the United Kingdom firmly locked into the European Union. I do not see anything wrong with that. It makes a great deal of sense. A major step in that drive to political union is monetary union and a single currency. The other members of the European Union are not dependent on British participation in the EMU or a single currency. But those are the two essential ingredients to cement what will probably be the most extraordinary federation, if it comes to pass in full, that the world has ever seen, and we have experienced a number of federations. The former Soviet Union had its problems; in Yugoslavia, it was not all plain sailing; in Canada there is the question of Quebec. The situation is hardly perfect. Federations produce serious problems, and I believe this one would be very complex indeed.
So while the establishment of a European federation, which is, I believe, the aim, is not dependent on British participation, the logical nucleus of such a body would be France, Britain and Germany. Germany, however reluctantly—I believe that it would be very reluctant—would find itself primus inter pares in that triumvirate. I see no problem with that. In terms of geography, demography, economic power and history, Germany is the major power in Europe. It would make a lot of sense for the French and Germans to be the prime movers in trying to bring Britain into the Community as best they can. They know that there are very different views in this country.
I am surprised to find that there are so few Labour speakers today. Europe is predominantly Catholic and I am told that virtually, but with one Welsh exception, the entire Commission light candles every night for the election of a Labour Government as the development which will take the British into the Community. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, winds up, I hope that she will put them out of their misery and confirm that or reject it.
Equally, British economic prosperity is not dependent on membership of the EMU and to argue otherwise is to fly in the face of all the evidence. For the past 30 years both Labour and Conservative governments have presented the European debate as primarily about a series of economic arrangements to which only unbalanced xenophobes can seriously object. That was never the case and it is obviously not the case now. It is not an easy thing to say, but I believe that of all the countries in Europe involved in the last war, Britain's civil population emerged with less damage than anybody else. The Germans not only had, in common with France and Belgium, armies fighting across their countries and back again, but in addition Germany had the humiliation of becoming an international pariah. For those people, from the very beginning it was a political association of European states and a very close one,

861
designed to prevent a recurrence of something which I do not believe will recur, largely because of the power of the Atlantic alliance rather than any European union.
It is now "make your mind up" time. We are on the eve of an election where the question, "Are we in or are we out?", will be a major issue. Any concessions which we will get, and any concessions we have got, are purely transitional. The key argument for joining will be the less than inspiring cry, "We can't afford not to join." That is fatuous on an issue of such size. This is a politically stable, relatively affluent market of 60 million people, 30 miles from the European mainland. A trade war in modern society would be a nonsense and it would not happen, not least because of a number of groups, such as Mercedes Benz, Audi, Renault and Citroen, and the French winegrowers and Italian cheesemakers, who might have views on the matter also. There is no time to list in this debate all the other reasons for staying outside but it is a perfectly sensible option if we so wish.
With the permission of the House I would like to quote the objective view of inward investors of Noriko Hama of the Mitsubishi Research Institute who is reported as saying,
"Like it or not, the world is a more seamless and borderless place".
The article in which those remarks appear goes on to say that the more Europe pushes towards further integration, the greater the risk of serious economic and political dislocation, which would be the biggest threat to such investment. Noriko Hama is then quoted as saying,
"Britain's inability to become wholly European may count as its greatest asset where inward investments from Japan are concerned".
I can give other quotes from the same area because, unlike "little Europeans", for the past 20 years I have earned most of my living outside this country. I have also been paid in several different currencies, I am pleased to say.
The Fabian Society's motto is, "The inevitability of gradualness." So far we have drifted along, slightly behind, but always in the general direction. We have had a few concessions to meet our domestic political problems but, by the very nature of the organisation, they are, and can only be, temporary. Britain is a significant element in European political, economic and defence issues. It is in our mutual interest that we remain good neighbours, but being a good neighbour does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea to share a bed. As a good Anglo-Saxon I believe that it is high time that we made a clear decision. I have no doubt at all that that decision should be maximum co-operation in matters affecting defence and trade, a strengthening and widening of NATO, and a polite but friendly rejection of the membership we are being offered.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, over the centuries it has been a major, if not the major, concern of British foreign policy to make certain that there was no overweening power in Continental Europe. If one traces our history back through the centuries, that was a dominant factor long before the time of Napoleon, who, I suppose, is the
862
example which springs most readily to the minds of most people. Today what is the equivalent of Napoleon in Continental Europe? Surely it is the German-French alliance inside the European Union.
We were all very pleased to welcome President Chirac last week, but I imagine that no one believes that, if he had to make a choice between his links with Germany and his relations with us, it would be the United Kingdom that he chose. That great central alliance and power in Europe is there as a dominant feature of today's politics. That is what we have to take into account when we are talking about our relations with Germany today, which I understand is the subject of today's debate rather than questions about monetary union and what is going on inside other areas of the European Union.
That desire to be part of the European Union and to see that its strength is balanced between what happens inside Europe and what happens outside is surely of major importance. We need to be certain that we can hold our position against that strong organisation. Let us remember that it is all the stronger because today it is Germany and not the United Kingdom that is the favourite friend of the United States. So it is the strength of Germany and France that we have to add to the considerable support of the United States which we have always been too inclined to assume would always be favourable towards us rather than to any other of the European countries. We need to ensure our position and there is no time to be lost in doing so.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkins made clear, Chancellor Kohl has always been a good friend to us and a very good European, wanting to see Germany linked to a strong European Union and not being a loose cannon in Europe, as it could so easily be. However, we must remember that Chancellor Kohl belongs to a generation which is passing away. There is another Germany, a younger generation, born after the Second World War. It is perhaps not so easy for Members of your Lordships' House who remember the Second World War well to realise that it is a different Germany now. We can exaggerate the dangers of that change, but we would be foolish not to recognise that there has been a change. Although many people in Germany continue to be as strongly pro-European and as strongly opposed to the revival of nationalism as those in the generation of Chancellor Kohl, it is true that there are others in Germany.
I do not want to follow those who have spoken excessively nervously about the revival of nationalism in Germany. A great deal has been done by the existing German Government to ensure that that revival is checked and reversed. However, those elements still remain. If we want to make our peace with Germany and want to return to being at the centre of the European Union, combining with Germany and France, now is the time to do it. We cannot leave it for another generation because we do not know what will happen. Of course, rationally, Germany should continue as at present, but the one thing above all else that we know in politics is that purely rational arguments never dominate. Emotional factors can so easily enter the equation.

863
We do not know what the next generation will be like, so now is the time to make sure that our position is as it should be and that we, like other countries in Europe, are inside the Union and have a close and good relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany. We have established good relationships in the past, but we are now undoubtedly allowing them to slip away as voices in this country, which are given far too much publicity in the press both here and in Europe, undermine the work that has been done in the past. It may not be possible to make that change and to reverse the current situation if we leave it too long. Now is the time to do that.
It should not be too difficult because there are many forces on our side helping to make it easy to return to a good relationship with Germany. We have many German students in this country. They come here willingly and I am delighted that so many of our universities, both old and new, are developing joint schemes whereby students spend a year at a university in Continental Europe and become Europeans. It rubs off on them. They do not do it self-consciously; being European comes naturally to them as they study alongside fellow students from Germany and other countries in increasingly multinational universities. The right conditions exist for developing the kind of relationship that we should and could have with Germany if we set about it in the right way. However, egged on by many people who should know better, we seem to be rejecting that opportunity.
But what a price we pay for not having good relations with Germany. If we want an example of the high price that we are paying, let us look at what has happened with beef. As I understand it, when we first knew about our beef problems, we did not try informally to tell our colleagues in Europe about what had happened, our state of knowledge and the difficulties that we faced. We did not use the informal channels which are open to friends, but only to friends and to those who have had a good relationship over the years.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, when he was President of the EEC and had difficulties with one or other country around the table, he could go along to the Germans apropos the French or to the French apropos the Germans and say, speaking of the other, "Get them off it. Get them to do what is needed to be done". But did we do that when we knew about our beef troubles and when we must have foreseen how great the difficulties would be? Did we have friends to whom we could say, "Look, we are in a hole. Can you help to get us out of it?"? Surely that is the way in which foreign policy should be conducted. If we had done that, would we now be having our current difficulties with the other countries in the EU, even though the Commission is on our side and has said that there should be a change in that policy? We do not have the friends. Although I do not like the phrase "cultivating friends" because it sounds as though one does it for what one can get out of them, the fact remains that we have not cultivated any friends. It is useful to have friends, to be able to use them informally and to be ready to be used informally by them.
864
We have not done that and we are paying the price. That is just one example of the extreme folly of failing not only to develop, but to hold on to, our friendships. I say "hold on" because we had those friendships once. Those friendships are valuable and if we do not grasp them now, we may not be able to do so in the future.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to whom we owe this afternoon's debate, is well aware that I am a greater admirer of his literary talents than of his political judgment. The noble Lord's literary talents were most recently exemplified in his magnificent life of Gladstone. In the course of that biography, the noble Lord tells us of the events which led to Gladstone being called, "an old man in a hurry". Chancellor Kohl at the moment is a little younger than Gladstone was at the time of the Home Rule crisis, but the description might equally be applied to him. He is after all trying, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out, to create in Europe, including this country, a single European state—whether it be called "federal" or a "united states of Europe" is beside the point.
The interesting thing is not that Chancellor Kohl should be trying to do that—it is perfectly legitimate for the head of a great nation to have a foreign policy—but that he himself says—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, echoed this—that he is doing it not because he wants to dominate Europe but because he believes that the Germans themselves need to be contained in some way in a larger Europe.
The problem that worries me is why Chancellor Kohl should be so suspicious of his own countrymen. A few years ago when, as has just been pointed out, relations between this country and Germany were very good—I remember the early Königswinter Conferences—we would not have thought of questioning the new Germany's commitment to peace and democracy and to repairing some of the damage that it had done during those terrible years. On visiting Bonn a couple of times not all that long ago to represent the Anglo-Jewish community in a meeting between German Ministers, including the President, and representatives of the Jewish communities in Europe, I was impressed and moved by the steps that the German Government were taking to ensure that such events were never repeated on their soil.
So, one begins to wonder what has suddenly triggered that suspicion of the Germans by their own leadership and how seriously we should take it as an argument for creating a European superstate. Is it really necessary that that should come about in such a way? I can think of one reason—although it might not be the reason that would commend itself to Chancellor Kohl. We are told that one of the objectives of creating such a European state or federation is that it should have a common foreign policy, yet looking at recent events one country which has clearly stood out against the common foreign policies of the western countries in at least two instances is Germany. The problems which it has caused by its independent action in relation to the former Yugoslavia have often been discussed in this House.

865
I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to another area—relations with Iran. Iran is probably the most dangerous country in the world at the moment. If it acquires nuclear weapons, that will be without question the case. The United States and Britain—our relations with the USA are much closer than the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, endeavoured to imply—and many other countries have done their best through economic pressure to try to bring an end to that appalling and aggressive regime.
Germany has stood out against that. It has preferred to keep its valuable commercial links, and it has gone even beyond that in, as now has become public, relations with the Iranian security services which pass beyond the bounds of decency and which of course have been a major obstacle to clearing up the appalling affair of Lockerbie.
It may be that Chancellor Kohl does not think that Germany, left on its own, is likely to pursue the foreign policies which would commend themselves to a Europe of nation states. But since he was in power, at least on the surface, during that period and presumably knew what his foreign ministry and intelligence agents were doing, it is hard to take that seriously. Is it that he sees some defect in the German national character? Does he believe that Germans are likely to run to extremes whenever some issue touches them deeply?
That is my impression of the beef crisis, to which inevitably we have been asked to turn our attention today. It is clear from what one reads of the Germans' reaction to this minimal danger to their health from healthy foods, including that produced in their own country, that if one touches some kind of a nerve in the German people, particularly if, after all, the Government are the Government who have persuaded them of those dangers, suddenly the Germans go off the deep end. That may be another reason for Chancellor Kohl's haste. It is a reason—in addition to those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with which I find myself in agreement—for saying that Chancellor Kohl is wrong; that it is possible to have friendship between Britain and France, France and Germany, Germany and Britain; that a Europe of co-operating nation states is still a possible goal and that Britain is right to insist upon it.
3.53 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that he admired enormously the literary gifts of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, but did not have the same high view of his political judgment. The noble Lord will of course forgive me for returning a similar compliment. I have undiluted admiration for him as an orator. He is a tub thumper, but the best sort of tub thumper. I wish we had more of them here, because it would liven things up. However, when it comes to political judgment, I should have thought that he would have to defer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who, after all, has held high positions. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has operated in the academic sphere.
When I listened to the noble Lord I remembered when I was Minister for Germany 100 years ago, or whenever it was. An eminent man whom I admired enormously
866
said to me, "You know, my wife and I never liked the Germans. We once had a maid we were very fond of, but she was an exception". So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will make an exception on behalf of that German maid, or at least one other German person.
I shall return to the subject of the debate. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, had been Foreign Secretary in 1950, a time referred to, incidentally, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. At that time I was visiting Dr. Adenauer. I had the name of Minister for Germany, but I was visiting him as Minister of Civil Aviation. He overrated my importance, which was in fact small. It was at the time when he was forming the coal and steel pact with Mr. Schuman. He said to me, "Do go back to Mr. Bevin and plead with him to join". He did not realise that I cut no ice in that quarter. But that is what Dr. Adenauer was pleading for in 1950.
In fact at that time the official line taken by the Treasury in a famous memorandum was that to join Europe at that point would be to tie ourselves to a corpse. That takes us back some time. The House will forgive me if I use these few moments to reminisce because I was Minister for Germany. Looking around the Chamber I cannot see anyone else who held that position. I was not all that important. I was responsible nominally for 26,000 members of the Control Commission. I was Minister for Germany in 1947 and 1948. It was a traumatic period.
The crucial event in 1947 did not occur in my sphere, but at the Council of Foreign Ministers when the world broke into two halves. That was in December 1947. I was sitting there as an acolyte slightly behind Mr. Bevin's chair. I acted for him once when he was unwell. The atmosphere in 1947 might be best understood if I retail an anecdote. In December 1947 he took me to a dinner at the Russian Embassy being given for Mr. Molotov, the Russian Foreign Secretary. Mr. Molotov, Mr. Bevin and I were sitting there. Mr. Molotov, through an interpreter of course, courteously asked me, "Have you studied Karl Marx, Lord Pakenham", as I called myself at that time. Through the interpreter I said, "I am afraid that I have studied Karl Marx. I have lectured on him as a university teacher, but I am afraid I am not a Marxist".
Still courteously, Mr. Molotov said that it could hardly be expected that a good Marxist would be found in the House of Lords. Mr. Bevin knew the answer to that one. He answered back and said—I shall not try to copy his accent or form of speech—"The Members of the House of Lords are the only people in England who have the time to read Karl Marx". One might have thought that that would have settled Molotov. However, he was indomitable. He came back through the interpreter and said, "Mr. Bevin ought to study the works of Marx in the commentary of Hilferding". Again, Mr. Bevin, who I am sure had never heard of Hilferding, was undefeated. He said, "I have read Hilferding and I found him tedious". So that disposed of Mr. Molotov.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that the conference broke up soon afterwards. It was not on a British initiative, but an American initiative. Mr. Bevin

867
was rather reluctant. Once the conference had broken up he was active in promoting the Atlantic alliance. All that happened during my year. The policy was changing the whole time almost without my being able to know about it. The change was going on.
I was sent out to operate the Potsdam policy which treated Germany as a criminal country, but beneficent influences were at work. As time went on they gained a foothold. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, paid a tribute to the work of the education department. There were the Churches and also those who helped to organise the new German trade unions. In the end a great work was performed.
One does not know what would have happened had Russia not proved herself to be the enemy of the West. I said to one high Foreign Office official on one occasion, "You seem to be making plans for a pension scheme for the Control Commission for the next 25 years". He said, "I should be very sorry if I did not think we were going to be there that long". That was the atmosphere at the beginning: keep down the Germans for 25 years. However, as time went on all that disappeared.
I went out to Germany influenced by great men like the Bishop of Chichester, the late Victor Gollancz, and Dick Stokes, preaching a message of forgiveness. I told the near-starving children of Düsseldorf that they were right to be proud of being German. When I returned to the Foreign Office some high person said he hoped I would not mind if next time a public relations officer and also a new interpreter were attached to me. My message was to be redefined the next time I went to Germany. After I ceased to be Minister for Germany and became Minister of Civil Aviation a high Foreign Office official showed me a memorandum which began by saying that we could not hold back the Russians with one hand and hold down the Germans with the other.
I come to what I believe to be the right approach to Germany. I quote the last words that Dr. Adenauer said to me in 1948. I was accorded permission to go out to Germany to attend a conference on Europe at The Hague. The leader of the conference was Winston Churchill. Afterwards, I asked Dr. Adenauer whether he had spoken to Mr. Churchill. He said that he had not and that he had been told that Churchill had said that Germans were either at one's throat or one's feet and at the hour of his country's humiliation he would not impose himself upon him. Churchill went up to him and shook him by the hand and Adenauer never forgot it. Irrespective of party—whether it be Dick Stokes or now, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, or Winston Churchill—there is only one approach to the Germans: one should hold out the hand of friendship.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating this debate. I apologise in advance to your Lordships for not speaking on such a high note as previous speakers. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Beloff, who made a brilliant analysis of the situation. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
868
I should like to speak about Anglo-German relations on the grounds of having served with the Army in Germany on three different occasions, albeit 28 years ago. However, I believe that the same situation exists now, although there are not quite as many British troops in Germany today. I first went to Germany in 1947. I and another newly-commissioned officer travelled by train from the Hook of Holland to Delmenhorst near Bremen to join my regiment, the 11th Hussars. I had never seen such devastation as I saw in every town and city through which I passed as a result of Allied bombing throughout the war. That has a significant bearing on the way in which the Germans look at war and conflict. Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne—all the cities—were virtually destroyed and flattened. No building was upright. Unless one saw it one would not believe it. That is why I believe the Germans are anxious to avoid any kind of war and Chancellor Kohl wants to anchor Germany to the rest of Europe in a very close federal state, or whatever it may be called. The German people are frightened of their past and frightened that some among them may behave in the same militaristic, xenophobic and nationalist way. We must try to convince them that they should not lose confidence. Germany is a nation state like any other in Europe and they should have more confidence in themselves.
Most of my National Service with the regiment was spent in Berlin, to which my squadron was sent soon after I arrived. The officers' mess was in an ordinary house in a street near the ex-German police barracks where the squadron was billeted. When I left to go to Oxford just before the airlift I well remember one of my German neighbours rushing into the street while we were loading up the jeeps to implore us not to go. She believed that the Allies were abandoning her and all Berliners to the Russians.
After Oxford, I became a management trainee with Imperial Tobacco. Nine months later the company and I discovered that I was not suited to that career. I was lucky enough to obtain a regular commission in the same regiment. I served in Germany for three periods, two with my own regiment and the third as a staff officer at divisional headquarters. On both occasions the regiment was stationed at Hohne. It was a big army camp three miles from the town of Bergen-Belsen. The site of the concentration camp was in woods about two or three miles away in the opposite direction. I went there once but did not take my wife. It was a horrible place. It is said that no birds sing there.
As armies in foreign countries do, we lived our own lives and were mostly divorced from the local population. That still happens in Germany. However, I met Germans in many walks of life. I had learnt German at school and could carry on some kind of conversation. I got to like many of them and admired their well-known qualities of order and discipline. I do not have those qualities to any degree and I admire those who possess them. I saw and talked to more Germans than many soldiers, as I was secretary of the regimental draghounds for two years. I had to spend many hours of my spare time seeing German farmers in the Alter valley, which has countryside like ours with fields of grass and hedges, and persuading them to allow us to

869
ride with our hounds over their land. German land tenure at that time (and perhaps now) was very fragmented. Each farmer owned a field here and there, which meant that I had to see as many as a dozen farmers for one day's draghunting. Most of them were splendid, hardworking people, invariably friendly and cheerful. I do not remember receiving a single refusal once they realised what was being asked of them. It was obvious that they thought the English were mad but were too polite to say so. Their own draghunting took place in the forests over very small made-up jumps going in single file by seniority.
On one occasion another cavalry regiment had taken over the draghounds from us. The village concerned was Ahlden where King George I incarcerated his first wife, Sophia Dorothea in the local castle. Later he divorced her and married his second wife. The new secretary had not done his homework. When we arrived with our horses and hounds we were confronted by complete opposition. It appeared that the jägdmeister—the local man who oversaw the shooting, with whom I had dealt—had died. The new one, who was the landlord of the pub, was totally opposed to any draghunting. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk—I have not seen him in his place today—was then Major-General Miles Fitzalan-Howard, our divisional commander—and a very good one. We wheeled him forward to negotiate. He managed to persuade the Germans to allow us to ride round the course without the hounds. The locals objected to the hounds because they believed that they would disturb the game. They did not object to the horses.
My noble friend Lord Beloff put it far better than I am able to. The problem is that Germans do not have confidence in themselves as a nation. They fear their own past and that the worst features of it will return. I firmly believe that they have nothing to fear at all. Their future and that of the rest of Europe would be far more secure if they looked upon themselves as a nation the same as any other European nation. The European Union would have a far better base and a far better future if they did so. Trying to develop a federal state of Europe—or whatever you call it—is a terrible mistake. Not only would that be a terrible mistake—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, implied, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—but it would undoubtedly cause more friction and, in my opinion, would lead to political and economic disaster.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, many people have said today that our relations with Germany are excellent. But nothing in my view impedes good Anglo-German relations more than the British press. I do not speak simply of the tabloids; the quality press in this country has declined enormously. That press consists largely of the opinions of columnists. The news is slanted to deliver personal jibes rather than information. Indeed, the only newspapers in English here which I think are worthy of the name of serious newspapers seem to me to be the Financial Times and the New York Herald Tribune.
870
What is alarming is the pervading anti-German tone of the press, whether it is the Daily Telegraph, which uses Euro-scepticism as a bludgeon against the Germans, or the Daily Express seeking to increase its circulation and thinking that the best way of doing this is by bashing Germany. Let us consider the Independent, which gives space to articles by Conor Cruise O'Brien. When the Wall came down, O'Brien suggested that it was only a question of a few years before a bust of Hitler would be seen in every German window. More recently he suggested that as Germany, like all European countries, was faced with an immense growth in the numbers of old-age pensioners, Germany would probably treat those old-age pensioners as it had treated the Jews and institute mass euthanasia. No one thought it odd that this self-righteous newspaper gave space to such nauseating rubbish.
The treatment of Chancellor Kohl and of his speech at Louvain is characteristic. Let me say at once that it was a clumsy speech. The Chancellor is not a man of exquisite finesse. But when he said that unless Europe united we might face another world war, the press deliberately misrepresented him and interpreted that as a threat, as if he were saying, "Unless you do as Germany orders, you will be attacked". No one who has followed German foreign policy since the days of Adenauer can possibly believe that that is what he meant. Indeed, even the writers of thrillers, bereft of Smersh and the KGB these days, have reverted to the days of that great classic, The Thirty-Nine Steps. Frederick Forsyth in his recent thriller suggests that we are perfectly right to fear a Fourth Reich.
Our commentators rarely ask what problems Germany faces; and they are of course immense problems. German policy has been governed from 1945 by remorse for the bestialities of Hitler's regime. That is why no country can compare with Germany's record of giving asylum to the dispossessed, even though this policy leads to the occasional skinhead attacks on foreign workers and may indeed be in part responsible for the policy—which, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I deplore—towards Iran. The number of old-age pensioners is of course augmented by the increase in foreign workers. The problem that Germany faces is of course a grave one which we all face. Some 42 per cent. of the population of Germany will shortly be pensioners. In Ireland the figure is 27 per cent. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, will take comfort from the fact that the Pope's prohibition on birth control at any rate brings one blessing, and that is a balanced population in which there are enough young people to support—at any rate in theory—the old-age pensioners.
This long-term problem and the short-term problem of rebuilding what used to be the East German Republic—not to speak of recreating Berlin as the capital city of a unified Germany—are going to keep Germany preoccupied for years to come. But we in Britain still continue to ask: has Germany changed its nature and are the Germans a different people or will we once again be faced with a bullying authoritarian Germany determined to seize the hegemony of Europe?

871
The state created by Bismarck died in 1945. In a sense the Weimar Republic was an extension of that state in which the Kaiser and the Chancellor ruled through a narrow-minded but highly efficient civil service, with little parliamentary input. Whatever else the Nazis did, they destroyed the old elites in Germany. The aristocratic general staff of the army and the old style conservative bureaucracy perished. The Germans call 1945 zero hour, meaning the end of an era—a black hole into which the past just disappeared. Historians here will agree that that never happens in history. However, the machinery of state changed in Germany, and in particular the decentralisation of powers to the Land governments bears little relationship to the Wilhelmine State.
The elites have also changed. There were always stories of Nazi party members still in positions of power, but de-Nazification was not cosmetic. In the British zone alone 350,000 Germans were excluded from office. Moreover, the discontents that engendered Nazism have passed and the vision of the world, the Weltanschauung, of Germany today has utterly changed. The Germans remember what Nazism was like and the hatred of Germany felt by the countries they occupied or fought in World War II. They know that that hatred has not totally subsided and is still latent. That is why they behave as they do towards other countries. They behave often with great tact, particularly towards the State of Israel. They also know—certainly in East Germany—what communism is like. The Stasi in East Germany was just as efficient as the Gestapo. It is little else but an insult for our journalists to suggest that German culture, and indeed human nature, have not changed.
There is one final point that I wish to make. Germany, like ourselves, is cutting public expenditure. Among the victims are exchange schemes for the young and foreign language courses. The Goethe Institute has been particularly badly hit and in our schools once again there is a downswing in the numbers learning German. One of the triumphs of the British Control Commission in Germany after the war was Robert Birley's determination to build—as he put it—bridges between the two countries through exchange visits, of which Wilton Park was the best known institution and Kõnigswinter was the successor. Let us not allow these initiatives to perish, for it was those initiatives of building bridges with Germany that have made our relations with that country (even now, with the beef crisis) and the feelings ordinary people have towards it more enlightened. It is that initiative of building bridges which makes our understanding of Germany and our feelings towards it more enlightened. We are better informed about that country than we are about any other country in Europe.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for giving us this opportunity to discuss what I believe is a particularly important subject. Secondly, I want to declare an interest. I look across the Chamber and see the beaming face of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Alas, the noble Baroness,
872
Lady Serota, is not in her place. From the all-party notices which appear, it can be seen that there is a free German class for Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and myself, being Scots and accountants, believe that that is far too good an opportunity to miss.
It is interesting that 42 years ago, at the college led so superbly by the headmaster, Robert Birley, who was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, my noble friend Lord Forteviot and myself made our first faltering efforts to learn the German language. That has not necessarily led to my speaking in today's debate. I am still stumbling along trying to make some progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and myself, being, as I said, Scots and accountants, have three watch words: to look, to learn and to listen. I looked at aspects of trade with Germany for the last year for which records are available. It is interesting that we had exports of £15 billion and imports of £18 billion. Therefore, the Germans are our second most important customer in that regard. Of course, the surplus is in Germany's favour, but there are many reasons for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to aspects of trade. They are a key element of this debate. There are many other fascinating cultural, literary, scientific and sporting links with Germany into which I do not have time to delve. I see the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, gloating about what may happen in June but he can develop that matter when he speaks. I am sure that many noble Lords with experience of visible and invisible trade will be speaking in the next debate. However, a number of experts will also be speaking in this debate.
In relation to both visible and invisible trade with Germany, I wonder why the City of London is filling up with enormous German financial institutions. The Financial Times at least once a week contains massive advertisements in German for jobs with the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank and Landesbank. That very powerful and competent nation appears to believe that a great deal of talent exists here in London. It knows of our great tradition of "We can—and now".
As regards visible trade, I wonder why BASF, one of the major German chemical companies, and Bayer have very large production facilities here in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, will know, the pharmaceutical industry believes in very strong trade links between ourselves and Germany.
As an accountant I look at the enormous engineering, scientific and technological skills we have in this country. In Germany I compare Baden-Würtemberg and Swabia with Bavaria or Munich and Stuttgart. Seven or eight years ago I paid my first visit to the city of Stuttgart. It has great engineering traditions; for example, Bosch, Daimler Benz and Porsche. However, the entire city was very green. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will know that the other magnificent product of Stuttgart is its most delicious wine. It will take on anything that can be found in France. I know. I have sampled it; I am a great fan of it.
Munich has Messerschmitt Bõlkow Blohm, the large aerospace company, and BMW. That particular company has very close links with the British motor

873
industry. Why is it that Professor Pischetsrieder, who runs BMW, has established such close links with Rover? Is it because he is an Anglophile, which he certainly is, or is it that he believes that it will be a very fruitful working relationship with the Rover and Land Rover groups? First, the Rover group has extremely good products and a good brand. Secondly, there are very good production facilities here. Thirdly, there is the question of costs. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to that matter. Fourthly, it is an excellent example of successful international co-operation between two nations. That is not just taken for granted. I ask your Lordships to consider what happened with the massive integrated get-together between Renault and Volvo—France and Sweden. That did not last long and was not successful. But the Rover and BMW project is successful and will go from strength to strength. Indeed, that is the thought of Professor Pischetsrieder.
Several speakers have referred to what the Germans call Rinderwahnsinn—BSE. I thought that it might be a major element in our exports of about £16 billion to Germany. But surprise, surprise! I discovered from the Ministry of Agriculture that in nine months of last year this country exported 776 tonnes of beef which is roughly 1,000 tonnes of beef per year. We exported something in the region of 60,000 tonnes to France. Therefore, is this massive war of words between representatives of this country and Germany in relation to beef anything more than a storm in a soup cup?
I promised the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that I would obtain some literature, not the type referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, although he mentioned also the Financial Times. However, the literature I have obtained is certainly at the same level and perhaps lower than the tabloids to which he referred. Those tabloids have been running a campaign against beef. They have been saying that BSE will cause all sorts of harm. But that has damaged deeply the German beef industry. Therefore, they cannot blame all their problems on us.
I enjoyed listening to the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. However, I wonder whether he is seeing ghosts where none exists. I believe that in five, six, or 10 years' time, BSE will turn out to be no more than a ripple in Anglo-German relations. But those five, six, or 10 years will leave a mark—and I mean no pun—on the beef industry in my own county of Angus, which is so well known to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, as well as in Germany. However, on the basis of trade and all our other links, I believe that Anglo-German relations are strong and that they will become much stronger over the next 10, 20 or 30 years.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I put my name down to speak in this debate with a single aim in view; namely, to try to persuade the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, to explain the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the Commons yesterday. There has been very little talk of that; yet it has great relevance to the subject we are discussing.
I agree very much with the positive statements about Anglo-German relations that have been made. I have a long and quite intimate experience of Germany and the
874
German people. But I have always felt—and I thought it was the Government's policy too—that unity in Europe must be built organically from the bottom up out of popular demand and out of experience of joint action on problems which must be solved jointly. That is what I thought. It can never be built from the top down, and I am profoundly suspicious of ideology and dogma in that matter. Indeed, bearing in mind the tides of European opinion today, the European Union might be wise to be content with, as I believe M. Santer said about the Commission, doing less and doing it better. That is my view.
If so, the action announced yesterday by the Prime Minister, if that is also the view of the Government, is a very strange way in which to proceed. We cannot tell exactly what the threats are and we cannot tell how they will work, if at all. We know that the Government do not propose to withhold their contributions to the budget and we know that they are not proposing to absent themselves from meetings. Where decisions are not taken by majority vote, our voting may be eccentric but it will not be significant. Presumably the one immediate threat is that the Government may veto decisions on which unanimity is required. Can the noble Baroness say whether that is in fact the position?
The implications of the situation are remarkable. Does it mean vetoing resolutions irrespective of the merits of the issue? Does it mean vetoing resolutions which might benefit Britain or which might benefit friends of Britain upon whom we shall rely to help us over the beef issue or to support our long-term objectives in Europe? It seems inconceivable that that could be the Government's intention. Otherwise, I suppose that the further threat is of sabotaging the September talks. Is that the Government's intention? I believe that we should know. It makes no sense to me at all and seems extremely foolish.
Unless the Minister can explain a little more the pros and cons of what the Prime Minister proposes, we are bound to wonder whether it is part of his European policy or whether it is designed to gain some degree of unity in the discredited party which he leads. I must say that that seems to me the most likely explanation. The polls suggest that electors believe that this is the worst government we have had since polls began. The electors would be right. The Prime Minister knows that he must do something and do it quickly. It seems that he has fallen back on the disreputable resource familiar to political leaders over and over again in history—namely, the resource of xenophobia. That enables him immediately and successfully to rally behind him all the xenophobic Members of Parliament and, no doubt, some of the xenophobic vote.
With the election coming, the Prime Minister might be said to be following the old Millwall football tactic: when losing at home, call down the hooligans from the terraces. Alternatively, as expressed in a more dignified manner by The Times today:
"By choosing confrontation, the Prime Minister has for the moment united the vast majority of his party".
Yes, he has indeed done so. But what a way to do it—to choose confrontation with our European neighbours. Unless the Minister can reassure us to the contrary, it

875
seems to me an historic example of a political leader putting the unity of his party before the interests of a nation.
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am a Euro-fanatic. I love Europe, I love its civilisation and I read much of its history. However, I see the present method by which it runs our affairs as a complete disaster: a ridiculously protectionist agricultural system which pays rich men to do nothing; the subsidy of poisonous tobacco to third-world countries; a fisheries policy designed to destroy the fish stocks in the North Sea; combined with a desire to overregulate everything that can be overregulated from the size of buses to what kind of oak trees we can plant. These alone show that the present arrangements are a disaster and that they must be reformed, in the old liberal sense, root and branch. When my father died in 1971, the first practical thing that I did when I came to your Lordships' House was to vote enthusiastically for the accession treaty. I regret to say that I could now no longer do so.
For most of modern history—and by "modern history" I mean since the Reformation—Anglo-German relations have been excellent. We have only to think of Prince Eugene, Frederick the Great, Marshal Blucher, the Hanoverian dynasty and the Saxe-Coburgs. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will know, Gladstone showed great sympathy to Prussia when the Duc de Gramont, with whimsical irresponsibility, encouraged by an hysterical French public and a bossy empress, declared war upon her in 1870.
Bismarck and Disraeli's statesmanship and co-operation saved European peace at the Congress of Berlin. On the other hand, France, from Richelieu's cynical bribing of Gustavus Adolphus to break Wallenstein's siege of Stralsund to Blücher's exhaustion of his entire French vocabulary on meeting Wellington at La Belle Alliance with the immortal words "Quelle affaire", which is all that he could say at the end of the battle, has invaded Germany 30 times in 200 years. Not surprisingly, that produced a Germany which was, by the end of the 19th century, insensitive and vulgar.
After the defeat of that strutting and aggressive vulgarity in 1918—we must remember that, at that time, the world as it had been known for a thousand years from the Rhine to Vladivostok had collapsed into chaos and disorder—something happened in Germany: she constitutionally elected by proportional representation with 43 per cent. of the vote a vegetarian who banned foxhunting. No, I am not talking about a liberal democratic county councillor; I am talking about one of the two most evil men that the world has ever seen. I do not have to exaggerate, nor is it possible, his wickedness nor to outline the wickednesses to which he led Germany. But it is also impossible to exaggerate the superb behaviour of Germany since the war. She has set a shining example of contrition and retribution and has demonstrated the great Lutheran benefits of hard work
876
and good behaviour. She has justly been completely forgiven but, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, I do not think that she believes it herself.
France, with a certain "Richelieuian" cynicism, thinks that, with a superior French intellect and a German angst, she herself can govern Europe. Chancellor Kohl, I regret to say, seems to encourage that attitude. That is not the way forward. It would be much better to look at the concept of the Council of Europe as practised by those great Foreign Secretaries, Castlereagh, Metternich and Talleyrand. That concept demonstrated how governments of different political complexions could work for the general peace and progress of Europe: a Europe with which we could trade, with which we could be friends, to which we could travel and, above all, in which we would not boss each other about.
So my plea to Germany is this. Forget your guilt as others have forgotten theirs. Remember with pride your contributions to painting, industry, architecture, chemistry and philosophy, let alone music and the Reformation. Even remember the great von Moltke is reputed only to have smiled twice: first when he was told that his mother-in-law was dead; and, secondly, when he was told that Metz was impregnable. Incidentally, he also translated The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon into German.
The attitude that Germany is adopting at present causes Euro-stress. We should encourage her to adopt the attitudes that I propose because, then, Euro-stress will be less. Unless we have less Euro-stress, the whole arrangement will collapse into recrimination. Europe has forgotten war: it is not going to happen. Louvois will never again sack the Palatinate; Murat's reserve cavalry will never again pursue the beaten Prussians across the Landgraffenburg; von Bredow will never again lead another death ride of Mars la Tours, nor von Kluck turn before Paris; nor will Sepp Dietrich lead a dying lunge of exhausted Panzers through the Ardennes. Europe and Germany must realise that we have all grown out of the habit of war. Then and only then will we truly be at ease with ourselves and be able to get on with a true, genuine and useful co-operation of European states.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest. I receive a monthly cheque from the Deutsche Bank as my pension. However, my association with Germany is much lengthier. I went to Germany originally as a youngster and joined the Young Socialists (Sozialistische Arbeiter Jugend) in the last days of the Weimar Republic. Despite our propaganda and our marching up and down, we failed to prevent the ultimate tragedy of Nazis coming to power.
I returned to Germany during the Nazi period to organise the illegal escape of some leading Socialists who at that time had to be escorted over the border; and I returned once more to Germany at the end of the war as an official of the United Nations relief organisation, UNRRA, in the rebuilding and reconstruction of the defeated Germany.

877
We had learned a great deal from the experience of the previous post-war period. We had squeezed the Germans by the Versailles Treaty and that, coupled with the Depression of the 1930s, meant that Germany suffered seriously and Nazism was the consequence. In the post-war period of 1945, we had the benefit of the Marshall Plan, but we had also recognised that in order to defeat the new tyranny of communism from Russia we had to help rebuild a democratic Germany.
In the period from 1945, Germany has had a remarkable recovery. It is not only an economic recovery. Germany has established its credentials as a good European partner and as a generous contributor to the international community. The absorption of the DDR five years ago was a remarkable achievement and a remarkably stabilising influence on the structure of Europe.
Germany inherited a broken-down economy. The wage rates in the DDR were 35 per cent. of those in West Germany; they are now 74 per cent. of the rates. Pensions were 40 per cent. of the rate in West Germany; they are now 70 per cent. That is a remarkable economic transformation and a vast contribution to stability in Europe.
From Yugoslavia alone the Germans have taken in over 400,000 refugees. In this House we have been much concerned with debating immigration and refugees. The contribution of the Germans by absorbing refugees is quite remarkable. I am sure that when the noble Baroness replies to the debate she will acknowledge the contribution that Germany has made in overseas aid. Something like 361 billion deutschmarks have been contributed by the Germans to overseas aid.
In contributing to the revival of the economies of Eastern Europe, each individual German, man, woman and child, has contributed 360 deutschmarks for reconstruction in Eastern Europe. The equivalent figure for the United States is 36 deutschmarks. That represents 1 billion deutschmarks and is 45 billion more than the remainder of the Western European countries. That indicates that Germany is not a great monster thirsting for power but a prosperous economy contributing to the overall stability of Europe; and for that we are indebted.
Reference has been made to the acknowledgement of guilt in connection with the treatment of the Jewish community during the time of Hitler. The Germans passed a law which provided that they would meet the claims of Jews who had been persecuted during the time of Hitler. Under this legislation 4.4 million claims were submitted, and 99.9 per cent. of the claims of the Jewish people have now been met. When one considers that those claims are being met by a generation which does not remember the persecution of the Jews, it indicates that Germany has acknowledged at least some of the debt of those awful years.
In the debate inevitably we have talked about Europe. There is a danger, in particular as a result of the beef crisis, that there will be an anti-European campaign as part of the election. Some Members of Parliament will certainly use that xenophobia to create a false patriotism in order to save their seat. However, we in this country
878
seem to imagine that we are the only people who treasure our traditions: that we are the only people who cherish our culture. Other countries are just as proud of their institutions and cultures; and they are able to co-operate together in a European community.
Someone wrote in the Economist this week that,
"in a global economy of independent elements individual voices have to sing in harmony if they are to command an audience".
I believe that it is our duty to sing in harmony with Europe. Those who do not accept the implications of Internet, international communications and the need for greater communities should walk into Whitehall and listen to the young people with backpacks speaking German, French and various European languages. They are Europeans. Many of us still think of Europe as being "out there". But we are part of Europe. We must accept and rejoice that we are part of Europe.
4.48 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for introducing the debate, in particular with his knowledge of the problem. I was struck by his reference to the allied military government in the post-war years. It is perhaps ironic that it was the allied military government who established the Länder which are the basis of Federal Germany today.
Noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber have touched on the history of our association with Germany since the war. However, I believe that we are discussing the future. Our future association with Germany is inextricably linked with European monetary union—the only issue which drives Germany and this country apart.
Historically, Germany has been perceived in an historic role of expansionism, hidden perhaps in the clothes of protection from its own follies. Expansionism is not unique, but it may be somewhat out of fashion. Was it Bismarck who said that it did not matter who ruled France, a monarch or a president, so long as Germany controlled the economy? Is that not still the ambition today?
We are in close association with Germany. We have close ties with it commercially, in trade and with our Armed Forces. Our sailors work and train together. We heard from the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John Slater, at a meeting the other day that there is friendly rivalry tinged, I believe, with the memories of previous naval occasions. We have problems with the Euro fighter all because of the Germans' inability to share the costs. As President Chirac kindly and generously acknowledged, our military, naval and air forces are probably the most effective units in Europe. I believe it is the judgment of our military leaders that the Atlantic alliance is of paramount importance, while the rest of us in the United Kingdom certainly do not want an inward-looking Europe.
European monetary union reflects the urge to establish monetary control, regardless of the achievement of political cohesion. Indeed, the plan is to establish political cohesion, force majeure, by enforcing some federal system. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, described it. But if we are to go down the road of the

879
Länder, we will have to divide ourselves into Wessex, Mercia and Anglia and go back to the old days. That is not on, so we cannot have that form of federalism.
Relations are governed by perceptions. While the noble Lord, Lord Annan, excused Chancellor Kohl for his remarks about war, nevertheless it is offensive in both uses of the word and seems to evidence a sense of paranoia about Germany and its own ambitions.
Indeed, one has to ask: if there is to be a war, who will start it? Such talk does not contribute to sensible debate or to confidence in Germany's good faith. It is propounded that political union will follow monetary union as night follows day. That is not so and we have heard from my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Dacre how such a policy has been doomed to failure time and time again in Europe.
Our relations with Germany would be remarkably improved if the Germans could understand such reservations as are held sincerely by ourselves, not only by many, if not a majority, in this country but also in many other countries throughout Europe. For such a policy to mature, there must be an overwhelming desire on the part of voters for a change. The polls show that that is not so. A majority of one is not enough. As we know, a majority of one can allow an elected parliament to survive to the next election, and, as we shall shortly show, through one parliament to the next.
But EMU, on the other hand, is immutable and can only result in coercion of fiscal policies and social unrest. It is something that the Germans do not seem to accept. They appear to ignore it while they press on with their old concept of a Europe dominated by a monetary system. It is perhaps too late for them to turn back voluntarily. My fear is that this plan will be forced upon the peoples of Europe and that will be a greater danger to peace in terms of internal revolutions than we can at present imagine.
Our good will towards Germany is unlimited, but if the Germans persist, we can only watch from the sidelines in despair as they drive the juggernaut through. Far better that our reservations be considered and not ignored by them.
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I speak from a few personal experiences rather than from the breadth of expertise shown by other noble Lords. I can, however, declare a special interest. Today would have been my father's 90th birthday and I have therefore looked to him for guidance. He was a prominent anti-Market campaigner, but also very pro-German and one of the first ex-service MPs to visit Germany at the end of the war. He remained in contact with German parliamentarians and regularly attended Kõnigswinter. I was privileged to join him and Richard Crossman on a memorable East German visit in the bleak mid-1950s, becoming perhaps the first and last English boy to have received an ovation from the East German parliament, the Volkskammer. I inherited from both my parents a fondness for Germany and German music. I went on to
880
study German at Eton and Cambridge and then worked for several months in a publishing house in Munich. I felt then and feel now a citizen of Europe.
One result of all this was that I reacted strongly against my father's anti-Market sympathies. But anti-Market is not anti-Europe. I always respected the distinction he made between nations and community, between Europe and its constituent parts. That, of course, is at the heart of today's debate. While there are doubtless a few extreme chauvinists left, even in this House, those who oppose the EU in principle are often nostalgically concerned to preserve a national identity which no longer exists, at least not in the form they remember or would like to perpetuate. For this reason it is sad to see in the BSE crisis a glimpse of the old nationalism we have left behind. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that this may even be detectable in the Prime Minister's Statement yesterday, though I believe that it belongs more to public relations than to his conviction.
We heard again this week that the Germans are concerned for their health. And so they should be; and so should we be. But there is no point in our moaning that the Germans are taking this crisis too seriously when we know that our own government scientists put out the health warning in the first place. Surely we must recognise that we need steadily to improve standards in the whole of Europe and not to complain, as I heard a Minister complain on Monday, that we had come to expect more solidarity from our European partners.
Germany, in fact, has come to represent high standards of excellence in many fields. So has this country, but many of us prefer to buy VWs and BMWs because of their reliability and track record or to pay a little more for the likes of Mosel or Gewürztraminer because of their high quality. The same is true of health and hygiene. Perhaps we will have to pay a little more for standards in this country. Of course, the Germans have their own problems, especially in the east, in reconciling standards. But we have to come to terms with the fact that some of our beaches and some of our methods of animal food processing may have fallen below reasonable standards. I have a personal problem with drinking water, where I think that the Commission may have pushed us too far. But that is the whole point of Europe. We have the advantage and opportunity of making comparisons among friends and allies. Of course, these are all sensitive matters, but we must beware of reacting too swiftly to informed criticism, which can easily be misread and can lead to prejudice.
I am one of those who feels that Germany deserves a little more respect and understanding than it currently receives from this country, especially since reunification. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, some of the tabloid comments are little short of insulting, though I doubt that the Germans take them too seriously; and they should not. But I wonder whether the Minister has any suggestions for improving our educational knowledge of Germany, perhaps through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British Council, in addition to the schemes and many cultural exchanges which exist. I regret that more of us are not speaking German, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said,

881
or visiting Germany's wonderful attractions compared with those of other countries. My theory is that we think that the Germans are too like us. When on holiday, we search for something more mysterious and different. Yet there is plenty of mystery and interest to be found over there. Like the term "British", which for some reason is not applied to this debate, "German" is a generic cover for a variety of different regional and minority cultures.
It is just because we have so much in common with Germany that we are able to work together so constructively in many fields. Many noble Lords have experience of industry, the Army and diplomacy. In my subject area of overseas aid there is a lot of collaboration going on between government and non-government agencies based in our two countries. Not long ago I wrote a report on church aid agencies in Germany and the UK for Christian Aid. There are hundreds of aid programmes throughout the world where ecumenical resources are now shared and many decisions are taken jointly. The central Asian region and Eastern Europe are areas where the German churches' experience is also proving invaluable.
I hope that the ODA will further develop its excellent relations with the BMZ, the German Development Ministry, which has in itself been a valuable example of co-ordinated European foreign policy. The gradual and controversial involvement of the German military in humanitarian assistance has been an important new element in European defence and aid co-operation. One plea I would make to the Minister is to study the ministry's attitude to non-governmental organisations more closely. Germany has been very generous with funds for organisations, both in volume and as a proportion of its gross national product.
The Government are quite reticent about relations with Germany. I am sure that in overseas aid and trade there has been something close to harmonisation, and it may be time for us to acknowledge that more publicly. Federalism in the sense in which Chancellor Kohl uses it, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, is all about using the ingredients in the pudding, not about the pudding itself.
On that culinary note I will close with just one word from Bavaria which could by itself help to remove any current difficulties and prejudices, though I recognise that it may also be divisive. Its power, its Vorsprung, must never be underestimated, and I hope that even in their present plight our farmers and consumers will give it the place of honour it deserves. I commend it to the Prime Minister for lunch. It is, of course, die Weisswurst—the Bavarian white sausage.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, inevitably much of our debate has covered our relationship with Europe, which Germany seems to want to be much the same thing as our relationship with Germany. There really is not much doubt about the sort of meaning that Herr Kohl and his party put upon the word "federal". In April 1992, for example, he said that the Maastricht Treaty had laid the foundation-stone to realise the dream of the founders of the European Communities, which
882
was to create a United States of Europe. That is a dream which many of us believe he clearly holds today. It is that sort of federalism which is not what most of us in the United Kingdom want. We want a Europe of nation states, as other noble Lords have mentioned. But the drive to full European integration is now such that many of us seriously believe that we should be better off outside the European Union altogether.
Here we really must start to distinguish between the damage which we suffer from membership of the European Union and the benefit we derive from access to its single market. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, mentioned the views of Mrs. Noriko Hama of Mitsubishi; I would mention similar views held by Mrs. Haruko Fukuda, the deputy chairman of Nikko Europe, who says that our inward investment comes to us because we speak English, we have attractive corporation tax, good labour relations, low inflation and—yes, my Lords—access to the single market.
So the question becomes: would we lose that access if we left the European Union but stayed in the European Economic Area, for example like Norway, which is booming, or were even to be out altogether like Switzerland, which now exports three-and-a-half times more per capita to the European Union than we do, even ignoring her banking side?
The next question becomes: would our European competitors really gang up on us if we left the Union but wanted to keep our access to the market upon which overseas investment into this country depends? I submit that they would not do so. They would be prevented from ganging up against us by the GATT, which we signed collectively as members of the European Union but also individually as sovereign states. And the foreign exchange markets would soon show them the error of their ways if they cut off their noses to spite their faces and jeopardised their massive trade surplus with us.
If the beef saga has done anything, it has woken up the British people as to how powerless their Government have become to defend our national interest in Brussels. That leads some of us—an ever-increasing number—to believe that the Treaty of Rome must therefore be radically revised, and if it cannot be radically revised, we should leave it.
I remind your Lordships that the treaty ordains that our agriculture, environment, transport, European culture and relationship with the single market are subject to the qualified majority vote. It is worth spelling out what the terms of that qualified majority vote are. There are 87 such votes among the 15 member states: 62 are required to carry a motion and 26 to block one. We have only 10. So, for example, British buses are in trouble because only Sweden, with 4 votes, and Ireland with 3 votes, support us against a directive which is designed to make them uncompetitive internationally. That gives us only 17 votes, not enough to block the directive. There are many other examples of similar cases where the qualified majority vote cannot help us to protect our commercial interest.
Likewise, the 62 votes necessary to change the ruinous common agricultural policy are unlikely to be available because France, with 10 votes, Italy (10),

883
Spain (8), Belgium (5), Greece (5), Netherlands (5), Portugal (5), Denmark (3) and Ireland (3) will not agree, or are most unlikely to agree, to forgo its largess, which is largely conferred by Germany with 10 votes, Sweden with 4 and ourselves with 10. The treasonable common fisheries policy is even more entrenched because unanimity in the Council of Ministers is required to change it; and neither Spain nor Holland is likely to agree to do so.
Much store is set in modern European politics on the word "widening" or "enlargement". But if the common agricultural policy cannot be revised, the Community cannot afford to admit new members unless they are allowed to join on varying terms or through the variable geometry referred to by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Friday. To pretend otherwise seems to me to be rather cruel to the countries that wish to get in.
In view of the firmer stance taken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday, I put it to my noble friend on the Front Bench that we shall soon have a golden opportunity to put all this right—because our European competitors will need our consent to delay their timetable for monetary union. It must be obvious now that the countries of Europe are not going to meet the convergence criteria. We have the word of Herr Nõlling in The Times yesterday as the latest example of doubt in that regard.
So we could allow our European competitors to play with what I regard as the dangerous toy of monetary union at their end of the nursery, but only if they give us all our toys back to play with at our end of the nursery. If they do not agree, we really should go and join the grown-ups.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, to put it mildly, this is a timely debate. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins confessed in his opening remarks, we put down this Motion a week or two ago because we felt it right to devote part of our precious debating time to our relations with Germany, at a time when we believed that great damage was being done to Britain's national interest by the xenophobic attitude of parts of the Tory press and Tory party. We did not foresee the dramatic worsening of the beef crisis that took place this week with the blocking minority of European Union vets preventing progress being made towards lifting the ban and the consequent rush of blood to the Prime Minister's head in the other place yesterday. That, I am happy to say, has not added xenophobia to the tone of your Lordships' debate, as one would expect, but it has certainly added to the xenophobic tone of the press today. When noble Lords see tonight's Evening Standard, they will find that that particular infection has crossed the Channel and the press on the mainland of Europe are equally hysterical about Britain's position at the moment.
As for the beef crisis which has intruded on our debate today, it seems to me that what I regard as the perverse judgment of the European vets at their meeting
884
on Monday shows every sign of being overturned in a week or two by the normal processes of the European Union. I do not feel that it was wise of the Prime Minister to aggravate mad cow disease by engaging in a dose of mad politician disease. We understand—nobody better than those of us who have served in Brussels—the sense of frustration that he and the Government feel. But patience rather than petulance would have been the wiser course for the Prime Minister to have taken.
I prefer to look back to the time when the Prime Minister first took office. I remind noble Lords that he said how proud he was that the very first speech that he made outside the United Kingdom was when he was with Chancellor Kohl in Bonn. In that speech he made his famous commitment:
"I want us to be where we belong—at the very heart of Europe, working with our partners in building the future".
Sadly, since then Chancellor Kohl has been allowed to replace Jacques Delors as the prime scapegoat in the demonology of the Eurosceptics. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, Chancellor Kohl, who is perhaps not the greatest orator in the world, has had his speeches very badly distorted by sections of the British press. Personally, I was rather touched by what he said on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street after his last meeting with the Prime Minister. He made the disarming confession, which a number of us may share, that he had been moved as a 17 year-old by the rhetoric of Sir Winston Churchill at Zurich calling for a united states of Europe. But, he said, as a European, he knows that Europe and America are different. He said:
"We're still British and French and Germans and Swedes. It's not the same as being from Texas, or Minnesota, or Oregon, or New York".
He added:
"Never in my life have I been a supporter of a European superstate".
It is important to put the true views of the German Chancellor on the record.
The truth is that after the crimes of Nazism and the horrors of the Holocaust, the West has been singularly fortunate in the character and quality of the post-war German Chancellors. I mention Adenauer, Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. I well remember Helmut Schmidt making the speech of the day at a Labour Party Conference when the Labour Party was going through the same Eurosceptic traumas as the Conservative Party are presently suffering. In German leaders we have enjoyed a succession of great Europeans. We could have done with more of them in this country. For it is great Europeans rather than great nationalists that the world needs for the next century.
The current anti-German hysteria owes a great deal to the legacy of the instinctive anti-Germanism of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. My non-parliamentary colleague, Professor Alan Watson, has recently written a fascinating chapter on the relations between the former Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl. It includes her extraordinary remark when celebrating the 40th anniversary of Anglo-German friendship through the Kõnigswinter Conferences, referred to by a number of noble Lords. She mentioned to some of the most

885
distinguished Germans there that it would be another 40 years before anybody in this country would trust Germany.
We all respect the noble Baroness's conviction politics, even when we disagree with them, but there is no doubt at all that in relation to Germany they have been disastrous. The present Prime Minister bravely tried to make a fresh start when he took over, but the tide of jingoism in his own ranks has been too much for him.
There has been some mention of the psychology of the Germans and their sense of insecurity. I am always rather puzzled by what I regard as the curious lack of self-confidence in this country which lies behind the patriotic bluster about Germany and indeed about closer European integration generally. We did not lack self-confidence when we had to stand alone in the Second World War. We did not show any lack of self-confidence when Prime Minister Churchill gave his own vision of a united states of Europe or when he proposed a British-French union. I listened with great interest to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Annan, who said that after the war we played a leading part in shaping the new democratic structures which rose out of the ashes of Nazism. After all, we had plenty of constitutional expertise in planning federations throughout the Commonwealth. There were never any hang-ups about the "f'-word in the Empire. It seems curious that we are so deeply hypnotised by it today. Indeed, we were a good deal more successful in the post-war years in contributing to modernising German government and German trade unions than we were in modernising our own institutions.
The debate has come down to the question of the best way for Britain to conduct her European foreign policy during the early years of the next century. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that Europe has forgotten wars. Tell that to the citizens of former Yugoslavia!
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and other noble Lords suggested that the right way to go forward would be to return to a Europe of co-operating nation states. I prefer the advice given to us by my noble friend Lady Seear. I believe that the only serious way forward for Britain is to be a leading and influential participant in the multilateral alliance of the European Union. France and the other members of the European Union need Britain firmly inside the Union as an active participant to balance the population and economic strength of a united Germany. The balance of power in Europe, so long the concern of British diplomacy, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, now has to be managed inside the institutions of the Union.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, mentioned the classic concept of the Concert of Europe of our Victorian predecessors, whom he greatly admired, and rightly so in the circumstances of the time. But the Concert of Europe now takes place inside the Council of Ministers.
The Government have for the moment set themselves on a new policy of non-cooperation in the European Union—we await some details from the Minister to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Mayhew. We can only hope that on both sides (on our side with the
886
policy of non-cooperation and on the side of our partners with their ban on British beef) there may be the swiftest possible reconciliation of these matters before the Government find themselves further down the slippery slope so warmly recommended to them by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a moment or two ago.
Of course, we can opt out of the European Union in due course. We can do it either totally or by salami-style slices of opt-outs. But the result would be to leave us as an offshore island off the mainland of Europe—indeed, as an offshore island of Ireland when it came to it.
The truth is that the Franco-German reconciliation is at the heart of Europe today. It is not going to break up and they and those around them will go ahead on one timetable or another and create a single currency, create economic monetary union and create a closer integration. The question is whether we are going to be a major influential participant in that or simply stand on the sidelines having to react to decisions taken by others that will greatly affect us. That will be a pathetic option for a great country like Britain that still has a great deal to give the world.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like other speakers, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing this debate. But I must apologise for arriving a little late. I was caught in the most horrendous traffic jam, though I just about managed to refrain from road rage.
I welcome the debate both because of its topicality and importance and because of the personal interest in and affection that I feel for Germany, having spent time there learning German when I was at school. Indeed, one of the greatest disappointments of my life was my failure to win a travel scholarship to go to the University of Heidelberg, something I believe the Minister achieved.
Germany occupies a vital position in the world. It is easily the largest and most economically powerful country in the Community. Unsurprisingly, it is now considered by the United States Government and most of their senior advisers to be the most important European ally—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Its geographical position and economic power make it the most influential West European country in Eastern Europe—the former Soviet Union. It has chosen to build on its strength in relation to those countries through its investment policies.
While Germany is not currently a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations, any discussion of enlargement of the permanent membership—and there has been plenty—invariably includes Germany as a major contender for inclusion. The German constitution currently precludes the deployment of the German armed forces in conflicts outside Germany. But that may change, just as there may be changes at the United Nations. Meanwhile, Germany is a powerful member of NATO and a major contributor to it as well as to the cost of conflicts such as the Gulf War.

887
In those circumstances, Anglo-German relations are of the utmost importance and any deterioration in that relationship would be a cause for serious concern. It is, however, through our membership of the European Union that our relationship with Germany takes on greater significance, as a number of other speakers have indicated. And I have no intention of discussing the beef crisis other than strongly to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said regarding the value of "patience rather than petulance".
Before turning to Europe I should like to say something about the economic position of Germany, which has not been covered in this debate as much as I thought it might have been but which is very relevant both to our bilateral economic and trade relations and to future developments in the European Union.
It ill becomes members of the party opposite to crow about recent German economic difficulties. In their 17 years in power the Conservative Government can hardly claim to have made a resounding success of their handling of the economy. I will concede that they have achieved low levels of inflation in recent years, though at considerable cost to employment. But, if low inflation is to be the beacon of economic success to which we turn, the Germans have a better record than the United Kingdom throughout the period and still have a lower level than the UK today. Moreover, in spite of recent difficulties, German output is still considerably higher than that of the UK, so that on average standards of living are 15 per cent. higher for a citizen of Germany than for someone living in Britain.
In spite of the fact that growth in Germany was only at 1.9 per cent. last year and is predicted by most analysts to be rather lower this year, few doubt that the German economy will recover—for not only is Germany the largest European economy; it is also the strongest, in spite of current difficulties. Criticisms can of course be made of rigidities in the German labour market and the high cost of the social welfare system. However, high levels of investment in German industry and one of the best trained workforces in Europe have helped to sustain the underlying strength of its economy.
Predictions about levels of German exports this year, even from the usually rather gloomy Bundesbank, are positive and even last year Germany's substantial visible trade surplus had returned to pre-unification levels. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe referred to unification and its importance in building stability in Europe as a whole. Given the enormous bills that were involved in unification, in which West Germany reunited with a country of 15 million people with hardly a piece of industry or machinery in it which was not obsolete, it is not surprising that the German economy took a big knock. If its service sector expands, as many Germans now realise must happen, unemployment will fall and higher growth will follow.
While some members of the Conservative Party and some sections of the Tory press take pleasure in exaggerating the economic decline of Germany, German institutions remain strong enough to buy British companies in both the manufacturing and service
888
sectors. No one taking part in this debate could have forgotten, even if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, had not reminded them, that quite recently BMW took over Rover—the last major British-owned car company in the UK—and the Deutsche Bank bought Morgan Grenfell, to give but two examples. Indeed, Britain is the most important destination for foreign investment by German companies.
Nor are economic troubles in Germany in our long-term interest. For all the talk about the importance of the Far East to UK exports, our exports to the rapidly growing countries of the Pacific Rim, after growing for some years, still only amounted to 5.9 per cent. of the total last year compared with 57 per cent. to the European Union, of which 13.1 per cent. was to Germany alone. Germany is our most important trading partner, topping the table for both imports and exports, and more important even than the USA. Incidentally, Germany is also France's biggest export market.
So low growth and unemployment in Germany invariably affect us adversely, given the significance of our trade relationship. Clearly Germany's economic situation matters a great deal in the wider European context. If it is unable to meet the Maastricht criteria within the timetable, economic monetary union is unlikely to happen. However, Chancellor Kohl's determination to move ahead to greater integration, including a single currency, is indisputable. As we saw yesterday, a package of social and economic reforms has been introduced in Germany to try to ensure that it meets those criteria. Speculation that it will not looks a little premature and is just another sign of wishful thinking by the British Government and their supporters.
Other speakers referred to Chancellor Kohl's speech in Belgium a couple of months ago when he suggested that,
"the question of war and peace in the 21st century really hinges on the progress of European integration".
That is a bit plonking perhaps, but did it really justify the torrent of hostile comment in this country, led by the former Cabinet Minister John Redwood, who accused Herr Kohl of "looking backwards" and "living in the past"?
The implication of some of the cruder attacks was that Germany was threatening us with war if we refused to comply with further integration. In fact what Chancellor Kohl was expressing was what all those great German Chancellors to whom the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, referred, from Adenauer on, and indeed the founding fathers of the European Union and many others have always believed. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and other speakers have pointed out, what today's German leaders fear is that the size and strength of a unified Germany will breed resentment in Britain and the rest of Europe. Binding Germany into a more integrated Europe is central to their strategy for dissipating such resentment. Paradoxically, in this country it seems to have done the reverse, at least among the Conservative Right-wing. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government accept the reality of German power and the potential benefits of Germany being locked into a partnership

889
with the rest of the European Union on current terms. Will she also dissociate herself from the remarks of her right honourable friend Mr. Redwood?
The enlargement of the European Union will shift the centre of Europe to the east, with Germany at the heart of Europe geographically, politically and economically. The countries of Eastern Europe frequently look to Germany, as their nearest Western neighbour and the Western European country with by far the closest economic ties, for support on NATO membership and meeting the conditions of joining the European Union. In this respect enlargement can only enhance Germany's influence.
Beyond Europe, the Foreign Secretary has floated the idea of a revised Atlantic community. I suspect that one of the motives on the Government's part is to placate the Euro-sceptics in their midst. The Minister may say otherwise. But whatever the motives, Germany would be at the heart of such a community. No American administration is likely to see it otherwise.
If this analysis is correct, Germany must be central to British foreign policy. We need to work hard to foster good relations. It should not be difficult. Herr Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, recently made clear the importance he attaches to good relations with us and in particular to Britain playing a central role in Europe. He picked out the need for Britain to play a leading part in shaping European foreign and defence policy. If we are to rise to this challenge, a more positive stance in Europe and a more realistic one on such matters as majority voting will be needed.
There are bound to be disagreements from time to time. But when they occur, as most recently on BSE, the orgy of Hun bashing indulged in by sections of the British press is inexcusable, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have already said. I recently sat next to the German Ambassador at dinner, who had been justifiably shocked by the virulence of these attacks. It is bad enough from tabloid journalists. But when Tory MPs make tasteless remarks about Germans getting "too big for their jackboots", it is even worse and can only encourage xenophobia and anti-German sentiments. Some of the vulgar stereotyping that takes place is regrettably based on envy and the failure to come to terms with our own relative economic failure and national decline. Some people, I fear, have still not quite forgiven the defeated Germans for their economic success since the Second World War.
I hope the younger generation will see things differently and that more of them will spend time in Germany, as I was lucky enough to do. When I was there not only did I learn to appreciate Weisswiirst but also Weisswiirst mit Kartoffelsalat and Sauerkraut. These exchanges must go on. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, rightly said, we have to build on relationships from below and not just from above. While we may be unable to speak their language, they speak ours. There are rich educational and cultural ties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, more and more German students now spend time studying in Britain. There is then a strong base on which we can build a
890
constructive relationship with Germany. If we fail to build that relationship, we will only hasten our national and international decline.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for raising the important subject of Anglo-German, or as I prefer to say British-German, relations in the House today. Some of your Lordships will recall that at the end of a debate earlier this year when we were discussing mainly European Union matters I felt moved to speak firmly about the very negative attitude towards Germany that had been expressed. I find that those who set out to stir up people's negative attitudes do themselves and our country harm. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who spoke of the British media in such forceful terms, I think it is high time that we started looking at what we stand for and what we want and stop pulling other people apart for what seems to be the sake of it.
I feel so deeply about this issue because I went to Germany as a young student in 1961. I was in Berlin when the wall went up and I was evacuated back to Britain. Because I have seen Germany through these past 30 or so years perhaps I can take a little more pride in the things that have gone right, a good deal of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said, as a result of the tremendous help the United Kingdom gave Germany in the post-war years. We have nothing to reproach ourselves for in having done that and everything to be pleased about. It is a pity that at certain times we did not take the same lessons ourselves in our efforts to help Germany over some of her difficult developments. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to review the state of our usual bilateral relationship with such an important partner in Europe.
I was rather disappointed at times by what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said. However, I shall put that on one side because I know that he wants our relationship with Germany to improve and our relationships within Europe to be good. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy judged the relations very accurately in what he said in his contribution. He paid tribute, although not in quite so many words, to the so-called "quiet alliance" between the United Kingdom and Germany which continues to function as well as ever. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, spoke of the Chirac state visit but did not mention the annual British-German summit which took place as recently as 29th April in London. There the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl had useful and wide-ranging talks on a number of issues, many of which have been raised in your Lordships' debate today.
Their summit, like its predecessors, was the culmination of a series of meetings between Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Trade, Ministers concerned with the economy, Ministers of Defence and also Ministers of Overseas Development. Herr Spranger and I meet on a very regular basis and find that the meetings, which enable

891
us to discuss detailed policy, are an essential part of our working together in the European Union. I know that the meetings my colleagues hold with their opposite numbers are similarly helpful. That goes on, unsung maybe; but it is nevertheless vitally important for the kind of relationships which we should have with our leading partner in the European Union.
The talks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister focused very much on the future development of the European Union. The debate tonight should be, and is, about British-German relations, but perhaps I may say a word or two about European Union and then leave the subject alone, for it is one that we debate with great frequency in this House. I believe that Germany deserves the time that I have left to speak tonight.
When we were talking about the future development of the European Union with our German colleagues, it was quite clear that they share our views on subsidiarity. They share our views on the importance of employment and are indeed quite jealous of the position that we now hold, with one of the highest rates of adult employment of any major country in Europe. They also share our views on the enlargement of the European Union.
We can agree that the UK and Germany will continue to work together closely in all areas in order to make advances. That goes on all the time, but one would not have thought it at times from listening to the debate this evening. We all recognise that the German Government are much more enthusiastic about EMU than we are, but our summit on 29th April was a welcome further opportunity for the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl, as friends, to discuss the UK position and the German position.
That summit brought out the closeness of UK and German views on defence issues, too. The discussion covered the adaptation of NATO structures and the whole question of NATO enlargement and how it can be in the interests of both countries and in the interests of Europe and a wider peace. Therefore, I believe it is clear that defence co-operation with Germany is not only deep but wide-ranging. For his part, Chancellor Kohl underlined the importance that he attaches to Germany's relations with the United Kingdom, to the UK's role in Europe and also to his excellent personal relationship with the Prime Minister, which continues.
These meetings, along with the frequent and intensive contacts that I have already mentioned which regularly take place at all levels between British and German Ministers and between other politicians and officials, serve to demonstrate the strength of the ties that bind our two nations and the breadth of agreement that we enjoy on a wide range of issues. That is right. It is important and it must continue. It is something to which all of us involved, not only in the field of foreign affairs but in the reality of Europe and the future of this country, must pay due attention.
I have noticed how critically the commercial relationship between the United Kingdom and Germany has been built up by the BDI, which is the
892
German equivalent of the CBI, through contacts which have been made by the Anglo-German Industrial Foundation and through numerous contacts between trade organisations in both countries working together through chambers of commerce and the Handelskammer. There is a major network of relationships in trade and commerce. Now, with the growing investment by Germans in the City of London, we see a whole new financial network building up. That is right and proper: it is European, it is positive and it is good for Britain and Germany.
In 1994 the United Kingdom exported goods to the value of £17.7 billion to Germany and imported £22.7 billion-worth. If we compare this to the figures for 1973, when trade in both directions totalled only £2.2 billion, it is clear how this aspect of our British-German relationship has blossomed in the intervening years. Germany is the UK's largest market worldwide for visible trade. The bilateral investment, which has been referred to several times, is impressive.
I understand that there are now over 900 United Kingdom firms with a presence in Germany, and over 1,500 German firms, employing some 137,000 workers, have investments in the United Kingdom. Like Britain, Germany is a firm believer in open markets and a liberal international trading environment. We work closely together wherever we can in the European Union and the World Trade Organisation to pursue these common objectives. That is the way in which we can help not only our own countries but the overall improvement of trade on a worldwide basis.
However, the British-German relationship does not rest solely on trade and contacts between governments. That is why a number of your Lordships have underlined the importance of contacts and friendships between ordinary people which are equally, if not more, important. There are dozens of town-twinnings with Germany. Next year it will be the 50th anniversary of the twinning arrangements with Germany. There are about 8,000 Germans studying at UK universities but, sadly, not as many British students in Germany: there are only about 2,500. At school level there are no central statistics. Sadly, German is not a language which is much used these days in schools as it was perhaps in my day. I believe that that has something to do with the excellent teaching of English in German schools and the determination of every young German to speak English at every opportunity. There are about 20,000 school children involved in school exchanges each year.
I was very interested in the reference to Sir Robert Birley's Youth Bridge. It may interest noble Lords to know that the Anglo-German Association has started the Jugendbrücke again and it is working extremely well. We want to arrange more exchanges between young people, because where the exchanges are well built they are foundations which will prevent the problems which some people fear ever occurring again.

893
Another reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to the KÖnigswinter Conference, which has been taking place every year since 1950. Some would say that I am a little biased having attended the conference on and off for the past 20 years. I pay tribute not only to the founders but to people like Sir Frank Roberts and so many others who have gone on insisting that people from all walks of life, leading their own communities in their countries, should come together on an annual basis. It is a conference funded by both governments and business, where politicians, public servants, academics and others with an interest in British-German relations get together for stimulating discussions about issues of importance in both countries. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that the conference has changed over the years, but it is none the worse for that. Some excellent discussions took place again this year in Cambridge.
Despite this close and solid relationship, it is a sad fact that there are negative stereotypes and prejudices which are sometimes played up by the press. That does not apply only to what is written about German people, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, they seem to suffer in our media more than most. We have to do our best to counter this negative phenomenon. At the summit in 1994 the Prime Minister and the Chancellor agreed to a range of co-operative projects designed to improve the understanding of the UK in Germany and of Germany in the UK.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked me about raising the awareness of Germany, perhaps through the Foreign Office and the British Council. I am pleased to say that the progress of the 1994 initiative is the result of intense co-operation between the Foreign Office, the Auswärtiges Amt, the German Federal Information Office and the UK Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. For almost a year now a German links officer has been working at the central bureau. She has put UK and German schools in touch with each other, and that is the beginning of a healthy new partnership. The directory of British-German co-operation has already been published and widely distributed both in this country and in Germany. I can commend it as a source of great information for anyone interested in doing business with Germany.
There were a number of references about the future of this country within the Community and to this country's relationship with Germany and that between France and Germany. We very much welcome the good relationship between France and Germany. We believe that it is vital for the stability of Europe. However, a good German-French relationship is not incompatible with good UK-French relations or good UK-German relations—and nor should it ever be so. We are not in competition with each other, as seems to be thought in some journals. Indeed, with both Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac here in the past three weeks, we have had more good opportunities to bring together the views of all three countries. As well as trying to cultivate good bilateral relations, we are actively looking for areas in
894
which we can co-operate on a trilateral basis because we believe that that is fundamentally important for the success of the European Union.
One good example of that is the UK's recent decision to collaborate with France and Germany in the development of the new multi-role armoured vehicle. That in turn will facilitate the involvement of this country in the Franco-German Armaments Agency and although nobody wants our co-operation to relate only to armaments, it is a good sign of sensible co-operation which can really work.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Blackstone, both mentioned the United States and the relationship of the United States with Germany or with others in Europe. All three countries in Europe want a vigorous transatlantic partnership. It is essential for all three countries that we have that if we are to achieve good, sound foreign policy objectives. One of our top priorities is to sustain and enhance that.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has decided to set up a new UK/US/German trilateral forum of parliamentarians from the three countries. I am certain that that will become quadrilateral in time because there is always the other dimension with France to be considered. There is no doubt that the initiative, with the support of the German Government and US Congressional leaders, which was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl last month is a very important further step in our relations. It will take off with the first meeting towards the end of June in this country. On that occasion, we shall focus on the problems of welfare reform in western democracies. Other subjects will be considered at further meetings.
My noble friend Lord Beloff mentioned German relations with Iran. We are absolutely certain that the Germans share our concerns about Iran and the objective of bringing about an improvement in Iranian behaviour. All the evidence suggests that they have the same view of the situation as we have and as my noble friend expressed it.
In talking about the wider relationship, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, challenged me in forthright terms to explain exactly what the Prime Minister's Statement yesterday will mean in practice. I recommend that the noble Lord reads yesterday's Hansard of the exchanges with my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. If the noble Lord is not satisfied by that, perhaps I can advise him that we shall raise the question of lifting the ban on beef derivatives at all Councils and, if necessary, we shall ask for special Councils. There is a very good and sound reason for that: the ban is not based on scientific evidence. Furthermore, the ban is harming not only British industry but as long as it exists it will harm German industry, French industry and the beef industry in general. That is why it is right that the matter should be raised on every possible occasion.
Of course, if others are totally intransigent, we shall be prepared to block measures requiring unanimity. That has been done to us on many occasions. We do not like doing it; we hope that it will not be necessary; we hope that we shall resolve the matter quickly, but it is

895
absolutely right that we stand up for British farmers and the British meat industry. Given that others would not agree—despite our attempts to get them to agree during the past six or seven weeks—that was the option that we had to take and my right honourable friend rightly took it.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we have co-operated previously on BSE. I shall write to the noble Baroness with details of the number of visits between scientists and the number of discussions between parliamentarians that have happened not just this year but in previous years. It is not true to say that we have not tried; we have, but we have not succeeded, so we shall try to find another way forward.
Many other points have been raised, but in the last minute that is now available to me perhaps I may say simply that if some of your Lordships think that I have painted too positive a picture of British-German relations, I am sorry but I think that it is right to look forward. I think that the future holds many positive opportunities for Britain in Europe, alongside our partners, Germany and France. This is not the easiest time to make such a statement from the Dispatch Box, but I do believe that, although our geography, history and constitutional experiences are different—in some ways, even our thinking is different—we are both mature democracies and we are both prepared to look to the ways in which we can capitalise on the benefits that we can gain from our close relationship.
Britain and Germany are, and will remain, key players in setting out how Europe will develop over the coming years. It is not just a question of the institutions of the Union, but of the Union's relationship and our two countries' relationships with the rest of Europe, especially with Russia and its former allies. Together, we want to see a strong Europe and a free Europe. We are both concerned about the dangers of instability and about competitiveness at home in the face of challenges from outside Europe. We are concerned about the need for a Europe which is deregulated internally and which adheres strictly to the principle of subsidiarity; about the need for financial discipline in the budget; about the need for a cohesive common foreign and security policy; and about the need for a strong and viable NATO.
Britain and Germany have come a long way since the dark years immediately following the Second World War. We are working together in more ways than I have been able to explain to your Lordships in these 20 minutes. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was absolutely right: we did hold out the hand of friendship after the Second World War. Some of us are continually seeking to make sure that that handshake is firm and that those relations are based on understanding. I hope that that will long continue.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. She always gives us a good answer and she certainly did this evening. The noble Baroness also always manages to combine what
896
I regard as her basic liberal, internationalist convictions with her loyalty to the Government in a very engaging and acceptable way.
I do not greatly believe in second-bite speeches and I shall not engage in any argument, particularly as I must apologise to the House for running two minutes over time in my opening speech. One of the things that eight-and-a-half years in your Lordships' House has taught me—much more than the standard 39 years in the other place—is the advantage of brief speeches and of sticking to the time limit. Therefore, I shall expiate my sin of this afternoon by taking hardly any time at all now and making only a few brief comments.
I thank all those who have participated in the debate. I was very much struck by the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made a speech of striking eloquence. I did not agree with his conclusion, but that did not obtrude too much on the speech because it rather reminded me of speeches by the late Mr. Richard Crossman: you could never quite tell until the end which side he would come down on. I thought that the noble Lord underestimated the existence of a problem with Anglo-German relations. The noble Lord knows quite a lot about Japan; I am not sure that he knows quite so much about Germany. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who knows a great deal more, recognised that there is a problem.
The speeches that have been made by your Lordships this afternoon will have assisted somewhat in assuaging that problem. It is remarkable that we have managed to have a debate which has been so little dominated by the beef crisis. That shows your Lordships' capacity for taking a wider view.
I do not delude myself into believing that these words will be read in every Weinstübe in Germany, but I believe that they will be read by a limited number of influential people and that, on balance, they will have a substantial effect. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Royal Assent
6 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount St. Davids): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Act,

Reserve Forces Act,

National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act,

Police Act,

Industrial Tribunals Act,

Employment Rights Act.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Overseas Trade
6.2 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to call attention to Britain's overseas trade and its significance for the economy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no doubt about the importance of overseas trade to the British economy. Taking our gross visible exports alone, they represent something like 20 per cent. of GDP and a substantial amount is also represented by the invisible side. Over the years there have been many successes in both visible and invisible exports.
I initiate the debate at this time because it is just over 10 years since the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade was issued. It was perhaps one of the most important reports of a Select Committee in recent years. The committee was presided over very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. He has asked me to say that, regrettably, he is unable to participate in the debate this evening. I am delighted that, apart from myself, two members of that committee, the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Selsdon, will participate this evening. I am grateful to all other noble Lords who are to participate. In particular, I look forward with much anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyth of Rowington.
The report drew attention to the fact that for the first time we were running into a deficit on visible trade. Because of the possible implications of a continuation of that deficit, the committee made a careful review of the situation. It interviewed a large number of witnesses and made a number of recommendations. Somewhat to the surprise of those who participated in the committee—which came to a unanimous conclusion and represented all sides of the House—the report was severely criticised by senior Ministers as soon as it appeared. The first criticisms were made even before it appeared. The Treasury took the view that we were wasting our time and there was no need to worry about the trade balance because over the years it would be a self-correcting exercise. Those who are interested in that rather detached view of life should turn to paragraphs 69 and 70 of the report where that view is set out. The committee did not share it.
Unfortunately, the concerns of the committee have been justified by subsequent events, in that, although there have been fluctuations between one year and another, there has been a negative balance on visible account every year since 1983. In 1985 it was £3 billion and in 1995 it was over £11 billion, in spite of a continuing contribution from North Sea oil. Incidentally, the committee got it wrong. It believed that North Sea oil would not be contributing at that stage. Unfortunately, it has however been proved right that in spite of the contribution of North Sea oil the adverse balance is as high as it is. There has also been a positive contribution from invisibles, thus reducing the net overall imbalance on current account to just over £6 billion. The figures for January and February suggest that this situation is likely to continue for the time being. The Office for National Statistics states that
898
the latest estimate of trend, based on the February figures, suggests that the visible deficit is widening. The NatWest Bank Economic Review for May 1996— I inform the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that I read it regularly—forecasts a widening of the current account deficit in 1997 and 1998 compared with 1996.
It is a rather sobering thought that, in spite of the considerable efforts, the visible gap is widening. After the positive contributions of oil and invisibles, we are left with a net deficit which, at any rate for the time being, appears to be widening. Of course, there have been many achievements by particular companies in particular sectors. The extent to which sales teams from Britain visit all parts of the world is most impressive. The Government's White Papers in 1994 and 1995 on competitiveness illustrate the considerable gains in productivity in British industry. These have been remarkable gains, and many companies are far more efficient than they were. Unfortunately, that has to be seen against a much reduced industrial base. The 1995 report indicates that the share of manufacturing in terms of GDP has fallen from 34 per cent. to 20 per cent. since 1970. It has also fallen in other countries, but ours is one of the steepest falls in Western Europe and indeed the developed world.
It is worth contemplating what we may do to try to correct these trends, reinforce the successes already achieved and expand our overseas operations in such a way as to narrow the gap, which has been with us for many years and could be with us for many more years unless action is taken to deal with it. The report in 1985 indicated a number of measures which the committee considered should be taken. In my opinion, if those measures had been taken seriously we would not be in quite the situation that we face today. I refer to two in particular: investment and macro-economic policy.
Our investment levels, although high, have unfortunately compared badly for a number of years with those of our main competitors in the rest of the world. Regrettably, the recent trend, far from improving, has deteriorated further. The Economic Indicators Research Paper of 1st May 1996, which is issued by the House of Commons Library—I wish to be quite clear about the text from which I quote—indicates that in 1995 total gross capital formation dropped by 0.7 per cent. compared with 1994 and was 11.5 per cent. lower than the peak of 1989. Both in the private and public sectors investment has been falling. While some improvement is expected in 1996 and 1997, the pace will remain slow.
What is required is a framework to stimulate a greater rate of investment. It is that to which I now turn. It raises the question of macro-economic policy. Government economic policy at present is concentrated on holding down inflation, with which we all agree, by using the interest rate mechanism as the main weapon to achieve it. The unfortunate result of using that weapon is a level of interest rates which is higher than that of our major competitors. For example, if one looks at Britain's main competitors in Western Europe, interest rates vary between 2 and 4 per cent., whereas here the rate is 6 per cent.
At the same time the Government are pursuing a relaxed fiscal policy, monetary and fiscal policies being their two economic weapons. We have a strong policy for keeping up interest rates to deal with inflation but at the same time relaxed fiscal policy, for reasons which I have no doubt the other side of the House will be able to explain better than we can, to reduce taxes, as was done in the last Budget, and, despite the Chancellor's warnings, there is strong pressure for that to be done in the next Budget.
The result of that juxtaposition of policies of course is to give signals which lead, on the one hand, to a reduction in the level of investment, inhibited by higher interest rates, and therefore of export capability and import substitution capability, while, on the other hand, there is a stimulus of consumer spending by giving people more money to dispose of. So we find ourselves moving into a situation in which we are probably doing the reverse of what we should be doing. What we should be doing is increasing investment and exports, and until those increases have been achieved, not stimulating consumer demand, because consumer demand stimulated at a time when investment is relatively low, and when our export proportions are also relatively low compared with imports, merely means that the extra consumer demand will be met by a higher level of imports. Then we shall be back in the situation in which we were in the late 1980s, with all those unfortunate consequences. That has to be avoided.
In 1993, and to some degree in 1994, we achieved the virtuous position of having what looked like export-led and investment-led growth. Unfortunately it lasted for a short time only. It is the application of the macro-economic policies to which I have referred which contributed to the problem that we now face.
I have tried to take a view over the 10 years since the 1985 report was produced. I have, I hope, paid tribute to the great successes we have achieved in our export trade, both visibles and invisibles. I am certain that we possess the skills, abilities and resources to get right the relationship between exports and imports, but we have not yet achieved that. I believe that a large measure of that is due to the fact that we have not yet adopted the right mix of macro-economic policies. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that when he replies.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate on such an important subject. Like him, I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Blyth of Rowington. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, he and I served, with others, on the Select Committee in 1984–85. We came to a number of conclusions. Some were right, and some time has shown to be less right. Perhaps I may deal with those in a moment.
The noble Lord concentrated this evening on the figures since 1984–85. I ask him to be wary of many of the statistics that are produced, which are summed up in
900
a balance sheet and current account and then displayed around the place to recommend every change in policy that should ever be made.
It is correct that in 1984 the adverse visible balance was said to be about £3.8 billion. That was later changed to £5.3 billion. Today, on a similar basis, it is something like £11.5 billion. I ask the noble Lord to look at the details of those figures. In 1994, which is the last full year for which figures are available, the balance on current account was £2 billion, which is substantially less. Those are the only figures of which I have the details, because the figures for 1995 are not fully available.
In that figure we had deficits from the EU of £7 billion and from EFTA of £9 billion. I shall return to that point. There were positive surpluses from the USA, Africa, Australia, Canada, South Africa and a number of other countries. I was intrigued as to why EFTA should be showing a £9 billion deficit. Of that, £7.3 billion comes from Switzerland. I could not believe that we had bought that number of cuckoo clocks or Swiss chocolate to account for that figure. It seems that the bulk of the deficit is the result of travel. Travel represents an enormous part of the deficits that we have with France, Spain and other places. Travel represents a large item in the current account balance.
On the other side, our investment income has a healthy surplus of £11 billion. There was one figure which intrigued me. It is what is called transfers made without a quid pro quo. When one looks at that figure one sees that there is a deficit of about £5 billion—I am sorry to give all these figures—for things such as institutions of the Economic Community. There are transfers in the form of aid to non-OECD countries and such things. These figures—£5 billion here and £7 billion there—make the balance on the current account shrink into insignificance, yet the implication in using the figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, did, is to suggest that we are not making enough widgets or are buying too much from abroad.
Those are factors, and the figures are a warning. However, we should not take those figures without looking behind them to see what are the real components of the deficit about which we are talking. All kinds of other figures come into the totals in various forms. In view of the time available, and with my lack of knowledge, I shall not refer to the details. The European Investment Bank and the European Atomic Energy Authority appear in the balance of payments. Then we have capital transactions.
When we buy a few jumbo jets, we pay a great deal of money. They last for 20 years or whatever it is. They will be revenue-producing for a long time. In the commercial world one puts the capital investment in the jumbo on one side and shows depreciation year by year on the balance sheet. That is not so in government

901
accounts. However many million it is, it goes straight down as cash out, and the revenue and benefit from that money does not appear in that year's accounts.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should like to remind the noble Lord that I was referring primarily to the visible account. He seems to be concentrating on the invisibles.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am concentrating on them both. They are both involved. The jumbo to which I referred is a very visible purchase. The same applies to a great deal of plant and machinery purchased from abroad, which is expected to have a long life.
When one looks at the cash balance, whether it is a deficit or a surplus, that probably indicates a trend. We should be alert and not by any means ignore it. I accept that, as the noble Lord said, we should watch to see the way any trends are going. We should also look behind the figures to see whether they result from far more people going skiing in Switzerland rather than far more people buying widgets from Germany and not selling them anything in return, or whatever the case may be.
I have looked at the 1985 Select Committee report. I had the honour to be a member with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Selsdon. Some of the conclusions are wrong. We said that oil would probably run out by 1980. Thank goodness it has not, and will not do so for a long time ahead, I hope. However, it contributes less to the economy than it did in 1985.
We also referred in the report to the national attitude. As we said, that was having an adverse effect on our trade. I believe that the national attitude is much better now, but this is an area where much progress can still be made. Much of that progress involves education. Improvements in educating young people are needed to enable them to develop an aptitude for manufacturing and not just to enter it unskilled. A great deal is being done in that field but much more still needs to be done. There is also a national attitude towards manufacturing which I find disappointing in that people become excited if their son or nephew obtains a management job in the City but not so excited if he obtains a similar management job in—I was going to say British Rail workshops, but that does not exist now—a manufacturing business. We do not attach enough pride to the achievements of those who play an important part in manufacturing. I hope that we can do more in that field.
We referred in the report to competitiveness. There have been great improvements over the past 10 years in the competitiveness of British industry. Our industrial relations were at a low ebb at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. We now have excellent industrial relations and great credit is due to both sides of industry—if I can still use that term—for what they have achieved, and are achieving in that field. We referred to productivity in the report. Productivity in this country has grown faster since 1980 than that of any other country in the G7. That is no small achievement. The noble Lord referred to lack of investment, but our investment has been rising in an extremely satisfactory
902
way. I believe that our investment in plant and machinery has been increasing at a rate of something like 10 per cent. per annum, certainly in recent years.
We referred in the report to the problems of interest rates and taxes. The noble Lord said that interest rates and taxation were both two sides of the same coin. It is an argument which I hope he will reflect on when we debate EMU in this House. He will perhaps consider that argument relevant in that context in separating control of fiscal policy from the control of monetary policy.
Export promotion was another subject which we made much of in the Select Committee. We are doing a great job in this area. We have an outlay of about £200 million a year on export promotion. Business Links—on which I hope my noble and learned friend will comment—is doing much to help in this field. We have made considerable achievements but we must not be complacent about them. We export more per head than Japan or the USA. That is something which does not seem to be generally recognised. If one told someone in the street that we export more per head than the Japanese, he would think that one was telling tales. However, it happens to be true and it is an important truth. We attract 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe and 40 per cent. of the USA's investment in Europe. That is a success story; the task is to make it even better.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has introduced this debate. I say that with all the sincerity I can muster. We have to have such debates but I, for one, cannot think of anything new to say. However, I hope that other noble Lords will do so. In welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Blyth of Rowington, I am certain that he will have something new to say; it is his chance to say something we have not heard before. I look forward very much to hearing that. If one cannot say anything new, one may as well recycle something that is old, and that is what I shall do for the next few minutes.
Let me start with the general question of why trade is important. We have the classic Ricardian theory we were taught as students that we are better off as a result of specialisation and competition and that we gain from variety. What is interesting about the modern trading world is how different it is from the Ricardian world. In the Ricardian world one imported some things and exported others. What is absolutely astonishing about contemporary modern world trade is that we import and export precisely the same things. Equally, we trade overwhelmingly with countries which are similar to ourselves. Ricardo would have been puzzled by both those phenomena.
Having said that, what we were taught, and what I still strongly believe, is that trade is intrinsic to the welfare of an advanced industrialised country; that we benefit from free trade; and that one of the great glories of the post-war world has been the massive rise in international trade relative to GDP. I believe that each

903
enhances the other but what is remarkable is the extraordinary rise in international trade. That is something that I, and I think all of us, welcome.
Our country, typically at one time ran a trade surplus, plus an invisible surplus, which financed a deficit in raw materials and things of that kind. However, in the past 10 years that has changed and we run a visible trade deficit. We run the transfers deficit to which the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, referred, but we have an investment income surplus. I agree that we should always be careful about figures, but that for 1994 is most peculiar. The investment income figure increased tenfold. There is something unbelievable about that figure. The obvious explanation is that our foreign assets are denominated in foreign currency terms, that the fall in the value of sterling will make it look as if our investment income is that much higher but that it does not represent any real growth in any valuable sense. However, we ought to be careful about that.
Wearing my academic hat, what is interesting is that I have taught all my career that one cannot run a balance of payments deficit indefinitely. However, we have been running a deficit for 10 years which is about as indefinite as one can imagine. Again, wearing my economist hat, I say it cannot go on. But it seems to be going on, and that is a puzzle. There is also the fact that the effective sterling exchange rate has been falling in value continuously for the past 15 years. We have been devaluing at about the rate of 2.5 per cent. per annum. There is obviously a connection but, with the pound floating, we do not have a balance of payments crisis. Whether that is a good or a bad thing we shall debate again one day when I hope the economists among us will get a chance to discuss EMU rather than leaving it in the hands of those who think it is a political matter. The only way I shall ever get into the debate is if we can somehow debate it as an economics matter.
I am totally in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in the belief that trade matters—I do not think any of us disagree—in a macro-economic sense. If we expand the economy too rapidly we shall pull in exports of manufactures in which case either the balance of payments will become adverse in a totally uncontrollable way or the inflation rate will get out of control. Echoing the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on macro-economic policy, with which I agree, I find it startling that despite the low inflation rate and the fact that GDP is growing at less than its underlying rate, the Bank of England is already panicking about inflation. I do not have a high view of the Bank of England, and never have, but its present macro-economic stance is extraordinary.
I now turn to what I consider the central issue. I say this again with an air of puzzlement and not really with a view to scoring political points off the Government. Without doubt there has been a distinct improvement in the rate of rise of manufacturing productivity. In my judgment we have somewhat closed the gap in productivity terms with our main competitors. The Government have favoured business in every way they can. They have attacked the trade unions: one may wish to use a less pejorative term. They have certainly freed
904
labour markets. Again, on the plus side, our share of world trade has stopped falling. I have spent a lot of time thinking through this issue without finding any answers. The puzzle is why we have not done better in terms of total output which, if we are that much more competitive, should be much larger and, secondly, why we have not improved our trade account. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I believe that the problem must lie with investment. The noble Lord said, I think, that the investment position is satisfactory. I must beg to disagree. The ratio of manufacturing investment to manufacturing output is now higher in broad terms than it was when this Government came to power. I am not criticising the Government. In view of all they have done the ratio should have risen drastically. Manufacturing capacity should be that much higher. We, in your Lordships' House, should not be moaning to the extent we are.
I can hypothesise but I just do not know why investment is not higher. Those of our friends from abroad who have acquired stakes in British industry have a high propensity to invest. What that says about our own management and boards of directors is almost too horrible to contemplate. The answer must clearly lie with management; I include boards of directors and not merely hands-on management. There is something wrong in that area.
I agree with my honourable and right honourable friends in the other place who stress strongly the need to improve the quality of the labour force, training and so on. One wants to see that happen. I remain of the opinion that that will help, but it will not solve the problem of what it is that frightens senior British management. There must be something. I am coming very close here to abandoning economics and suggesting that they may need psycho-therapeutic help rather than anything else.
I reiterate that I am not attacking the Government in this area. In a sense, given their approach, they have done all they can. They have asked industry to respond and in my judgment—I am sorry that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, because we agree on so many other things—industry has not responded satisfactorily.
I turn now to Europe. Trade, wherever it is, is valuable. Not long ago, I took part in a debate on South America. I learnt a great deal from just taking part in that debate. It is an area about which we hope to hear more. We must, however, realise how overwhelmingly important the European Community is to our trade. It represents more than half of our exports and more than half of our imports. We run a deficit with it but, as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, pointed out, we run more of a deficit with the non-EU part of Europe. There are those who tell us that we should be part of North America. But our trade with that region is now quite small. Therefore those—happily, they are not taking part in our debate—who emphasise the need to distance ourselves from Europe or even leave the Community altogether (I cannot find any other words for them) are insane. Our economic commitment is, and must be, to Europe.

905
I have a further black note to raise about what the future holds for the country. However, it is a black note which should have a happy ending. I look forward very much to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, because he is in the pharmaceutical sector. That is one area in which we have had enormous success.
Essentially, in advanced countries such as ours—and despite all the talk, we are still one of the major producers of the world—we engage in innovation, and it is on that which our future depends. We live by exporting the innovative products in which our national genius is embodied. We sell those products abroad. But gradually foreign countries copy those products. They simplify what we do and standardise it. They have lower wage costs and produce a similar and perhaps even slightly better product. We cannot then compete; we must innovate again.
My final conclusion is one I have put to your Lordships before. We are on a kind of innovative treadmill. If you want to stay rich and ahead of the game, you must find a new success every year. It is never over; you can never relax. That is why I still welcome the fact that your Lordships debate these matters. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving us the opportunity to do so today.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Blyth of Rowington: My Lords, I thank everyone for their welcome and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this debate: your Lordships will shortly understand why. I was introduced to this House in October last year and only now am I rising to speak. I could claim pressure of work or overseas travel and so on. In fairness, there is a large measure of blue funk involved. It is not high Tory electric blue but more of a feeble periwinkle. But I do have a bit of experience at this exporting game—and game it can be—which I thought I might share with your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships will forgive the intertwined personal history.
For the first dozen years of my business career, in the 1960s and early 1970s, I worked exclusively for American companies; and American companies at that time were in their heyday as exporters. Their export success was based on strong domestic demand, manufacturing efficiency, outstanding marketing—in my view—competitive pricing and, at the time, a very competitive currency.
By the time I was running a British company with strong export potential in the late 1970s—Lucas Aerospace—life on the other side of the fence was rather less comfortable. Our main domestic customer, Rolls-Royce, was still recovering from its 1971 bankruptcy. Labour relations consumed 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of my management time, and the dollar was at 2.40 to the pound.
To put that in industrial perspective, it took nearly five years of 12 per cent. per annum productivity increases in that company before we took the export content of the business to over 50 per cent. of sales—and that when the UK market represented less than 10 per cent. of the world market.
906
As head of defence sales at the Ministry of Defence in the 1980s, I started the negotiations and eventually won the agreement of Saudi Arabia on the highly valuable Al Yamamah programme. Our main product, the Tornado, was not the cheapest on offer to the Saudis—it is probable that the French Mirage 2000 was—but the Tornado was competitive with the rival American aircraft in performance and price and it outperformed the Mirage 2000 in its strike capability. More important, we had enormous political and industrial determination to get the order. That determination ran from the Prime Minister all the way to the assembly line at Warton.
At Boots, where I am now chief executive, I have responsibility for a fair-sized over the counter pharmaceutical business with two-thirds of its sales overseas, and that percentage is growing rapidly. Pharmaceuticals, of course, as has been mentioned, are second only to oil in their export value to this country—a £2 billion trade surplus in 1995. The industry sustains more than 300,000 jobs.
What lessons have I learned from all this that I can share with your Lordships? First, exports are a vital spur to domestic competitiveness. Secondly, the search for competitive advantage is all-important. The imposition or importation of social policies or working practices that reduce competitiveness should be eschewed. Thirdly, a competitively priced currency is as important as competitively priced products. Even the Germans and the Japanese are discovering that fact. Finally, organisations—indeed, countries—need to be export-focused to succeed. Their marketing has to be of a quality that allows genuine advantage to be gained from genuine competitiveness.
If we have any doubt about that, we should look to the tiger economies of the Pacific Rim. There lies the real competition. Moreover, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on investment, generally speaking, the hurdle rates applied by organisations in those countries are dramatically lower than those applied in the West. This country has been a great exporting nation for 200 years. It has not always provided the ideal climate for its exporters. Its present success—and we are successful in industries like pharmaceuticals and aerospace—has to be nurtured.
To that end, we must cease to regard membership of the European Union as any sort of long-term protection for our exporters. It seems to me that the route to commercial impotence is obsession with a sterile debate over the rules in one trading bloc while missing the importance of maintaining competitiveness in the world-wide marketplace. Governments of whatever hue must understand this and legislate accordingly. Most importantly of all, perhaps, exports will not thrive in a culture of ministerial—be it domestic or European—interference, but in one of lightly applied support.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth of Rowington, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure that all noble Lords

907
will agree with me when I say that the noble Lord has shown us the depth of his wide experience in the real economy. In a surprisingly short speech, the noble Lord covered a variety of issues about which we are all concerned. I sincerely hope that he will come again and again to the House to give us his views. He will indeed be welcome.
I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing the debate. I am very much in the same situation as my noble friend Lord Peston. As both he and I have never done anything in the real economy, we can only stick to academic issues. Therefore, I shall address myself to the questions that my noble friend raised.
There is an interesting comment to make on the matter. Yes, it is true that the UK has a visible trade deficit and, indeed, has had one for some time now. It is also true that invisibles correct that deficit slightly because we do very well in that respect. However, the question arises: how can any country carry on with such a deficit for a long time? I believe that we should—and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peston will agree with me—look at the capital imports. Any country which finds itself with a deficit on current account must be importing capital. There is no other way that you can square the accounts.
One way of understanding what has happened to the British economy is to recognise that the discovery of North Sea oil was a major event. Indeed, if it had not happened, the adjustments would have been much more painful on the balance of payments side. They would also have occurred much more quickly. We would not have been able to afford to run such balance of trade deficits. North Sea oil gave us a certain crock of gold in the sense that, as noble Lords may remember, sterling was over-valued in the early 1980s. That deepened some of the crises that we have had in British manufacturing industry. Some of the manufacturing industry was just not viable; it was just not profitable. There is no way that it could have survived except, by very large subsidies which, I must say, we did not pay.
The next time a Select Committee is set up on overseas trade, I hope that it will take an overall view of capital and trade. I say that because our exchange rate may become non-competitive, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, said, which would affect industry considerably. No matter how competitive an industry is, it has to go through the exchange rate loophole to be able to sell. That is an important point.
However, there was a substantial increase in the capital assets of the UK economy. That enabled us to import much more than we would have otherwise have been able to. That is one of the rather obscure but important points, and it is something which has not quite been taken on board in our debates. If one looks at the position of the UK and the USA in the 1980s in terms of foreign assets, it will be seen that the United States, while running its deficits, changed from being a net creditor country to a net debtor country. The reserve position is much stronger in the UK because North Sea oil represented a substantial addition to our wealth. In a
908
sense, it has been both a blessing and a burden. Having said that, I believe that we should put all those aspects together at some stage.
I have another point to make, although it is not a matter that I have gone into in great detail. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, and my noble friend Lord Peston said, I believe that we should look at the industries in which we have a positive balance. We should have a positive balance in those industries which are research and development intensive; in other words, those which are innovation intensive. It does not much matter if we run a deficit in the production of more traditional products because those products will be made better in East Asia and we will not be able to compete. I have in mind pharmaceuticals, aerospace or, indeed, defence equipment, and so on. We should be able to say that those are the sectors in which our future lies. We ought to ensure that those industries have appropriate financial support.
I should mention the important point about hurdle rates to which the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, referred. It is one of the great mysteries of the British economy that businesses face extremely high hurdle rates when they make their investment plans. The only reason for that is, perhaps, the peculiar nature of the lenders—that is, broadly speaking, the financial institutions, including the pension funds and, indeed, the insurance companies which buy equities, as well as banks. Those involved in such work tell me that, despite the very efficient way in which the City operates worldwide, there is the problem that hurdle rates faced by British businessmen are rather high. It is not an insurmountable problem; it is, perhaps, a matter of another sort of innovation. It will have to come from the market; we cannot dictate that. However, I am surprised that we have not seen the kind of innovation which would make it possible for British businesses to have such money.
As regards investment in venture capital, I am told that there are very good institutions investing in really innovative developments in biotechnology. Indeed, we have good venture capital available. But in the middle, the small to medium-sized industries which are involved in the regular production and export business face rather high hurdle rates. That is not because our domestic interest rate is so high—a point which I will come to later if I have the time—it is due to something in the financial structure. For example, it is either the cautiousness of those who operate pension funds or other investors or, indeed, the caution of banks. Whatever it is, it turns out that we fix extremely high hurdle rates with very short pay-off periods. If you have a very short pay-off period, you will not be able to pursue certain kinds of innovative strategies which will ensure you achieve long-running success. As I said, a future Select Committee should consider not only trade but also capital and finance together because they are interrelated.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to investment and macroeconomic policy. I, too, am puzzled that the recorded investment GDP ratios have not improved much and are rather flat. At the same time, I am surprised that compared with other countries which invest more, the British growth rate is not that much

909
lower. If one compares UK investment with Japanese investment and the growth rate of their economies—the evidence appears in a report by the Commission on Social Justice chaired by my noble friend Lord Borrie—the UK seems to be doing better than most other countries. As it were, it "gets more bang for the buck". I am not altogether sure why that happens, but it is true that while the UK should invest more—I do not deny that—it is also true that the productivity of investment in the UK is high. Whether that is because of the foreign direct investment that we obtain or domestic investment, I do not know.
In conclusion, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the fiscal and monetary mix. During the 1980s profitability in British manufacture was restored. In the late 1980s it slipped again. The British economy is paying a couple of percentage points of interest rates above the German rates. That is because the markets do not believe that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer will be fiscally responsible. I grant that the situation has been good lately. However, if one has fiscal irresponsibility one has to pay high interest rates in the money market. That is the simple answer. Let us hope that we achieve the other mix: a tight fiscal policy and a loose monetary policy.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am proud to be speaking on these Benches along with my noble friend Lord Blyth of Rowington. He is a modest man, but two words sum him up. He is fearless and tenacious. I have known him in trade for many years. If there were more people like him, we would not have a balance of payments problem—as I doubt that we shall have in the future. His addition to these Benches gives me a little encouragement. I have always felt that trade comes before economics. I can understand why economists are continually puzzled about trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will remember that the eminent Select Committee wondered whether it really mattered if we did not export manufactures. I believe that at that time Her Majesty's Government had 236 economists, of whom one-third were of East European origin. One economist of East European origin explained that we need not manufacture any more because everything else would compensate; and that we got it wrong about oil running out. We did not do so, because the price of oil is now at the same level as in 1972. Therefore, to a certain extent, in value terms oil has run out. The dollar has fallen. Oil is no longer important. It is interesting to note that sometimes the British can get it right.
We used to fight the French over sugar. We used to fight other people over coffee, the second commodity. We never fought anyone over oil, although the Middle East and the Arab world were quite convinced that all wars out there were over oil. Your Lordships will know that 1994 was a quite remarkable year when we got it completely right. For the first time ever, oil was placed on the back burner as the leading trading commodity in the world.
910
What replaced oil? It was something at which the British are rather good. The commodity is called semiconductors, or microchips. The trade worldwide in microchips now exceeds OPEC oil sales. That area of information technology, of finding a niche market, is one at which we are extraordinarily good. But these opportunities usually arise by accident rather than design and almost all trade issues are accidental—as a result of the next person you meet, or the opportunity gained in a specific country.
Perhaps I may job backwards a little and then look forwards. We experienced several major changes of which we were not aware until long after the event. Obviously, the loss of, or withdrawal from, an empire led us to believe that we were no longer loved anywhere in the world and that we must somehow concentrate on areas in our own backyard called ECSC or EEC, where we were not loved. Historically, they were mainly our enemies and regarded us as major competitors. We failed to look at other parts of the world. We failed to consider that our manufacturing was based on a home market and the home market was a world-wide market. We forgot too, that investment from abroad was often the factor that stimulated our economies.
Some of us were brought up to believe that we would be bust if the automotive industry went up the spout and that everything related to motor manufacture, or to Coventry and Birmingham. When well known British brand names of cars disappeared, we thought that we would never make cars again. We were surprised when suddenly again we were not only a net exporter of motor cars, but the growth of our exports was extraordinarily good.
As has been pointed out in previous debates, in the area of automotive technology, which relates to motor racing, a sport in which my father spent most of his life, we have advanced technology. Eighty per cent. of all racing cars and equipment are produced in this country and small engineering businesses are in the forefront of design.
However, our life does not revolve around the motor car. Nor does it revolve around this phrase "balance of payments" or exports. I have long believed that the word "export" is dead. It is trade—national, international or wheresoever it can be accomplished.
However, we have no role unless it is a world-wide role. We cannot live on trading with a domestic and an EC market. What is the point of trying to compete head on in the manufacture and sale of products to people who make them? It is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We are trading each other's product. Surely it is wiser to seek to sell to those countries which do not make the items that we make. But we have also made a mistake. As regards manufacturing, we have a deficit of £11 billion. However, if we remove trade to the developing world our deficit soars to perhaps £16 billion. Most of our manufacturing exports are to countries which do not manufacture the product and wish to develop an industry.
I seek to turn one or two concepts on their head. For a long time we did not want people from this country to invest abroad. We had the dollar premium; we tried to

911
stop them. We failed to recognise the relationship between trade and capital investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out. If we are attracting so much capital investment into this country, we ourselves should be considering substantial capital investment abroad. Whereas historically investment followed trade, I believe that now, to a certain extent, trade follows investment.
As I travel around the world, I am regularly surprised when a foreign Minister making a presentation at a British week points out that the British are the second biggest investors in his country. Wherever I go, we are the biggest investors. We are all surprised by that. Where does the money come from? It is not necessarily our money, but it is someone's money. It comes through us, and to some extent it will stick to us.
I do not believe that the word "invisible" matters any more. However, unless we are fearless and tenacious, we shall ignore perhaps three-quarters of the markets of the world. Who are the fearless and tenacious people? They are not in British industry. Frankly, I believe that some of them are called Ministers. Ministers charge off around the world taking with them many industrialists. Those industrialists are not interested in the country they are visiting; they are interested in going with the Minister. That in itself is good because they take courage from being in gangs. Ministers of great stature travel the world. The stature of the Ministers is increased—and more often than not the Ministers find their girth, too, increases substantially due to these visits.
Ministers in this Government have done an excellent job world-wide, as everyone acknowledges. The support that the Government have given to trade is as good as that given by any country in the world, and that was not the case when the report was published in 1984. I believe the value for money is good. There are a few complications because, as the Government fail to recognise, in trade continuity is important. Thus, while of our Select Committee most of us are still alive, over those 10 years there have been over 40 ministerial changes in the Department of Trade and Industry. Also the reshuffles down the line mean that there is no continuity of knowledge and experience of markets. There are also 17 different agencies and departments involved in export promotion where some form of co-ordination or coming together might be better.
If we think back to the Scott inquiry, we are aware of some of the failings within government and the inability to communicate. We were told that recommendations would come from the Department of Trade and Industry and I look forward to receiving them shortly. We also heard that the DTI had identified 80 target markets around the world that were to be presented to industry. I am afraid that none of us knows which they are: they are a state secret at the moment and we should like to know the priorities.
We must identify and, with no fear but with great tenacity, choose areas of the world and the industrial sectors where we know we are good or where we can be good. Therein lies the problem. It has been said, to use an awful phrase, that "the British are so wet you
912
could shoot a snipe off them". In many of the emerging or re-emerging markets of the world, we who were the first are now the last. It is the weakness of our own industry that causes the problems, not of the invisibles, not of the service sectors. It is depressing for an industrialist who may charge his time out at £250 a day to read in the newspapers today that lawyers are being paid £750,000 a year. Regrettably, the quality in industry has fallen, our industrial base has been eroded. We no longer have the scale and capacity that we had before. But something is happening: it is the globalisation of industry where no longer is the word "British" of critical importance. We do not know where people source. We look at a manufactured import and we do not know how much of it is imported quality, how much exported. Those issues could be addressed.
The figures are useless. I do not think there is a role for economists. It is a matter for traders and businessmen and we should give them a kick up the backside.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, it is not my intention to enter into a debate with the eminent economists on these Benches regarding the figures. I am not sure that the figures are soundly based. With the liberalisation of world trade and the globalisation of finance and technology, business must view the old style boundaries as out of date. International trade is less a matter of national boundaries and more a matter of markets with different cultures. Businesses have to adapt their products and services to cultural needs and demands rather than to those needs and demands designated by national boundaries.
To secure our share of those markets, not only selling but also overseas investment is often essential. However, like my noble friend Lord Peston, I wonder on what our decisions are based. For instance, we invest more in Australia, with a population of 16 million and a low rate of growth, than in all of South-East Asia, with a population of 2.5 billion and a high rate of growth. So it is certainly important to explore our overseas trade frequently and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving us this opportunity to do so again.
I say that it is important to explore the subject again since the first debate in which the Minister took part after his appointment was about foreign trade. It was on 10th July last year. During that debate I was able to say one or two kind things about the export promotion services provided by his department. However, since then problems seem to have arisen. Although the joint directorate works well in delivering the co-ordinated overseas trade services of the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, other departments such as defence and agriculture, fisheries and food seem to be operating outside this co-ordinated effort. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us something about that.
Also, last July we spoke enthusiastically about the efforts of the export promoters. Indeed, market plans have apparently been written for each market of the 80 markets to which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred. However, the contents have been kept secret

913
from industry. Certainly we need to keep the information from our competitors, but at least our salesmen in the field need to know the strategy. Perhaps the future lies in separating the actual trade promotion work from the Minister's department. Nevertheless, the British Overseas Trade Board has played an important role in drawing on the experience of business and it has helped to improve the professionalism of overseas government staff.
I am sure that that is helped by the welcome efforts of the Institute of Export to introduce a Professionalism in World Trade qualification. It is right to introduce it into the DTI and it sits well with the Investors in People project. I congratulate the Minister on following the lead of the Labour Party in this regard. Will there be a similar approach in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Foreign service staff have a key role to play in our world trade. Their increased professionalism can only be an advantage. I too welcome the fact that overseas missions are continuing, and the Minister himself has clocked up quite a few air miles. Those efforts, good as they are, are now unfortunately not good enough because business has become more competitive in overseas markets.
What can we do to secure our place in world trade'? The advantages of the 1992 devaluation have run out of steam. Both the Chancellor and the Shadow Chancellor have ruled out further devaluation. I sympathise with the frustration of my noble friend Lord Peston, but I suggest that there are three areas on which we can concentrate: modern manufacturing, information networks and the European Union.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I too continue to be worried about our low share of world trade in manufacturing. I worry less about declining employment in manufacturing because it is partly due to labour-saving technologies. Indeed, much of what we sell overseas is precisely those labour-saving technologies—either the technology or the results from it.
But no longer can we just copy the lean production methods of the well-run Japanese companies. We have to move on with a new manufacturing strategy. It is becoming apparent that we can benefit by adding to what we have learnt about lean production in order to make highly customised products with the cost advantages of mass production but with very short lead times and a much greater element of service packaged with the product.
Therefore, as well as identifying selling opportunities, it is important for our overseas trade posts to be aware of the needs and activities of those forward-looking companies in order to assist them. Clearly, the work requires the professionalism about which I spoke earlier, plus excellent communications and information sharing which can only be achieved with modern information technology.
That brings me to the information networks. The networks will not only provide the excellent communications and information sharing which our companies require to be effective in world trade, but a whole new international business is being created.
914
"Move bytes not atoms" seems to be the catch phrase for the new trade. We are already seeing it in operation. Music, magazines and newspapers are not only being distributed on discs, tape and paper but also via IT. Radically different ways of seeking business, servicing customers and delivering value are being created every day using this new technology.
As forward looking as ever, your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology is currently examining the information superhighway, and I have the privilege of sitting on that committee. I hope that our report will be as seminal as the Aldington Report. Witness after witness is calling for leadership by the Government. We are told that this kind of world trade is raising all kinds of problems relating to copyright, intellectual property, encryption and the need for a legal framework.
Some said that the regulatory structure is a barrier to progress. The CBI identified the fragmentation of responsibility for information policy among government departments as a problem. Another witness said that there is a need to ensure that the Government exhibit and promote best practice with their own staff. However, witnesses are also telling us that we are good at IT. Countries, like companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, told us, must be clear about their sources of competitive advantage and act to develop and protect them.
Britain has competitive advantages in information and communications technology—not only because of our excellent telecoms and IT companies, but also because of our cultural infrastructure which provides the product that is communicated; namely, our capabilities in the arts and media, our language and our natural inventiveness and creativity.
We can ensure our place in this kind of world trade if we can achieve a critical mass earlier than our competitors. The DTI has an important leadership role to play here by encouraging our participation, recognising the problems and moving fast to plan a framework to deal with the problems and to get them agreed internationally. At present, all the running is being made by the US Government, clearly to help their industries dominate this sector of world trade. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on this matter.
My last point relates to Europe. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Peston. I do not know how many noble Lords were present for the previous debate on Germany. I found some of the remarks made about our trade with the European Union most worrying. Many business people see the Government as putting our relations with Europe in peril purely to satisfy political needs.
More business is now being done on the basis of long-term relationships. It takes a lot of time, money and effort to build up those relationships to make them work. If Britain is unsure about its attitude to Europe, then Continental firms will be reluctant to put the necessary time, money and effort into building up those relationships with us in case there is a change in our policy towards Europe. The uncertainty is not doing us any good and is probably losing us business.

915
I suppose the real test of our position in world trade is whether our economy qualifies for the conditions to join the proposed European monetary union. Putting aside for one moment the rights and wrongs of joining, our ability to qualify is a powerful objective for our economy.
7.13 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I begin with an apology. A long-standing engagement means that I shall not be able to stay to the end of this debate. I shall certainly read the balance of the debate with interest tomorrow morning. It has been a very interesting one so far. Secondly, may I say how glad I am that tonight I am not talking about information technology since I am following the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. There has recently been a step change in the Government's attitude towards information technology and we are on the move in that direction.
I am not an economist; I am a trader. I spent 40 years fighting for invisibles in the general insurance industry, to which I shall refer. Perhaps I may begin by getting rid of some statistics. Between 1990 and 1994, the general insurance industry produced almost £20 billion in balance of payments for the United Kingdom. Within the financial services area only the banks did better.
Overseas earnings for 1994 break down quite interestingly between the insurance companies, at just over £2 billion; Lloyd's, at just over £¾ billion; and brokers at a little over £1 billion. I refer to profit coming in. The total is £3.925 billion. Incidentally, almost 50 per cent. of that comes back as overseas dividends, mostly on behalf of insurance companies' overseas offices. The balance is overseas money, profit and commission, coming into the United Kingdom. Our best year ever in the insurance industry was 1993, when we brought in £4.814 billion.
Examining the period between 1980 and 1994 and using constant prices, we find that the annual output per insurance employee grew at an average of some 4.8 per cent. (just about double the national average of 2.4 per cent.). Today, almost 2 per cent. of UK employees are connected in some way or other with the insurance industry.
It is interesting to note that although today there are no UK-flagged ships and not that many UK-owned ships either, in 1993 (the last year to which my statistics relate) the UK remained the world's largest marine insurer, with 28 per cent. of world premium income. Obviously most of that comes from abroad, so it is highly invisibles oriented. Interestingly, we had 28 per cent. Next in the league table was Japan, with 13 per cent.
In addition, 1993 was a good year in aviation. Again, the UK had the largest single share—38 per cent.—of world premium income. The next largest was the USA with 25 per cent.
That success was achieved despite formidable factors which these days act against the UK. We are, after all, a small country. Looking at total premium income, the world is led by the USA with premium income,
916
including its very significant domestic element, at 564 billion dollars. Japan is only just behind. Germany is third, with 116 billion dollars. The UK is fourth, with £111 billion. Taking into consideration our land masses, population and so on, the UK does remarkably well to remain fourth.
We taught the world complex insurances; and now the world competes against us. That is one of the factors against us. We have to cope with very many offshore financial centres, which are also tax havens to a greater or lesser degree: Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, even part of Dublin, the Isle of Man, Singapore and, I dare say, others. In 1993 Bermuda alone wrote just under 18 billion dollars premium income. That is as much as 15 per cent. of the UK's total overseas premium income. Those are some of the factors with which we have to cope.
Success has also been achieved—so far, at any rate—despite our mistakes in two major areas. Our financial and management skills have let us down. That is perhaps the "kick up the backside" mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. We discovered about Continental catastrophe reserving at least 20 years too late. It is the market's fault, not the fault of the Government or anybody else; it is the insurance industry's own fault. We now realise that these reserves, which are to some extent hidden, are used by Continental insurance companies to enhance their assets as securities against borrowing for takeovers. UK insurers today look considerably weak compared to Continental or US insurance companies. London's power now depends on too much foreign capital. We bring the profits into London but increasing amounts go out in the form of dividends. UK-owned insurance company capitalisation is very weak indeed compared to Continental and US companies.
That must have counted in the recent proposal for the merger between the Royal and the Sun Alliance, which will make it 48 per cent. larger than the Commercial Union, the current leading UK general insurance company. But it will still leave the combined Royal-Sun Alliance only 75 per cent. the size of the Prudential, our large life insurance company, and, astonishingly, even after the merger, only 25 per cent. the size of the Allianz. That is the difference between German and British capitalisation.
What of the future? We need and must have strategic financial know-how. That is essential in both global underwriters and global brokers. We certainly need new blood from outside disciplines within our management. That process has begun but more is needed.
Innovation is needed like never before and it is getting harder. That is the innovative treadmill, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which we tread on at this particular time in the insurance industry. Even when we find the innovation, retaining it for an appreciable time is becoming harder, as other people have the skills to catch up with us more quickly.
We need new insurance products. Indeed we have some. The market is currently working on new financial insurance products and doing quite well with them, so far as I can understand it.

917
We have perhaps too many computer networks in different phases of development owned by different people. That is an error. We should try to bring them together. In fact, we have avoided in the insurance market the rows that characterised the attempts to improve the Stock Exchange, but we have done so by seeking consensus. Unfortunately, consensus means that development goes far too slowly for the good of the industry.
We must remember, of course, that if we succeed and improve our networking, good communication cuts both ways. It also allows our competitors to take away our business if they can. We need level tax playing fields, at least with our major international competitors.
We need a strong programme of training and continuous professional development. Indeed, that has already begun and it has begun well. But both training and CPD must stay a market priority to ensure that we have top quality executives.
The UK is a small island. Notwithstanding its North Sea oil it has no natural resources. We have always had to live by our wits. Drake's successors today no longer burn Spanish ships. They go to Madrid and South America to fight for the insurance of them. But people remain the UK's most important asset and nowhere is that more true than in the insurance industry.
7.22 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, this evening. I have been reminded by a colleague just how effective the noble Lord is as chairman of a Select Committee in enabling the most complicated of all issues to be understood by all the participants.
The countries that thrive have sustained export growth. The United Kingdom does well, but I feel that we are only touching the surface of opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is quite right when he compares our performance with the Japanese. The President of the Institute of Export, Mr. Davis, was right to say during lunch today that never has the need for exporting been greater. Certainly, exporters need beware. Weakening growth in Europe has seen exports drop, with little sign of recovery.
But there are notable exceptions. Last Friday, for example, I had the opportunity to hear first-hand of British American Tobacco's advance into the Central Asian market, centred in Tashkent. That is British entrepreneurship at its best and is backed up with an investment of 270 million dollars. There are not many new frontiers left, but Central Asia is certainly one.
We must realise that time and again countries would like to consider the UK when seeking suppliers or a business partner. But, oddly, while historically being a trading nation, we are generally not as committed to an export culture as we should be—aggressive in our approach—to take up the challenge. The difference lies in that, while in an age gone by British companies could expect the marketplace to call on them for good, now we must get out there, speak their language and set up distribution and after-sales channels.
918
I appreciate that the Government can only do so much to encourage the process. But there are areas where more can be done. For example, I have little doubt that British capital equipment and technology exports would dramatically increase with more favourable export financing to second and third world markets. Many contracts are lost to British companies as a result of more beneficial terms by the likes of Hermes, Saatchi, Eximbank USA and Eximbank Japan. Does the Minister agree with me that a thorough reappraisal of the ECGD could be an enormous stimulus to British exports? I have heard it said that a Brazilian Minister, when asked what the United Kingdom must do to have greater access to the Brazilian market—in other words, what is the impediment?—answered ECGD. What is the Government's strategy towards the Export Credit Guarantee Department? What arguments does the Treasury produce for not taking a more flexible approach? What are the underlying criteria?
I recognise that the NCM is outside the Government's control, but it is a key player in short-term cover. Does the DTI sit down with it to consider what needs to be done to help British companies?
Let me say a quick word about export intelligence. Intelligence is crucial and we have the mechanism to supply it. But I believe that we are squandering the opportunity. The process by which information from our posts is gathered and disseminated for distribution is far from satisfactory. The information needs to be more available and be of a more exact nature, with specifications and general leads allowing for more pinpointed dissemination.
That having been said, it is clear that our heads of missions are much more trade oriented. Our foreign policy must, in large part, facilitate British export growth. But the relationship between the DTI and the Foreign Office perplexes me. What is the degree of interchange between the two departments? How is it decided which department fills commercial posts?
Another area on which the Minister might possibly comment is future plans to utilise the Internet. I understand that the Americans have what they call "Tradenet". The Minister is well aware of my desire to see an all-encompassing database of British companies, with information of a detailed nature describing goods or services offered by the UK.
Finally, I have two questions about business links. Are the greater majority on target to be self-financing? What will happen to those that are not?
In conclusion, I recognise that the Trade and Industry Select Committee is in place, but more attention should be paid to the export field.
7.28 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I echo the gratitude expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing the debate. He gave at the beginning of his speech an excellent tour d'horizon of the factors affecting our balance of payments. I am fascinated by the kind of "sub-debate" that has developed over how phantom investment has nevertheless produced a real return. I must say that if two eminent economists and a senior

919
banker cannot sort out the matter, I do not suppose that the rest of us can. It strikes me that if one wants an income of £10 a year, it is called clever to invest £50 rather than £100. It is called good business. Maybe—just maybe—it means that we British still know how to turn a quick buck fairly efficiently.
As the sixth speaker after the maiden speaker, I am not supposed to pay tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyth of Rowington. However, he told us so well what are the crucial elements in good foreign trade. There is always one person in these debates who goes off at a slight tangent on a rather narrow subject. That lot probably falls on me tonight. I wish to talk about British trade in the Middle East.
Since the discovery of oil in the region, the Middle East, as we all know, has been an area of very considerable importance in the context of Britain's overseas trade. But our principal trading partners in that area are far from easy customers to deal with and our relations with them seem to go through a series of difficult patches.
The natural growth of our trade in the Middle East region has, in recent years, been disrupted by two or three traumatic events. The first was the fall of the Shah which ended the long phase of economic expansion in Iran and brought to a virtual end Britain's lucrative trade in military hardware, industrial and consumer goods and oilfield equipment. The Hillman Hunters which used to terrorise the streets of Tehran under the name of Peykhans, I am told are now a somewhat faded memory.
With the arrival of the fundamentalist clerics, the West began to see Iraq as the last bastion against the religious bigotry of the new rulers of Iran, culminating in our tacit support for Saddam Hussein's military build-up. We saw the enemy of our enemy as our friend and we were not too picky about that friend's general philosophy. Suffice to say, Saddam in a sense served our purposes by keeping the potentially dangerous new Iran preoccupied with a nasty and bloody little war. Unfortunately, our erstwhile friend won that war and got ideas above his station which, as we all know, ultimately led to the Gulf War.
But what happened in terms of trade? We loyally supported our American allies and went to war against an important trading partner. Yes, of course, we did so on behalf of another, albeit rather smaller but nevertheless fairly important trading partner, Kuwait. But the result? Well, when the scrap was over, Britain suddenly found that while there was masses of work to do in rebuilding Kuwait, America had taken the place over. The US Corps of Engineers was the arbiter of who got what contracts, and guess who got most of them. Certainly not the British.
And what happened to Iraq? It was simply shut, closed, and had the door bolted by the UN. Meantime we console ourselves that we supported and maintained excellent relations with the richest country in the region, Saudi Arabia. They are staunch friends, the Saudis. Or are they? I sometimes wonder. Every time a British television company makes a film about current affairs or human rights in Saudi Arabia, thousands of British
920
jobs hang in the balance and, with apologies to my noble friend Lord Blyth, the aerospace industry bites its nails to the quick. Yes, Saudi Arabia is a good trading partner, provided the level of moral scrutiny we apply to it is not too much deeper than that which we applied to Iraq before it invaded Kuwait.
The point is that we make a hopeless mess of moral judgments about these countries. They have very different ethics and values, however western they may or may not appear on the surface. So why are we so determined to moralise about Iraq? Yes, its ruler is, to our way of thinking, a textbook dictator, an autocrat, a despot, a dinosaur. He has done things to the marsh Arabs and the Kurds and other opponents of his rule which would be intolerable in our society. Ideally, we should do nothing to prolong his reign and all we can to end it. What we are actually doing, or rather have been doing, is to try to starve his own people into doing it for us.
There are thousands of perfectly decent Iraqis who, in a normal country, would be opinion formers and leaders. But Iraq is not a normal country and to the beleaguered middle class Iraqi just keeping his family fed comes a long way ahead of manning the barricades against Saddam.
I have visited Baghdad in the past few weeks and, if anything, I got the impression that life seems to have improved a little over the past 12 months. I simply do not believe that the sanctions policy will succeed, especially now that the UN has permitted oil to be traded for medicine and food. We have in fact dropped sanctions on the only items the shortage of which might ultimately have brought Saddam down. Iraq is nearly self-sufficient in all other basics. But that in itself is really Iraq's main problem.
Iraq should be, and is, I think, learning a very significant lesson from the whole sanctions business which is particularly important for future trading relations. In recent decades Iraq has thrown out foreign business and taken total control of its oil industry, agriculture, manufacturing and distribution. There are virtually no foreign investors in Iraq today: no multinationals with installations or petrochemical plants or fertilizer factories; no desert resort operators; nobody with any stake in its economy. The result is that, in spite of the fact that Iraq holds a sizeable percentage of the planet's oil reserves, the world has been able to lock the door on Iraq and virtually forget its very existence for several years.
If Iraq had not been so economically isolationist and nationalistic, all the usual multinational suspects would have had their tentacles spread through the Iraqi economy and it would have been impossible to impose the sort of sanctions which exist today. The multinationals would have lobbied unmercifully in Washington and Whitehall. They would not have had to bother in Paris because I see that the French opened a trade mission there around three weeks ago and I suspect have not been paying much attention to sanctions throughout the peace. I think Iraq now understands the message that economic isolation does not pay. I am sure that it will act to open up its economy

921
when sanctions finally go. Those best placed to take advantage of the opening up should be Iraq's old trading partners. Most middle-aged Iraqis—and even a number of younger ones—were British educated, at least to University level, and look on Britain as almost the mother country. It should be to Britain that Iraq looks but, alas, Baghdad is even now full of French, Russians, Koreans and all sorts of nationalities—anything but Brits.
I hold no torch whatever for Saddam Hussein. But in this competition the UN is now the unwilling and vacillating starter for a race in which every other runner but Britain is already straining at the tapes. Will we yet again lose before we start?
I wondered at the outset whether I should declare an interest as I can see a host of business opportunities in Iraq. I cannot do so because I am not allowed by my Government to have any current interest in Iraqi trade. Few, if any, of our European or eastern competitors seem to feel themselves bound by similar niceties. And if and when the US changes its views, I suspect that, as with Kuwait, the British will be flattened in the rush as the 7th Cavalry of American business goes in.
I suspect that it may well be the sense of shared adversity brought about by sanctions which is one of the main pillars of Saddam's rule. For my money I would rather Britain tried to bring an end to Iraq's economic isolation and encourage it back into the world community than sustain the sanctions which reinforce that isolation. British overseas trade can only benefit from it.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate. Overseas trade for us is vital, important and significant. Our economy has always been based on the fact that we are a trading nation.
I have been fascinated by the debate and believe that the general theme has been well addressed, particularly by my noble friend Lord Blyth in his excellent maiden speech. So perhaps I may follow the lead of my noble friend Lord Torrington and concentrate my remarks on a specific area—in my case, our trade with Latin America. In doing so I am happy that I can comply with the request of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for more information about Latin America.
I believe that this is an area where there is great potential for improving our commercial and trading links. Historically we have had strong links with many Latin American countries and there is still an amazing amount of goodwill there for the British. But it is fair to say that until recently not only have many countries in that region had closed and chaotic economies with unbelievable inflation rates and bureaucratic centralised systems but, in addition, because of the non-democratic forms of government generally, that our political and other links were also damaged.
Now the picture is entirely different. Tough economic measures are beginning to bear fruit and democracies have emerged which show every sign of remaining stable. Political links are such that scarcely a week goes
922
by without a visiting Minister or group of parliamentarians from one Latin American country or another coming to visit us in this Parliament. Now we also see the formation and development of major trading blocs such as NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Area, at the northern end of the scale and MERCOSUR in the southern cone. Indeed, there is a revamping of the Andean pact countries. I was interested to see that the four basic member countries of MERCOSUR—Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay—have in the past couple of weeks worked out a special agreement with Chile, making it a special associate member of MERCOSUR, and talks and negotiations are under way with Venezuela. That is an interesting development.
Apart from those involved in the privatisations, in which many British companies have participated, far too many British businessmen are unaware of the changes that have occurred throughout Latin America. Like my noble friend Lord Torrington, I returned last week from an overseas trade mission. I was asked to lead the trade mission to Argentina, having been on a similar mission last November. In spite of the fact that the United Kingdom is the second biggest investor in Argentina—it is also the second biggest investor in Mexico and Venezuela—it may surprise people to know that the trade balance between the United Kingdom and Argentina is in Argentina's favour. Last year UK imports from Argentina amounted to £253 million; exports to Argentina amounted to £233 million. We are not too far apart and I believe that the gap will be closed.
Last year in Argentina 14 trade missions were sponsored by the DTI. Those represented chambers of commerce and specific organisations. The one I went with last week was the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, which itself is sponsored by the DTI. It looks as if this year there will be an even greater number of such trade missions than last year. The commercial section of our embassy in Buenos Aires has been very busy indeed. It provides good support to our visiting businessmen, particularly to the first-timers. It is a good example of co-operation between the DTI and the Foreign Office. In saying that, I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Selsdon.
My experience of the two missions to which I referred, the most recent having been organised by LATAG, was that each was composed of between 20 and 24 representatives of small and medium sized businesses. They come from a variety of sectors, from, on my last trip, the manufacturers of closed circuit television inspection equipment for sewers and boreholes to the manufacturers of foetal monitoring equipment and, very appropriately for Argentina, the manufacturers of industrial food freezing and chilling equipment for meat, fish, fruit and other processing industries. They seem to have met with varying degrees of success. They may have established local agents, local joint venture partners or taken some preliminary steps to setting up local offices.
It is what results in the long term from these first tentative steps that is important. We need to know whether these trade missions are successful in the long term. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider implementing some method of monitoring the results

923
not only of ministerial missions but also the many chamber of commerce and other missions which are funded in part by the DTI.
It may be that targeting particular sectors would be a solution. Two such sectors have been referred to in the course of the debate, in both of which I have an interest. One is the pharmaceutical industry and the other is education. The reforms to the education system in Argentina, which has a decentralising approach following very closely on the reforms in this country, mean that the manufacturers of British educational equipment have quite an opening there. In addition, Argentina requires the teaching of foreign languages, a favourite theme of mine. Argentina has insisted that in every school in Argentina English will be taught. That provides many opportunities.
Reference has been made to our membership of the European Union. I believe that we fall down in taking advantage of many of the European Union programmes aimed at stimulating trade with Latin America. There are certainly in place special agreements between the European Union and the MERCOSUR countries and the European Union and NAFTA, apart from a number of bilateral arrangements. There is no doubt that the British companies involved in these projects are very few. I would urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure in every way possible that the United Kingdom plays more of a leading role in this respect.
7.46 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I approached this debate with some trepidation for two reasons. First, I am a graduate in economics of the University of London but, alas, I spent more time in student politics than studying Ricardo. The thought of following two of the university's economic divas in this debate was quite frightening. However, I am encouraged by what I thought was both the humility and the Angst of the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Desai, qualities not usually associated with academic economists.
My other fear was that the whole debate would turn into some kind of Euro-brawl. Most of the Euro-phobes seem to be absent. Perhaps they are blancoing their webbing after the Prime Minister's call to arms yesterday. In both debates today we have managed to concentrate on the topics in hand rather than indulge in old skirmishes.
I have always been fascinated by the way both our Houses treat trade policy. Trade has probably split more parties and caused more wars than even religion. In the four years I spent in the other place there was one full-scale debate on the broad thrust of trade policy. Perhaps it was wise to avoid such philosophy.
We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Ezra for initiating and provoking a debate of quality. At heart, like perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am free trade man, but I am also a European—a European on the basis that if you are a free trader it is common sense to trade with your nearest neighbours. Those are not incompatible aims. The approach I take—and to be fair, it is also that taken by the Government—is to see our
924
membership as promoting an outward-looking Europe rather than a fortress Europe. I hope there will continue to be a cross-party approach to using our influence within the Community.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned other areas such as Latin America, the Middle East and South Africa. Those areas deserve our attention and the interest of our entrepreneurs. I have never understood the idea that some kind of secret clause in the Treaty of Rome prevents our going to the Pacific Rim, Latin America or wherever. What the Community offers is a very sound and secure trading base. I do not want to delay the House with too many statistics, but 80 million Germans bought British goods to the value of £17.7 billion compared with £16.9 billion-worth purchased by 240 million Americans. France spent £13.7 billion on British goods, which is almost as much as that spent by the entire Commonwealth. Holland, with only 15 million people, took exports worth £9.7 billion from Britain, which is more than that taken by the six Asian tigers, plus China, Indonesia and the Philippines. We sold more to Sweden than to the whole of Latin America from Mexico to Cape Horn. I give those statistics not to hammer home some pro-European message but simply to get over the basic fact that our big market at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, is Europe. It makes sense in planning any trade policy to make sure that that European policy is sound as well.
Like many noble Lords, I have contacts with representatives of Commonwealth governments, Latin American governments, and those of the Middle East and Asia. What has always intrigued me is their message that they want us to use our influence in Europe. They see that as an important role for Britain in promoting trade and an outward-looking Europe. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blyth—I believe the point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—that I would like to see British industry using more of the opportunities that Europe creates as regards trade. I pay tribute to Sir Leon Brittan who has conducted Europe's trade policies with great vigour and imagination. He has resisted the protectionist fortress Europe arguments within the Community. Europe has put in place a range of agreements which are now there to be exploited. As regards the North American markets, the Madrid summit with President Clinton heralded the opportunity for new co-operation. The summit with 24 heads of government in Bangkok in March reached similar accord as regards South East Asia.
As I said before, I believe that there is no need for a Euro-brawl on these issues. Let us see the European market as the strong base that it is and then look at how we can explore and exploit other opportunities in the world. I was once an adviser to a Labour Government which asserted their right to trade with the world. I understand that it is not always practical to make too many moral judgments as regards trade policies because one gets into all kinds of difficulties, as the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, indicated. However, I do not believe that one can totally absolve oneself from moral judgments. I was pleased to hear the other day the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, asserting the

925
Government's strong policy about exporting instruments of torture. There is not an absolute in trade. We have to have limitations on these matters.
Conversely, I see trade policy underpinning sound political movements in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred to the growth of democracy in Latin America. We consider our attitude towards eastern Europe and the Middle East peace process. We also look at the peace process for South Africa. In those areas trade can play a very important part in underpinning such processes and in making them last.
Governments should not be too humble about their role in trade policy and not penny-wise, either. I would like assets such as the training of overseas students, the BBC World Service and the staffing of British missions to be fully kept up. Ministers should go abroad on trade missions. Last year one newspaper wrote about the rise of sleaze in political life. It pointed out that Mr. Richard Needham had travelled abroad more than any other Minister. Surprise, surprise! He was the Trade Minister. Was it expected that he should carry out his business from a telephone box at the end of Whitehall? Ministers should be very bold in this matter. I am very pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister is in China at the moment with a large trade delegation. We have to encourage that kind of development and do so boldly.
I saw a television documentary a week or so ago about renovating an old steamer on the lake in Berlin. It was not the point that the film was making but it came over that the engine of the steamer had been made in Glasgow. There is always a tendency for nostalgia in trade debates; to recall the good old days when everything was Clyde-built or Sheffield-made and cotton was king. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, put his finger on the matter when he said that what we really face is the innovative treadmill. That does not always refer to the new industries; it can mean looking at other opportunities.
One Michael Caine-type statistic which attracted me is that the United States earns more from its film and television exports than it does from its aerospace exports. It has always struck me that film and television is a base that we should develop in exporting to the world, especially as we have the English language to build on.
The simple lesson as regards tonight's debate is that the choice has never been Europe or the open sea; it is to use the strength of Europe to fulfil Britain's historic and age-old skills at exporting to the world. If governments of whatever complexion invest in the skills and ingenuity of the British people and take a global attitude to trade, then we shall prosper.
7.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this debate. In the tradition of this House, it seemed to me to be a debate that was inquiring and intellectually curious. The contributions made were based on a solid rock of either expertise or experience. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Blyth on his maiden
926
speech. It seemed to me that, within a very short compass, he managed to include comment of great value to your Lordships and in a very short space of time. I very much hope that he will continue to contribute to debates in your Lordships' House. His long and distinguished career in industry, his service as head of defence sales at the Ministry of Defence, and his chairmanship of the Advisory Panel on the Citizen's Charter, mean that he has much to contribute. I am grateful for his contribution this evening.
I welcome the opportunity for this debate. This country has a tremendous history as a trading nation. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, may rightly comment that we should not simply look back to the past, but the legacy of that great history is still with us. The UK earns around a quarter of its GDP from trade and our day-to-day lives would be unimaginable without it. We must therefore keep a close watch on how we are doing, as this debate indicates.
Let me take two views of the trade situation, one long term—over the past 25 years—and one medium term—over the past 10 years. From 1970 to 1995, the G7 countries have accounted for a remarkably stable half share of world exports. Over the same period, rankings of G7 countries by share have been constant—the UK in fifth place behind the US, Germany, Japan and France. The UK has lost share of world fade, dropping gradually from around 6 per cent. to around 5 per cent. Out of the G7, Japan has shown the clearest improvement in share, from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. The other country to suffer a decline is Canada, with a share drop of 5 to 4 per cent.
Over the medium term, the picture is less gloomy. Since the mid 1980s our share has stabilised. We have found that this can be explained in part by higher than average growth in our traditional overseas markets. However, it also reflects the improvements in our overall competitiveness that we saw during the 1980s, to which my noble friend Lord Blyth rightly drew attention.
It is good news that we have halted that decline. Our aim must now be to see how we can reverse it. We in government have an obvious role to play. We need to continue to make every effort to break down those barriers which stop UK companies from making the most of markets abroad. Systems of tariffs and regulations can damage the prospects of the most effective and experienced operators. We shall be working hard through the multilateral trading system based on the World Trade Organisation to drive that forward. We need to build on the achievements of the Uruguay Round and press for a new multilateral negotiation round to be launched before the end of the decade. Our ultimate goal, as recently expounded by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in his widely applauded speech "20:20 Vision", is global free trade by 2020.
We also have to seek to ensure that we can bring about the maximum degree of UK participation in that global free trade. The primary responsibility for that, once we have broken down regulations and trade barriers, must rest with UK business. To try to

927
second-guess the expertise of business is not a past mistake that we intend to repeat. However, that does not mean that government should not be involved. On the contrary, since the last general election we have followed an aggressive policy of supporting, equipping and assisting our businesses to make a greater export effort. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, there is no more visible example of that than the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister in China at this very moment with our largest-ever trade mission to that country.
Beyond those highly visible activities of trade missions, to which I shall return later as I have been asked a number of questions, perhaps I may point out that any individual company seeking to export can plug itself into the full range of export services that the Government have to offer, for example, companies can get advice from our export promoters—skilled exporters seconded to the Government from the private sector for that purpose. I hope that those who have had contact with them will agree that it has been a remarkably successful innovation. Companies can get advice from DTI country desks with their expert knowledge of particular overseas markets. They can use information collected by the Foreign Office's network of overseas post. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others that the Foreign Office now devotes as much as one-third of its resources to overseas commercial work. Businesses, particularly first-time exporters, do not need to visit the markets; they can obtain information from either the DTI or the FCO. They should be able to have access to all those services through their local Business Links.
I appreciate that there is some concern that we should continue to be as expert as we possibly can be, within both my department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. For that reason, I certainly welcome the involvement of the Institute of Export in the development of the professionalism in trade qualification. A decision on the awarding body for the qualification will be taken shortly. I am afraid that I cannot say more than that at present. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is already a major player in the interchange programme of developing skills by experience in other posts relating to trade promotion. Although there is a regular interchange at present, I hope that it will expand yet further.
The importance of information networks is also readily understood. Running the information society initiative as we do, we recently had a DTI export challenge to trade associations which gave awards to trade association proposals using the Internet to promote exports. I hope that that will meet with noble Lords' approval.
There is, of course, no point in pouring considerable sums of the taxpayers' money into promoting exports if that does not yield results. Some, if not all, of your Lordships may be aware of the recent National Audit Office report which looked into our services to exporters. As one might expect from the NAO, it analysed our work carefully and found areas in which it considered that we could improve our performance.
928
However, the main message of the report was exceptionally encouraging. Perhaps I may quote just one statistic. Its analysis of our work in the key South-East Asian market found that some £4.5 million in public expenditure had helped to generate export business worth £345 million. Furthermore, that effort resulted in some 500 new entrants to the market. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that represents excellent value.
Beginning with the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Peston, a number of broader macro-economic points were made. I shall try to address some of them, but I should say first that I have been pleased that this debate has not attempted to address exports exclusively. I fear that sometimes even in 1996 there is something of a tendency to do that. We need to look at our export effort in the very clear context outlined by my noble friend Lord Boardman. We should consider not only our outward investment, but our inward investment. One fascinating statistic which, curiously, is seldom deployed is the fact that those companies that we have attracted to the United Kingdom as inward investors are now responsible for some 40 per cent. of our exports. To pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I would guess that if we were to look at that figure in the context of the European Union, the proportion might be significantly higher than 40 per cent.
I listened with interest to the criticisms and comments made about investment. In typical fashion, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, analysed the possible problems of the high hurdle rates which appeared to be encountered in the United Kingdom. I should simply like to add a point without coming to any clear conclusion. It is interesting that while those inward-investing companies in the United Kingdom account for only 1 per cent. of total UK enterprises, they represent something like 32 per cent. of our capital expenditure. It is difficult to analyse the figures with any great certainty, for the following reason. Noble Lords may recall that in the second White Paper on competitiveness we concluded, basing our information on an OECD source, that business sector investment in machinery and equipment as a proportion of GDP had been similar to other members of the G7, apart from Japan, since 1980. Manufacturing invested a similar proportion of its output to Germany and the United States over the last complete economic cycle. There are a number of figures which indicate that we are maintaining our level of investment.
The example of my noble friend Lord Boardman of the purchase of a fleet of Boeings and how that would enter into the balance of payments, compared with the services that might be earned over the next 20 years, was an extremely interesting one. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Chelmsford for his expert appreciation of our position in relation to insurance. However, one wonders whether the division that we have traditionally followed of visibles and invisibles remains as helpful as we have accepted it to be. Perhaps we should analyse the following situation more carefully. When we enjoy a significant flow of inward investment by Siemens, Samsung and the like, at first the companies tend to bring in capital goods as they set

929
up their factories. As the example of Nissan indicates, later they begin to develop their own domestic (in our terms) supply chains. Those are matters which are probably better dealt with in a debate on inward investment at a later time.
The issue of the visible deficit was raised on a number of occasions. The visible deficit of something under £0.6 billion in November and December widened to £1.4 billion in January and £1.5 billion in February of this year. I stand back in the presence of the economists on the Benches opposite, but I believe it is generally accepted, correctly so, that that widening was attributable to a general slow-down in the economic growth of our major trading partners, resulting in a slower growth of our exports. Clearly, that is a matter that must be watched carefully. However, 1994 and 1995 have seen the lowest visible deficits since 1987.
It is correct that market plans are not revealed to one and all in their entirety for the very good reason that they are primarily working documents which are subject to continual review and adjustment. They are not appropriate for straightforward publication, but they are made available to industry through our area advisory groups. We accept that there is a case for making them more widely available. Summaries have been made available through Business Links, and more readily available on request. This is a rolling process. Summaries are produced as individual plans are revised.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon indicated that he was unaware of the 80 markets. I can give that information to him, although I shall not do so at the moment. If he wishes to know how we rate any particular country or company at any time I am more than willing to provide him with that information.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked about ECGD cover. If he analyses what has happened in recent years I believe he will appreciate that our cover for key markets has increased substantially. In particular, over the past four years ECGD has come back with cover for over 25 markets, often faster than other countries' export credit agencies. I believe that our rates are now much more competitive. Over the past four years political risk rates have been reduced by approximately 25 per cent. I understand that they are now generally comparable with those of most of our G7 rivals.
Both my noble friends Lord Torrington and Lady Hooper referred to specific markets and areas of the world. I am very pleased that they have done so. In reply to my noble friend Lord Torrington, while the Iraq sanctions are in place we are bound to abide by them. However, my noble friend can be assured that the Government are very much alive to his point about the need to ensure that British companies are properly positioned to compete when those sanctions are lifted, as we all hope they will be, when a satisfactory state of affairs is arrived at.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for leading a trade mission to Latin America. I have just come back from the Middle East, but next month I shall visit Brazil and Argentina. She makes a very good point about the importance of follow-up. If we do not follow up the exercise may be a waste of public money. I go
930
back briefly to the NAO report. That appears to indicate that the type of activity that we are undertaking, where follow-up is an essential part of planning, reveals that, while we do not have it exactly right, it is undoubtedly an integral part of the strategy that we are following.
I am conscious that this evening some noble Lords who usually contribute to such debates are not present because there is a rival attraction at Canning House where my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is reporting on his recent trip to Latin America. However, in my right honourable friend's remarks at Canning House this evening, he will announce that we are proposing to hold a major conference on Latin America in January or very early next year, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery has repeatedly requested. We will wish to highlight the position of the United Kingdom as a gateway to Europe and to draw attention to trade and investment in Latin America. There are undoubtedly opportunities in that part of the world, and I am grateful to all those who have appreciated how important that is.
If I have failed to respond to particular points I hope that I shall be forgiven. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this evening. We see this as an important partnership between the Government and the private sector, with a common purpose. We do not seek to dictate but hope to assist and support. I hope that we can conclude the debate on an optimistic note. Over the past year the export effort has been sustained and is growing. It is not simply to be noted in terms of the number of missions, although the NAO report believed that they were an extremely worthwhile way to go forward. I believe that my noble friend Lord Selsdon, a little unkindly, indicated that Ministers who led such missions suffered the danger of a widening girth. I thought that that was a little on the personal side. However, knowing his expertise on this subject, I welcome his contribution otherwise.
The figures for some of our key markets look very encouraging. The Netherlands has been mentioned. The value of our exports to the Netherlands increased by 25 per cent. last year. The equivalent figure for Japan was 27 per cent. and for Indonesia 44 per cent. It has been a worldwide exercise and effort. I am grateful that there should be such encouragement on all sides of the House for the national effort now under way.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate which has been a wide-ranging one, as the Minister said in his response. We have ranged through major issues of policy to particular sectors, covered so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, in his maiden speech, to particular markets, and to the wider significance of exports, spoken to by my noble friend Lord McNally. I hope that we have given the Government a great deal of food for thought. Our aim is to help and stimulate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Party Wall Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: 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 Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New building on line of junction]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("wall) or the external wall of a building") and insert ("wall or the external wall of a building)").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may explain that the large number of amendments on the Marshalled List arises primarily because of the need to modernise the language of the Bill and to correct drafting errors. The intention remains, as always, that the Bill will follow as closely as possible the London building Acts which are its role model and the precedents and practice which have been established for inner London over a long period of time.
I must pay a brief tribute to the efforts of the DoE and its officials and lawyers and to parliamentary counsel who drafted the amendments. I thank them all most sincerely for their patience and attention to detail. I am also thankful, as ever, for the expertise and assistance of the working party, and, in particular, to Mr. John Anstey who heads it. The period since Second Reading is related directly to the time and effort devoted to the Bill. Finally, I must declare an interest as a chartered surveyor with some involvement in party wall matters, although not very great at the moment, and since Second Reading I have been made an honorary member of the Pyramus and Thisbe Club, which is an association of party wall surveyors and others interested in party wall matters. So I declare also that non-pecuniary interest.
With Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak to a number of other amendments. They are slightly different from the groupings on the list, in the sense that I should like to pull into the first group Amendment No. 22, which at the moment is grouped with Amendment No. 3, and Amendment No. 78, which is grouped with Amendment No. 17. So with Amendment No. 1 I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 27, 29, 32, 33, 39, 40, 51, 54, 65, 70, 76, 78, 79 and 80.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Would you kindly repeat that?
The Earl of Lytton: I shall gladly provide the noble Lord with my spare list if he would like it. All the amendments are minor drafting amendments to correct and improve the form of the Bill or amount to no more than textual amendments requiring the insertion of
932
different words. Some of them are due merely to errors which have crept into the text, while others improve the sense.
Amendment No. 1, for instance, is a bracket in the wrong place. The amendment serves to replace it in the position originally intended. Amendment No. 2 removes the definite article where it should be the indefinite article. Nothing hangs on the amendments. They merely restore the text to what was originally intended and clarify it without altering the effect. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I congratulate the noble Earl on his dexterity in speaking to so many amendments so briefly and on the great care and attention that he and his advisers have clearly given to the Bill which on Second Reading was generally agreed to be a useful and valuable Bill. I am sure we all very much welcome the presence of the Opposition Chief Whip at our debate.
I am also delighted to learn that the noble Earl has been selected as a member of the Pyramus and Thisbe club—the Mecca of the party wall experts—and has been recognised in that distinguished company. To move 102 amendments to a Private Member's Bill must be almost a parliamentary record. I am sure that he will handle the formidable task of moving all these amendments with dexterity and speed.
Some of us will have been a little confused to have received yesterday a brief from the Law Society questioning the Bill's very purpose. I am glad that, on reflection, following a meeting, the Law Society has withdrawn its brief. No doubt the noble Earl will be in touch with it before the Bill's next stage to iron out any specific worries it may have.
Lord Lucas: I agree with the noble Earl that these amendments are all minor. As he said, there has been close liaison between the noble Earl and officials in my department. We are content that the amendments improve the drafting of the original Bill.
When the Bill was given its Second Reading, the noble Earl said that he would need to move a number of amendments to remove textual errors. These amendments are welcomed in that they achieve that objective. All the amendments tabled by the noble Earl have government support. I do not propose to speak to further amendments unless I have a specific point to make.
The Earl of Lytton: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I say again how appreciative I and the Bill's promoters are for his department's help. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his support. The Law Society's views have been made known to me. I am glad to know that there may be a

933
degree of acceptance of some of the Bill's provisions. I can confirm that it is my intention to meet the Law Society to iron out any remaining difficulties that there may be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("serve notice of his desire on the adjoining owner describing") and insert (", at least one month before he intends the building work to start, serve on any adjoining owner a notice which indicates his desire to build and describes").
The noble Earl said: With this amendment I shall speak also to another extensive group of amendments comprising Amendments Nos. 4,30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 42, 45, 46, 55, 57, 67, 72, 75, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 90.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for that roll-call. I needed to make clear with which amendments we are involved. These are broadly technical amendments, all similar to one another, concerning time limits and the service of notice. They are all merely a re-ordering of the wording of the Bill as it now stands. They restore the original intentions of the Bill's promoters and improve and clarify what is intended.
A general provision about serving notices in Amendment No. 90 refers to notice in writing being unnecessary. I shall return to that point at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("the adjoining owner consents in writing") and insert ("an adjoining owner serves on the building owner a notice indicating his consent").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("having") and insert ("in such proportion as has").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is simply a rewording to make it clear how the question of the proportion of costs being split between parties is to be addressed. Again, the original sense of the Bill is unaltered. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 1, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").
Page 1, line 27, leave out ("in writing") and insert ("under this subsection").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments together with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("and consent under this subsection is consent by a notice served within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice described in subsection (2) is served.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Amendment No. 8 removes an area of possible doubt by making it clearer how the recipient of a notice of proposed works can consent to the proposals referred to in the notice. The recipient must respond by a notice and within a time frame, but there is no special form of notice. That is what the Bill's promoters intend and the amendment removes uncertainty. It should also be noted that the Bill defaults to dispute procedures, so if the response from the adjoining owner is equivocal or late, that owner is protected. Late agreement is, of course, always possible under the procedures to be set in place by this Bill.
Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment, again to remove doubt about what is intended. It does so by inserting a timescale. The sense of the clause as printed is retained apart from this.
With regard to Amendment No. 10, this again is technical. It merely clarifies the timescale already set out in the Bill in which a building owner may carry out works following the service of notice, but the overall effect remains unchanged. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 12:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("serve notice of his desire on the adjoining owner describing") and insert (", at least one month before he intends the building work to start, serve on any adjoining owner a notice which indicates his desire to build and describes").
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("with") to ("place") in line 11 and insert ("subsection (4) or (5) he shall have the right, at any time in the period which—

(a) begins one month after the day on which the notice mentioned in the subsection concerned was served, and

(b) ends twelve months after that day,

to").
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("foundation") and insert ("foundations").
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("to") and insert ("for").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in connection with Amendments Nos. 1 and 8. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("wall") to end of line 17 and insert ("wholly on his own land in accordance with subsection (4) or (5) he shall do so at his own expense and shall compensate any adjoining owner and any adjoining occupier for any damage to his property occasioned by—

(a) the building of the wall;

935

(b) the placing of any footings or foundations placed in accordance with subsection (6).").

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which tightens up the wording of the Bill. As a result of this amendment it will be clearer what causes of damage can lead to compensation. The amendment is entirely consistent with the intention of the Bill and with that of the Bill's promoters. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50 and 82. All these amendments replace the word "the" with "any". The intention is to make the application of the relevant provisions more inclusive. There is good reason for this as there can be several adjacent owners and occupiers in an urban environment. The practice of the London building Acts is that they all have the protection of that legislation in inner London. For the purposes of a public Act of Parliament that has to be spelt out more clearly. Amendment No. 82, in referring to the singular to augment the plural in this Bill, is of a similar nature to cover situations where only one surveyor is making the decision—for instance, the third surveyor appointed by the surveyors for either party. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("the provisions of").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment in the context of Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Repair etc. of party wall: rights of owner]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("The") and insert ("A").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
("(a) to underpin, thicken or raise a party structure, a party fence wall, or an external wall which belongs to the building owner and is built against a party structure or party fence wall;
(ab) to make good, repair, or demolish and rebuild, a party structure or party fence wall in a case where such work is necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall;").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 17 I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 37, 41, 44, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69 and 77. I apologise for reading out another long list. All these amendments revolve around the same substantive issue. They are all drafting amendments. The original wording included in
936
several instances more than one concept in a single sentence. This derived from the 1930s legislation of the London building Acts. On legal advice and to accord with modern drafting, I am told that these should be separated. This has meant some amalgamation and some re-ordering and sub-division within clauses. Amendment No. 19, for instance, is now amalgamated with the relevant part of Clause 2 by Amendment No. 17, and Amendment No. 41 clarifies that the act of excavation alone can trigger the need for a notice under the 3 metre and 6 metre rules of proximity.
There are also some minor changes which improve and clarify what the Bill is intended to mean. For instance, Amendment No. 64 refers to work authorised by the Bill, whether or not it was the subject of notice in the first place. That is important in terms of bringing into consideration things that have been forgotten or left out. It is what already happens under the London building Acts but it is not expressly provided for. It is appropriate when dealing with this Bill to bring in a provision making it absolutely clear what is intended.
I am advised that this is an area where the wording generally of the London building Acts is not ad idem with modem drafting. As a result of that there are some deficiencies. In accepting the rewording on the advice of parliamentary counsel, I stress that the intention, as ever, is to convey the same sense and meaning to the relevant clauses as has been established in the practice and precedent of the 1930 and 1939 Acts. It is important that I stress that. I should like to make it clear that no substantial change is intended by these amendments. I am satisfied, as are the promoters, that this safeguard has been achieved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("is not in conformity") and insert ("does not conform").
Page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 3.
The noble Earl said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 18 with Amendment No. 1. I have spoken to Amendment No. 19 with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("wall") and insert ("structure").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment which is to make it clear that we are dealing with a structure that is most likely to be a wall but may also be something in the nature of an arch, column or beam and may on occasions be a floor. The word "wall" was an incorrect inclusion in the original wording of the Bill, for which I can only take responsibility. The amendment seeks to remedy that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("of') to end of line 20 and insert ("any adjoining owner;").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 28. Amendment No. 21 serves to clarify, first, that it is intended to cover any adjoining owner, because, of course, there can be more than one; and secondly, it removes paragraphs (e)(i) and (ii) and (f) because provisions to the same effect are incorporated with Amendment No. 28.
Members of the Committee could be forgiven for expressing some concern about the way in which the text has been shuffled round here but, although the appearance is of a substantive amendment, the effect is mainly to move the relevant words to the end of Clause 2. That is tidier and will be more readily understood as a piece of legislation.
There is also a minor new provision in the sense that subsection (2E) of Amendment No. 28, which deals with parapets, relates to the technicality of making party walls comply with good building practice. With that explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 24 and insert ("(which may be or include the purpose of inserting a damp proof course);").
Page 3, line 25, after first ("wall,") insert ("party").
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("wall") to end of line 31 and insert ("or for any other purpose;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 32, leave out from ("demolish") to end of line 37 and insert ("parts of any wall or building of an adjoining owner overhanging the land of the building owner or overhanging a party wall, to the extent that it is necessary to cut away or demolish the parts to enable a vertical wall to be erected or raised against the wall or building of the adjoining owner;").
The noble Earl said: This is a simple drafting amendment which restates more clearly what was originally intended. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment' No. 26:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("(hh) to cut into the wall of an adjoining owner's building in order to insert a flashing or other weather-proofing of a wall erected against that wall;").
The noble Earl said: This is a new provision not previously in the Bill and I shall take a little time to explain it to the Committee.
Essentially, it provides for the safeguarding of abutting buildings by allowing a flashing to be installed between the two and thus provide adequate weathering of the abutment. That follows from what I said in connection with Amendment No. 28, to which I spoke when I moved Amendment No. 21 about good building practice.
The working party advising me on the Bill felt that this type of work was a commonly encountered requirement and that specific reference to it was necessary and desirable. But in all other respects it is a strictly technical point. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, perhaps I may give the noble Earl a short rest from his excellent work. As he explained, Clause 2 gives owners certain rights of repair and this is a new right. When one reads the amendment, it states:
"to cut into the wall of an adjoining owner's building in order to insert a flashing or other weather-proofing of a wall erected against that wall".
But it does not say anything about the protection which the adjoining owner has. The cutting into and inserting the flashing provides a better deal for his wall. I wonder whether the noble Earl believes that that is necessary or whether good practice covers that point.
The Earl of Lytton: I believe that it is unnecessary, in the sense that we are dealing with a wall in which two property owners have a clear vested interest. The Bill provides for a mechanism whereby the owner who is the person proposing works must tell his neighbour what it is that he proposes to do. That gives the neighbour full rights to look at what is proposed and to satisfy himself that the proposed work is being done correctly.
The provision in the London Building Acts did not refer specifically to the cutting in of flashings. Therefore, although that has not created any problems, it is important that now we are revisiting this legislation to apply it to the whole country, that that should be put on the face of the Bill and made quite clear.
What the noble Earl said about certain rights being given to building owners is true. But rights are given to both owners because they both have a clear, joint stake in what is happening to the wall. By its very nature, it is a wall through which the legal boundary passes so that a piece of it is on one side and another piece on the other side. That is quantifiably different from a wall which is on a property owner's own land for which he may need co-operation to gain access. This amendment deals with a situation which occurs in many properties throughout the country. I hope that I have answered all the points which the noble Earl raised. He nods and I am glad to see that. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments No. 27 to 29:
Page 3, line 48, leave out second ("the") and insert ("an").
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) Where work mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is not necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall concerned, the right falling within that paragraph is exercisable—

(a) subject to making good all damage occasioned by the work to the adjoining premises or to their internal furnishings and decorations; and

(b) where the work is to a party structure or external wall, subject to carrying any relevant flues and chimney stacks up to such a height and in such materials as may be agreed between the building owner and the adjoining owner concerned or, in the event of dispute, determined in accordance with section 10;

and relevant flues and chimney stacks are those which belong to an adjoining owner and either form part of or rest on or against the party structure or external wall.

939
(2B) The right falling within subsection (2)(e) is exercisable subject to—

(a) making good all damage occasioned by the work to the adjoining premises or to their internal furnishings and decorations; and

(b) carrying any relevant flues and chimney stacks up to such a height and in such materials as may be agreed between the building owner and the adjoining owner concerned or, in the event of dispute, determined in accordance with section 10;

and relevant flues and chimney stacks are those which belong to an adjoining owner and either form part of or rest on or against the party structure.
(2C) Any right falling within subsection (2)(f), (g) or (h) is exercisable subject to making good all damage occasioned by the work to the adjoining premises or to their internal furnishings and decorations.
(2D) The right falling within subsection (2)(hh) is exercisable subject to making good all damage occasioned by the work to the wall of the adjoining owner's building.
(2E) The right falling within subsection (2)(1) is exercisable subject to—

(a) reconstructing any parapet or replacing an existing parapet with another one; or

(b) constructing a parapet where one is needed but did not exist before.").

Page 4, line 4, leave out ("commencement of this Act") and insert ("day on which this Act was passed").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Party structure notices]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("the adjoining owner notice in writing") and insert ("any adjoining owner a notice").
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("twelve months of service of the notice") and insert ("the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which the notice is served").
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("owner") and insert ("owners").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Counter notices]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 35:
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("The") and insert ("An").
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("in writing").
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("one month of the service of the party structure notice") and insert ("the period of one month beginning with the day on which the party structure notice is served").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Disputes arising under sections 3 and 4]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 15, leave out from ("not") to ("he") in line 16 and insert ("serve a notice indicating his consent to it within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the party structure notice or counter notice was served,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Adjacent excavation and construction]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 37 and insert—
("(1) This section applies where—

(a) a building owner proposes to excavate, or excavate for and erect a building or structure, within a distance of three metres measured horizontally from any part of a building or structure of an adjoining owner; and

(b) any part of the proposed excavation, building or structure will within those three metres extend to a lower level than the level of the bottom of the foundations of the building or structure of the adjoining owner.

(1A) This section also applies where—

(a) a building owner proposes to excavate, or excavate for and erect a building or structure, within a distance of six metres measured horizontally from any part of a building or structure of an adjoining owner; and

(b) any part of the proposed excavation, building or structure will within those six metres meet a plane drawn downwards in the direction of the excavation, building or structure of the building owner at an angle of forty-five degrees to the horizontal from the line formed by the intersection of the plane of the level of the bottom of the foundations of the building or structure of the adjoining owner with the plane of the external face of the external wall of the building or structure of the adjoining owner.

(1B) The building owner").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 39, after ("building") insert (" or structure").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 43. These are minor drafting amendments in relation to the inclusion of structures, including a reference to structures which are not necessarily buildings. That would include such things as, for example, lift shafts and arches. It is an important consideration which the Bill's promoters consider a prudent amendment to the legislation. I hope that the Committee will agree. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 47:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("prescribed in subsection (1)") and insert ("mentioned in subsections (1) and (1A)").
Page 5, line 44, leave out ("to which subsection (1)") and insert ("where this section").
Page 5, line 45, after ("to") insert ("excavate, or excavate for and").
Page 5, line 46, leave out ("notice in writing of his proposals") and insert ("a notice indicating his proposals and").
Page 6, line 2, after ("building") insert ("or structure").
Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("showing") to end of line 6 and insert ("—

(a) the site and depth of any excavation the building owner proposes to make;

(b) if he proposes to erect a building or structure, its site.").

Page 6, line 8, leave out ("express his consent to it in writing within fourteen days") and insert ("serve a notice indicating his consent to it within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice referred to in subsection (3) was served,").

941
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("twelve months after the notice has been") and insert ("the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which the notice was").
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Compensation, etc.]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 51:
Page 6, line 25, leave out ("the adjoining owner or to the") and insert ("any adjoining owner or to any").
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
Page 6, line 33, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from first ("in") to end of line 44 and insert ("accordance with section 10;
and no deviation shall be made from those plans, sections and particulars except such as may be agreed between the owners (or surveyors acting on their behalf) or in the event of dispute determined in accordance with section 10.").
The noble Earl said: The above amendment goes beyond superficial change and makes it clear that surveyors can agree deviations—as, indeed, they most often do—rather than the owners agreeing between themselves, certainly on the more complicated cases. The amendment simply restates what already happens in practice in inner London. In a way, the position is analogous to the kind of amendment to a planning consent that in planning law would be agreed to by a planning officer under delegated powers without specifically going back to his committee. It would serve to speed up and streamline procedures if matters could be dealt with in that way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Rights of entry]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments No. 53 to 55:
Page 7, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
("(3) No land or premises may be entered by any person under subsection (1) unless the building owner serves on the owner and the occupier of the land or premises—").
Page 7, line 6, leave out ("his") and insert ("the").
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("fourteen days' notice of his intention to enter") and insert ("such notice of the intention to enter as complies with subsection (4)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) Notice complies with this subsection if it is served in a period of not less than fourteen days ending with the day of the proposed entry.
(5) A surveyor appointed or selected under section 10 may during usual working hours enter and remain on any land or premises for the purpose of carrying out the object for which he is appointed or selected.
942
(6) No land or premises may he entered by a surveyor under subsection (5) unless the building owner who is a party to the dispute concerned serves on the owner and the occupier of the land or premises—

(a) in case of emergency, such notice of the intention to enter as may be reasonably practicable;

(b) in any other case, such notice of the intention to enter as complies with subsection (4).").

The noble Earl said: This amendment provides an extended framework for entry, following notice, on the property of others. There is a vital component here in that surveyors are given rights of entry pursuant to notice, not just the property owners. That is essential if surveyors are to draw up schedules of condition and the adjoining owner's property is to be fully protected by an assessment of necessary precautionary measures.
Although access for surveyors is not specifically included in the equivalent provisions of the London building Acts, it is in fact what happens in any event as a matter of course in inner London. The amendment does no more than put that provision on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Clause 8 deals with the rights of entry and allows the,
"building owner, his servants, agents and workmen",
to enter property during "usual working hours", subject to 14 days' notice. The contents of Amendment No. 56 describe precisely the same powers of entry, as I understand it. There is no definition of surveyor in the Bill. Therefore, surely he could either be deemed as an agent or, indeed, he could be added to the list in subsection (1) which would then cover the purpose of the amendment. It would also reduce the size of the Bill.
The Earl of Lytton: The acoustics are a little poor in this part of the Chamber and, therefore, I am not sure that I correctly heard everything that the noble Earl said. All I can say in defence of the way that the amendment is worded is that the legislation has been scrutinised extremely carefully by the department's legal officers and parliamentary counsel. The amendment was felt to be the best method to deal with the matter.
As with many such matters, it is possible that the provisions of the Bill could be recombined in different ways. It is a matter of style in order to achieve the best clarity of what is intended for the reader of the Bill when, as I hope, it becomes an Act of Parliament in due course. I do not wish to take issue with the promoters or, indeed, with the legal advice on the stylistic approach involved. I do not feel that I am qualified to do so.
However, the amendment would provide a specific arrangement for surveyors, in addition to that of property owners. It could indeed be amalgamated elsewhere. If the noble Earl feels very strongly about the matter, I am sure that we could discuss it to ascertain what could be done. Nevertheless, with that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will accept from me that this is probably the best and clearest way to deal with the matter. I hope that I have answered his point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

943
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Resolution of disputes]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 68:
Page 7, leave out line 27 and insert—
("(b) neglects to act for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which either party serves a request on him;").
Page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) If either party to the dispute—

(a) refuses to appoint a surveyor under subsection (1)(b), or

(b) neglects to appoint a surveyor under subsection (1)(b) for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which the other party serves a request on him,

the other party may make the appointment on his behalf.").
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("or (5)").
Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("refuses") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("to act effectively, the surveyor of the other party may proceed to act ex parte").
Page 7, line 45, at end insert—
("(6A) If a surveyor—

(a) appointed under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) by a party to the dispute; or

(b) appointed under subsection (4) or (5),

neglects to act effectively for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which either party or the surveyor of the other party serves a request on him, the surveyor of the other party may proceed to act ex pane in respect of the subject matter of the request and anything so done by him shall be as effectual as if he had been an agreed surveyor.").
Page 8, line 1, leave out from ("under") to end of line 4 and insert ("subsection (1)(b) by a party to the dispute refuses to select a third surveyor under subsection (1) or (8), or neglects to do so for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which the other surveyor serves a request on him—").
Page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) If a third surveyor selected under subsection (1)(b)—

(a) refuses to act;

(b) neglects to act for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which either party or the surveyor appointed by either party serves a request on him; or

(c) dies, or becomes or deems himself incapable of acting, before the dispute is settled,

the other two of the three surveyors shall forthwith select another surveyor in his place with the same power and authority.").
Page 8, line 18, leave out from ("any") to end of line 20 and insert ("matter—

(a) which is connected with any work to which this Act relates, and

(b) which is in dispute between the building owner and the adjoining owner.").

Page 8, line 29, leave out ("Providing that") and insert ("but").
Page 8, line 40, leave out subsections (13) and (14) and insert—
("(13) Where the surveyors appointed by the parties make an award the surveyors shall serve it forthwith on the parties.
(14) Where an award is made by the third surveyor—

(a) he shall, after payment of the costs of the award, serve it forthwith on the parties or their appointed surveyors; and

(b) if it is served on their appointed surveyors, they shall serve it forthwith on the parties.").

Page 9, line 1, leave out from ("may") to ("appeal") in line 2 and insert (", within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which an award made under this section is served on him,").
944
Page 9, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—

("(a) rescind the award or modify it in such manner as the court thinks fit; and

(b) make such order as to costs as the court thinks fit.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Expenses]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 9, line 11, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—
("(2A) An expense mentioned in section 1(3)(b) shall be defrayed as there mentioned.
(2B) Where work is carried out in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(a), and the work is necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall concerned, the expenses shall be defrayed by the building owner and the adjoining owner in such proportion as has regard to—

(a) the use which the owners respectively make or may make of the structure or wall concerned; and

(b) responsibility for the defect or want of repair concerned, if more than one owner makes use of the structure or wall concerned.

(2C) Where work is carried out in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(ab) the expenses shall be defrayed by the building owner and the adjoining owner in such proportion as has regard to—

(a) the use which the owners respectively make or may make of the structure or wall concerned; and

(b) responsibility for the defect or want of repair concerned, if more than one owner makes use of the structure or wall concerned.

(2D) Where the adjoining premises are laid open in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(e) a fair allowance in respect of disturbance and inconvenience shall be paid by the building owner to the adjoining owner or occupier.").
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("2(1)(1)") and insert ("2(2)(1)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 9, line 32, at end insert—
("(7A) Where the building owner is required to make good damage under this Act the adjoining owner has a right to require that the expenses of such making good be determined in accordance with section 10 and paid to him in lieu of the carrying out of work to make the damage good.
(7B) Where—

(a) works are carried out, and

(b) some of the works are carried out at the request of the adjoining owner or in pursuance of a requirement made by him,

he shall defray the expenses of carrying out the works requested or required by him.").
The noble Earl said: The above is a technical amendment which provides greater clarity on the matter of making good and, in particular, provides for a cash settlement if that is requested as an alternative. The amendment is set out in two parts. New subsection (7A) is in fact established practice under the London building Acts but is not specifically provided for. It is a matter of practice which has grown up over the years. This part of the amendment would make that explicit and put it on the face of the Bill.
New subsection (7B) makes it clear that an adjoining owner may be liable to pay the costs of carrying out the works that he requires the building owner to undertake

945
on his behalf. That is already provided for under the London building Acts. The amendment merely alters the wording of the Bill without altering the effect.
I should like to make it clear that we are talking about works which an adjoining owner wishes the building owner to carry out and which are over and above and additional to the works which are necessary as part and parcel of the building owner's work. That is why there is a provision for the liability to pay the costs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 74:
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("vouchers within two months") and insert ("invoices and other supporting documents within the period of two months beginning with the day").
Page 9, line 43, leave out ("additional").
Page 10, line 1, leave out from ("out") to ("at") in line 2 and insert ("that work; and for this purpose he shall be taken to have incurred expenses calculated by reference to what the cost of the work would be if it were carried out").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 72 is a minor drafting amendment to which I have already spoken with Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 73 simply removes a word which is superfluous. Amendment No. 74 clarifies what was intended originally in the Bill.
The Bill as printed did not clearly set out how the future use of party wall works by one party which had been solely paid for by another was to be treated. I should stress that it is always optional, at the time of doing works, for the adjoining owner to join in the cost if he wishes so to do and to benefit fully from the facility provided thereafter without any extra cost. But he cannot at a later date have a free ride at someone else's expense, that other person having paid all the costs of the wall. The amendment simply makes that clear and is in conformity with the London Building Acts as they apply to inner London. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Security for expenses]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 78:
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("by notice in writing require") and insert ("serve a notice requiring").
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("the provisions of").
Page 10, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("building") in line 10 and insert—
("Where—
(a) in the exercise of the rights conferred by this Act an adjoining owner requires the").
Page 10, line 13, at beginning insert ("an adjoining owner").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 82:
Page 10, line 15, leave out ("in writing").
946
Page 10, line 17, leave out ("the provisions of").
Page 10, line 18, leave out from ("within") to ("or") in line 19 and insert ("the period of one month beginning with—
(a) the day on which a notice is served under subsection (2)").
Page 10, line 20, at end insert ("surveyor or").
The noble Earl said: I have spoken to all of these amendments with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Account for work carried out]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 87:
Page 10, line 25, leave out ("two months") and insert ("the period of two months beginning with the day").
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("deliver to") and insert ("serve on").
Page 10, line 36, leave out ("one month of delivery") and insert ("the period of one month beginning with the day of service").
Page 10, line 37, leave out ("give notice in writing to the building owner") and insert ("serve on the building owner a notice").
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("the said month the adjoining owner does not give") and insert ("that period of one month the adjoining owner does not serve").
The noble Earl said: These amendments were spoken to in the context of Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Settlement of account]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 10, line 43, leave out ("delivered") and insert ("served").
The noble Earl said: I dealt with this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 10, line 44, leave out ("and in default may he recovered as a debt").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 89 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. Together they constitute a relatively significant change to the Bill, the purpose being to replicate so far as possible the available sanctions under the London Building Acts. I am obliged to parliamentary counsel for the extremely neat way in which his drafting has sidestepped a potential problem area in terms of procuring efficient and effective means of enforcement.
Amendment No. 89 appears at first to be a substantive amendment. In fact the last phrase of Clause 14(1), which the amendment deletes, is consolidated in the new clause after Clause 16 with which I shall deal under Amendment No. 92.
Amendment No. 91 substitutes a new clause for Clause 16 and Schedule 1. In so doing, it removes the facility of criminal proceedings for recovery of debt arising under the various payment provisions of the Bill. The wording is also altered and consolidated and incorporates the second and third of the three offences referred to under the first schedule. Those now appear in the subsections (1) and (2) proposed by the amendment.
The criminal sanction under the London Building Acts is a rarely used provision. However, on occasions in extreme instances, it has been found that some provision of the kind is necessary. The drafting picks this up in the civil rather than the criminal context.
Amendment No. 92 picks up the deletion in Amendment No. 89 of the civil sanction originally set out in Clause 15 and the deletion of the criminal sanction by Amendment No. 91. It consolidates both in the revised facility of a civil remedy by summary procedure for recovery as a debt. That streamlines, consolidates, and makes uniform the provisions in that respect. I believe that this is as near as one can get to the original intention of the Bill and the operation of the London Building Acts without a criminal sanction. I am advised that it would be inappropriate in an essentially civil matter to have the criminal sanction. It is a matter of private debt. The promoters of the Bill accept the solution as a very close match to the original provisions of the London Building Acts. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to clarify Amendment No. 91. By removing Schedule 1, he removes "building owner". In Amendment No. 91 he substitutes "an occupier of land". That seems strange. The noble Earl may wish to write to me on the point because it may be complicated to explain.
Under Schedule 1 the building owner has to make good or compensate for any damage that he may occasion to the property of an adjoining occupier. That is not mentioned in the new amendment. I wonder why.
The Earl of Lytton: As regards building owners, the matter comes under the general definition with which I shall deal when I reach Amendment No. 96. I apologise, I missed the noble Earl's second point.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Under Schedule 1 there is a reference to a building owner having to make good or compensate the adjoining owner. It is not mentioned in Amendment No. 89.
The Earl of Lytton: There is a general provision in the Bill for dealing with compensation to adjoining owners. It might take me a little time now to find and explain the nitty-gritty, so perhaps I may write to the noble Earl after this stage, with his agreement, and set it out for him. That would probably be more accurate than searching through my papers now. If the noble Earl will accept my assurance that there is adequate provision for compensation in the Bill, I commend the amendment.
Lord Lucas: Officials in my department have liaised closely with officials in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department concerning the amendments. Given the anxiety expressed in Parliament about the burdens imposed on the criminal justice system by the creation of new criminal offences, the Government agree that it would not be appropriate to exact criminal sanctions where damages can be recovered through the
948
civil courts. We therefore welcome the amendments, which confirm that and also reduce the level of fines to reflect the severity of the offence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Service]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 90:
Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause—
SERVICE OF NOTICES ETC
(".—(1) A notice or other document required or authorised to be served under this Act may be served on a person—

(a) by delivering it to him in person;

(b) by sending it by post to him at his usual or last-known residence or place of business in the United Kingdom; or

(c) in the case of a body corporate, by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the body corporate at its registered or principal office or sending it by post to the secretary or clerk of that body corporate at that office.

(2) In the case of a notice or other document required or authorised to be served under this Act on a person as owner of premises, it may alternatively be served by—

(a) addressing it "the owner" of the premises (naming them), and

(b) delivering it to a person on the premises or, if no person to whom it can be delivered is found there, fixing it to a conspicuous part of the premises.").

The noble Earl said: This is a general revision of the wording relating to the service of notice. It brings the 1930s legislation into line with modern drafting. I have already spoken to the amendment in connection with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Offences and fines]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 91:
Leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new Clause—
OFFENCES
("(1) If—

(a) an occupier of land or premises refuses to permit a person to do anything which he is entitled to do with regard to the land or premises under section 8(1) or (5); and

(b) the occupier knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the person is so entitled,

the occupier is guilty of an offence.
(2) If—

(a) a person hinders or obstructs a person in attempting to do anything which he is entitled to do with regard to land or premises under section 8(1) or (5); and

(b) the first-mentioned person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person is so entitled,

the first-mentioned person is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 89. Under Amendment No. 91, compensation can now be requested instead of making good. I do not know whether this goes some way towards answering the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
RECOVERY OF SUMS
("Any sum payable in pursuance of this Act (otherwise than by way of fine) shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt.").
The noble Earl said: I dealt with this new clause with Amendment No. 89. It provides as much protection as modern legislation can afford to adjoining owners for the recovery of sums that become due under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Exemptions]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 93:
Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new Clause—
EXCEPTION IN CASE OF TEMPLES ETC
(".—(1) This Act shall not apply to land which is situated in inner London and in which there is an interest belonging to—

(a) the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple,

(b) the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple,

(c) the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn, or

(d) the Honourable Society of Gray's Inn.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) to inner London is to Greater London other than the outer London boroughs.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 93, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 94. The two amendments are grouped together because they both deal with exemptions and make significant alterations to the Bill. However, they are consistent with the original intention as regards the exemptions to the Inns of Court, the Temples and the Crown. Discussions have been held with representatives of Her Majesty, the Duchy of Cornwall, government departments and the Inns of Court.
The effect of Amendment No. 93 is to preserve existing exemptions in respect of the Inns and Temples properties which are located in inner London where they already have exemption under the London building Acts but without adding any new exemptions in respect of land outside the inner London area.
Subsection (2) of the new clause is new and arises out of the reference to "inner London", for which I understand there is no statutory definition, despite the long history of the London building Acts. The provisions relate to Greater London less the outer London boroughs in order to deal with the residue of inner London.
Amendment No. 94 exempts land occupied by Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales in a personal capacity. Operational land and buildings not so occupied—for example, government buildings or premises occupied for administrative purposes of the Crown—will, however, be caught by the provisions of the Bill. The old wording of the Bill is also sub-divided for greater clarity.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised a query about this matter. I hope that this clarification of the exemptions will answer the concerns that he expressed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I warmly congratulate the noble Earl on his powers of persuasion in getting the Inns of Court outside London, government buildings in particular and Crown land included in the net. I am quite sure that were the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, present he, too, would be delighted.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: We are content that the first amendment seeks to preserve the existing exemptions afforded in inner London to the Inns of Court and Temples by the London building Acts.
With regard to Crown exemption, the general rule of constitutional law is that an Act of Parliament does not bind the Crown unless and to the extent specified in the Act.
The Government's policy is to ensure that government departments and other public offices are not given Crown exemption where that is not thought necessary. Accordingly, I welcome the second amendment in that it achieves that objective while not binding the Crown in a private capacity or by virtue of its interests in the Royal duchies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I had intended to wait until Amendment No. 94 had been moved before saying what I know the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would expect. He asked me to say in his absence how grateful he is that the points he made were taken on board. I have been referred to more than once in a sedentary position; I just thought I would rise to say those words so that the Committee can see that I am an upstanding chap!
The Earl of Lytton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the opposition Chief Whip for that intervention. I am glad that the concerns of his noble colleague have been met.
Turning to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about my powers of persuasion, I do not feel that I have any role in this other than to try to act as an honest broker in regard to what I believe is an important and beneficial piece of legislation. I sincerely believe that the Bill will produce net benefits, streamlining and a reduction in friction.
I am greatly indebted to others for having used their powers of persuasion to convince the Inns of Court, government departments and the various Crown offices that the Bill is worth while and will be of benefit to them as well. The fact that they have recognised that is another indicator of the fundamental utility of the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—

951
THE CROWN
(" .—(1) This Act shall apply to land in which there is—

(a) an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown,

(b) an interest belonging to a government department, or

(c) an interest held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of any such department.

(2) This Act shall apply to—

(a) land which is vested in, but not occupied by, Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster;

(b) land which is vested in, but not occupied by, the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall.").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment inserting the new clause in connection with Amendment No. 93. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 94.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 12, leave out lines 37 and 38.
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment consequent upon the revised procedures for repeal under Amendment No. 98. There is accordingly no need to define the two Acts referred to in Clause 18 and the amendment deletes the reference. I hope that will be sufficient explanation for the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Schedule 2 to the Bill, which Amendment No. 98 replaces, repealed some parts of the building Act. Following representations received by officials in my department from interested parties, we are content that this should be removed.
As the noble Earl said, the powers introduced by Amendment No. 98 may appear wide but are restricted to private and local Acts, and I am content that they are necessary. They will be used only where researches confirm that they are necessary and after discussion with the appropriate parties.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the Minister for those remarks. I commend Amendment No. 95.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 13, line 5, leave out from (""owner"") to end of line 11 and insert ("includes—

(a) a person in receipt of, or entitled to receive, the whole or part of the rents or profits of land;

(b) a person in possession of land, otherwise than as a mortgagee or as a tenant from year to year or for a lesser term or as a tenant at will;

(c) a purchaser of an interest in land under a contract for purchase or under an agreement for a lease, otherwise than under an agreement for a tenancy from year to year or for a lesser term.").

The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 97.
Following legal scrutiny, it became apparent that the definition of "owner" in the Bill was defective and that a clearer definition needed to be incorporated. This amendment does no more than seek to remedy that. It does
952
so in a manner consistent with the original intention of the Bill. Amendment No. 97 simply removes the words rendered superfluous by Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 13, line 33, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 98:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal any provision of a private or local Act passed before or in the same session as this Act, if it appears to him necessary or expedient to do so in consequence of this Act.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may—

(a) contain such savings or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit;

(b) make different provision for different purposes.

(3) The power to make an order under subsection (1) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also about Schedule 2. I touched on this new clause when I spoke to Amendment No. 95. This is a substantial amendment which inserts a complete new clause dealing with repeals and amendments to private and local Acts of Parliament.
During discussions with lawyers it became apparent that nobody quite knew how many local Acts might refer to the London building Acts or contain similar provisions of their own which would necessitate repeal when this Bill becomes law. It is thought that there are very few of them but the eventuality has to be covered. This amendment would give greater flexibility in dealing with that specific problem.
Schedule 2 is rendered unnecessary because the new clause supersedes its provisions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I have not given notice of my question to my noble friend the Minister but I should like to raise two points on this amendment.
First, there may well be a proud local Act which works very well and it would seem from this amendment that the Minister can reduce its potency and even wipe it out by going through certain parliamentary procedures. Would there be proper notice given to the people concerned with the local area? I believe that there is a Manchester Act which is little used in this area, but there is that Act. That is already outside the London area and could be affected.
Secondly, new subsection (2)(b) states that an order may:
"make different provision for different purposes".

953
Could the Minister give some example which would add to the clarity of those words?
Lord Lucas: I beg pardon of the Committee for having given my comments on this amendment with Amendment No. 95. I must have been confused by the grouping list. However, I shall repeat what I said earlier.
The powers in Amendment No. 98 are wide but we feel that they are necessary, not least to deal with the London building Acts, but also to deal with other local Acts which exist for other parts of the country, because we intend to introduce a national practice which will apply nationally and not be subject to local variation. I shall write to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull about the exact wording of this clause and I hope that I shall be able to give him some comfort on exactly why the phrase that he mentioned is necessary.
However, as I said previously, we confirm that this clause will be used only where research has confirmed that its use is necessary and after discussion with appropriate parties; that is to say, we shall not take action without talking fully through the implications of that action with everyone who might be concerned.
The Earl of Lytton: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Perhaps I may add to that by saying to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that it is important to realise that, although this appears to be a very sweeping power, it deals with local Acts. So it is not a question of any wider general right of appeal. He mentioned Manchester. There is also thought to be a local Act for Bristol which might be affected. It will be a matter of carrying out a trawl to establish how many of these measures are affected and whether the provisions are being incorporated into currently applicable legislation.
With the benefit of those words and the Minister's explanation, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Repeals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Lytton: Clause 19 is rendered unnecessary by Amendment No. 98, to which the Committee has just agreed. It means that repeals or amendments will be made by order rather than in a schedule to the Bill. For reasons which I explained, neither the schedule nor its enabling clause is of any further effect and I am happy that they be deleted.
Clause 19 negatived.
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 13, line 43, after ("Wall") insert ("etc.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment to the short title is necessary because, strictly speaking, Clause 6 does not refer to party walls as such; it refers to excavation and construction within certain degrees of proximity to an adjoining owner's building. However, it has been long accepted practice in Inner London and under the London Building Acts that excavation and construction
954
adjacent to another property necessitates notice. That is now covered by the "etc." which will appear in the short title.
The proximity test is an important safeguard for construction and it is equally important that the title of the Bill reflects the scope of what is contained within its pages. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 13, line 44, leave out from ("force") to end of line 46 and insert ("in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
(2A) An order under subsection (2) may—

(a) contain such savings or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit;

(b) make different provision for different purposes.").

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 100 deals with commencement. It enables a more considered approach to be adopted in providing an opportunity for discussion with professional bodies and others regarding transitional arrangements.
It is important that building owners with work in progress when the Bill comes into force have the necessary time to adapt and that the introduction of the new measures for England and Wales should be as smooth as possible. It would be a terrible shame if measures with such an honourable and efficient reputation and heritage in the London Building Acts were not brought in as smooth and as trouble-free a fashion as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Should this Bill receive Royal Assent, officials will discuss with appropriate bodies the need for any savings and transitional provisions. They will also give consideration to the date on which the Bill will take effect.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, that will allow a more considered approach to be adopted which will take into account the views of professional bodies. We are content that the amendment achieves that objective.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the Minister for that response and commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Offences and Fines]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first schedule to the Bill.
The Earl of Lytton: As I explained in the context of Amendment No. 89, Schedule No. 1 is now unnecessary. It therefore does not need to be included in the Bill.
Schedule 1 negatived.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be the second schedule to the Bill?
The Earl of Lytton: This second schedule is also rendered unnecessary, as I explained in the context of Amendment No. 98.
Schedule 2 negatived.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Noise Bill
9.29 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate my honourable friend Mr. Harry Greenway on his work in guiding the Bill through its stages in another place.
It may be helpful if, before describing the Bill in detail, I set out some of the background to it. I am sure that many of your Lordships will be aware of the growing concerns relating to the problem of environmental noise. The number of complaints of noise from domestic premises to local authorities in England and Wales continues to rise steadily. They account for more than two-thirds of all noise complaints made to local authorities. In 1993–94, the total stood at 131,153 complaints, which represents more than a threefold increase in the past decade. Of additional concern is the fact that less that 0.3 per cent. of those complaints led to a conviction.
This is not just a question of steeply rising complaints. Domestic noise, particularly at night, can lead not only to the disruption of everyday life through lost sleep and illness, but also directly to tragic cases of murder and suicide.
At present, the main responsibility for dealing with noise complaints rests with local authorities, using the statutory nuisance controls under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That can involve a time-consuming process which can be unsatisfactory both for the complainant and indeed the local authority. I am sure that we all know personally of cases to which this applies.
Concerns about the way in which the system was working—or rather not working—led to the establishment by the Department of the Environment of a review of the effectiveness of neighbour noise controls. The report of the working party made a number of recommendations, including the possibility of the introduction of a specific offence of making excessive noise at night and clarification of the powers of local authorities to seize noise-making equipment. This Bill takes up these important issues.
Excessive noise can be distressing for those who are being disturbed, particularly during the night hours. The Bill aims to address excessive noise during those hours and to deal with complaints in a speedy manner. However, in aiming to provide a more efficient service, the different requirements of local areas must be recognised. It is right, therefore, that local authorities should be able to adopt the powers where they believe it will be of benefit to the local residents.
956
I shall now turn to a more detailed examination of the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 is relatively straightforward, providing that local authorities shall choose to adopt the new offence. Where the local authority decides to adopt the new offence it will be required to advertise its decision in a local newspaper. That will help to ensure that local people are made aware of their authority's decision.
There was much discussion in another place about the adoptive nature of the new offence. My honourable friend the Minister undertook that a review of the workings and take-up of the new offence would be carried out after two years. He also said that the Government would accept an amendment to provide a reserve power for the Secretary of State. This would allow him to require the introduction of the new offence, should that be appropriate in the light of the review. I shall be considering this matter further before bringing forward a proposal.
Clause 2 requires those authorities which have adopted the new offence to investigate complaints which relate to excessive noise from a dwelling during the hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. The Bill defines these as "night hours". Local authorities already have a duty to investigate complaints relating to possible statutory nuisances. However, this clause provides, in those areas where the powers are adopted, that the local authority has to investigate complaints about excessive noise from dwellings at night. As part of the investigation, the officer will initially make an assessment of whether the noise exceeds, or is likely to exceed, the permitted level. He may then serve a warning notice in respect of the noise—I shall come back to that later—and decide whether to measure the noise.
Clause 2 enables the local authority to deal with complaints where the affected dwelling is in its area, but the noise coming from the dwelling could be heard in another local authority area. I believe that that is quite a valuable point because so often boroughs tend to view themselves as complete entities. People can be adversely affected on borough boundaries. That will ensure that the complaint can be dealt with as though both authorities were in the complainant's local authority area.
Clause 3 deals with the service of a warning notice. Where an officer of the local authority has made a decision to serve a warning notice, it is clearly most desirable for that notice to be served on the person responsible for the noise. However, we must realise that it will not always be possible to find that person. That could be due to something as basic as the door remaining firmly shut or else it may be that no one is willing to admit responsibility.
Recognising the potential difficulties in the service of a warning notice, it can be served on the premises from which the noise is being emitted where it is not possible to serve it on the person responsible. The warning notice cannot come into force less than 10 minutes from the time of service and it remains in force until the end of that night period, that is, the following 7 a.m.
Clause 4 details the new night noise offence. In a situation where a warning notice has been served and the noise from the offending dwelling has continued

957
above the permitted level—and this is a major problem in many cases now—the person responsible for the noise under this Bill is guilty of an offence. Where a person is found guilty of an offence that person can be fined up to level 3 on the standard scale, which is currently set at £1,000. I would like to emphasise to your Lordships at this juncture that there is a defence for a person charged with an offence to show that there was,
"a reasonable excuse for the act, default or sufferance".
This would ensure that, for example, where the person who would be liable for the offence was not present at the time the noise occurred, he or she would have the ability to make his or her defence to the courts. It could also be a possible defence in cases where the noise came about because essential works were having to be carried out to the property. This is an important safeguard.
Clauses 5 and 6 enable the Secretary of State to establish the permitted noise level and approve devices for the measurement of the noise. This is the first time that a definitive level will be set for the assessment of neighbourhood noise complaints. One of the major benefits of using an objective standard against which the noise can be assessed, is that it will help to provide a simpler route for the speedy assessment of complaints about excessive noise at night.
To assist in the assurance of regularity in the assessment of noise at night, Clause 6 provides for the approval of noise-measuring equipment. Approval of noise-measuring devices by the Secretary of State will ensure that they are capable of carrying out the measurement procedure as defined and providing evidence to prove that an offence has occurred.
That leads me to Clause 7 which provides for documentary evidence of an offence under Clause 4. Included in this is a requirement that the measurement of the noise has been carried out in accordance with any procedure which might be defined and with an approved measuring device.
Clause 8 provides for a fixed penalty scheme. Where an offence has been committed under Clause 4, the local authority may serve a fixed penalty notice on the person responsible for the noise. The level of the fixed penalty is initially set at £100. I should like to emphasise that the fixed penalty is just one option for dealing with offences under this legislation. Local authorities will be able to prosecute offenders where they believe that would be a more effective option.
Clause 9 is supplementary to Clause 8, allowing the form of fixed penalty notice to be specified by order. Where a fixed penalty notice has been served on breach of a warning notice, the local authority cannot serve another fixed penalty for a further breach. In such circumstances, however, the person may be convicted of the further offence. This clause also enables the Secretary of State to amend the level of fixed penalty.
I shall now move on to the other major area of the Bill—the power to seize noise-making equipment. Clause 10 and the schedule allow local authorities to seize noise-making equipment where it is believed that the equipment is used in the commission of an offence.
958
Where required, a Justice of the Peace may issue a warrant allowing entry to the premises, if necessary by force.
As a Justice of the Peace, now on the supplementary list, perhaps I may say that it is important that local authorities know where to locate their local Justices of the Peace and when they are available. Frequently, local authorities have the addresses of people who are never available at the weekend or on public holidays although those are often the times when most offences are committed.
The power of seizure will also be available for use where a local authority considers noise to be a statutory nuisance under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and it decides that seizure is the best option to secure abatement of the noise. The schedule provides for the retention and return of noise-making equipment and allows a court to order forfeiture of the equipment. It provides safeguards for third-party rights in noise-making equipment, so that equipment can be reclaimed where appropriate.
The remaining clauses of the Bill are technical. Clause 11 provides definitions and an order-making power. Clause 12 provides protection from personal liability for local authority members, officers and any person authorised to take action on behalf of the local authority. Clause 13 relates to financial matters. Clause 14 provides the short title, deals with commencement and extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
This Bill aims to deal with what can be the most disturbing and distressing types of noise. It will provide local authorities with an additional power to deal with complaints about noise at night. This will he in addition to the existing statutory nuisance controls which will remain available to all local authorities at all hours of the day and night.
I should emphasise that the aim of the Bill is not to encourage killjoys. I do not wish to stop people having a party to celebrate a 21st birthday or a wedding anniversary, for example. Nevertheless, I think that there is a need to strengthen the law. Although most people are tolerant of a single event it is the persistent noise from some adjoining properties which is often just too much for people to tolerate. Indeed, looking across at the noble Lord, Lord Graham, perhaps I may mention the Pink Elephant. I am sure that he will not have forgotten that nightclub, although I understand that it has long since gone.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was at Southgate, on the Circus.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, yes, and it was a constant source of complaint. People could not live within any range of it. The noble Lord and I happened both to be associated with the area at the time.
I believe that this Bill is a major step forward in dealing with what is one of the most common pollutants in our society today—and something with which so

959
many people can identify. The Bill is a great step forward in dealing with complaints and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I should like to take this opportunity to raise one point. Unless a noise intensity measurement is written on to the face of the Bill, I think that it will be very difficult to enforce.
Noise is often measured in decibels or the 10th part of a bel. A bel (spelt with one 1, by the way) is a measure for comparing intensity of noise, electric currents, etc., based on a logarithmic scale.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for her explanation of the Bill. It occurs to me that I should declare two interests. First, I am a member of a local authority. Secondly, professionally, I and my firm act for a great many musicians who create the subject matter of the Bill, although I am sure that very few of them set out to cause offence.
In expressing concern about the Bill, I am not saying that noise is not a huge problem. I entirely agree that it is, but I do not believe that the Bill will be quite the panacea that some of the speeches in another place seemed to indicate. I understand that noise can drive people to distraction—literally, in some cases. I shall confine myself to one anecdote, although I cannot resist commenting that, when looking at the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I have never thought of pink elephants. A new vision appears.
I have a vivid mental image of what must have occurred over a bank holiday weekend, following which one of my colleagues, a very senior lawyer, came into the office and said that he had been approached by a neighbour, a High Court judge, holding a hammer and asked whether he would support a step ladder while the judge took the hammer to a ringing alarm. That is the kind of distraction to which upright members of society can be driven. I assume that ringing alarms fall outside the Bill since they are outside premises. There are other measures to deal with them, which I believe are cumbersome and probably inadequate.
My concern is whether the Bill will prove to be a workable measure. I was glad to hear the comments of the noble Baroness about the need for local discretion. I would be concerned if the provisions became mandatory. If so, I believe that that should arise only if the local authority had discretion as to the level of service to be provided. Many local authorities have anti-noise patrols and take decisions about the resources to be devoted to the service and the need to be met. Understandably, they provide the service on certain days of the week—the weekend—or times of the year. For example, the second and third quarters of the year tend to provoke more complaints because of outside parties and barbecues, which are matters that fall outside the
960
Bill. I mention matters that fall outside the Bill because they indicate the breadth of the problem and the difficulty of dealing with just one sector of it. I believe that the need for investment in the service must be measured by local authorities against other needs. It is a matter for each local authority to assess.
I have indicated my concern about what is covered by the Bill, not least because of the problems caused by other sources of noise. An insufficiently comprehensive Bill may lead to the law and law-enforcers being brought into disrepute. Perhaps the noble Baroness in her reply can give an indication of the "nuisances" to be covered by the Bill, in particular whether the vibration or beat from music, which is often a source of real irritation, albeit at a relatively low sound level, falls within the Bill. I believe that it comes within the Environmental Protection Act.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness can also comment on the connection between the level of noise which constitutes an offence and ambient noise levels, which the noble Earl has already raised. If the level is 35 dB(A)—which I understand is the level that has been debated and is the WHO guideline—in urban areas it may well be that existing levels exceed it. Further, I understand that it will be necessary to establish that the noise which is the subject of the potential offence exceeds the background noise by at least 10 decibels. I should be glad to receive information about background noise in an area where there are many overhead flights. For example, in west London the noise created by aircraft flying into Heathrow can be considerable during both night and day. I should be grateful to receive confirmation that that is not part of the ambient noise; in other words, that the noise is measured against the gap between aircraft, not against an aircraft. Comment has also been made that, where there is low background noise, noise of less than 35 dB(A) may create a disturbance.
Perhaps I may read one comment made by the environmental health officer of a London borough, who pointed out:
"In the case of persistent noise nuisance, a true background level is bound to be difficult to determine since the offender is unlikely to oblige the local authority by turning off the noise to enable the background noise level to be measured".
That summarises well some of the concerns of the officers who will have to operate the Bill. The measurement must of course be technically unimpeachable. It is that type of comment which makes me wonder whether that will be possible.
I have been struck also by comments about the duality of the enforcement system. These provisions running alongside statutory nuisance measures may, I am told, lead to increased administrative effort, as both may have to be followed in case one procedure is not effective. I hope that that is an unwarranted fear.
I believe that local authorities will have to work with the police in enforcing these provisions. That is of course at a time when the Home Office review of police core activities recommends moving away from police involvement in local authority enforcement. I wonder

961
whether the noble Baroness can tell us—I appreciate that she may be unable to do so—whether the police have made any comments about the Bill.
This is an area close to home for the noble Baroness, but has she received any comments from the Magistrates' Association? I ask that in the context of the level of the fixed penalty. I agree with the views of another place that the original proposal of £40 was rather low, but I wonder about £100. Perhaps from her own experience the noble Baroness can say whether that is likely to lead to more people opting for a court hearing, and the costs, delays, and so on that that will provoke. I shall be interested to know whether the magistrates have any comments.
Finally, if the fixed penalties are to go to the Secretary of State, as the Bill provides, one must ask why. If it is unobjectionable for the Secretary of State to collect the penalties, then I do not see that it is unobjectionable for the local authority to collect them. Enforcement and the penalty should be decoupled to avoid financial incentives.
I am aware that I have come out with a string of concerns. I call them concerns rather than criticisms because I do not want to pitch them so high as to appear to be entirely unwelcoming. I welcome the provisions relating to the seizure of equipment. I am sorry that I cannot he unreservedly enthusiastic about the Bill, because I am unenthusiastic about the problem of noise which the Bill seeks to address.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin, as is customary on this side of the House, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. This may not be "Gardeners' Question Time", but it is an appropriate time to ask some questions. I start, as others did, by welcoming the initiative of her honourable friend in another place, Harry Greenway, whose parliamentary activities are well known to me. One can see from reading the reports that he has been most assiduous.
I see that four and a half hours were devoted to the Second Reading in another place. The Bill was discussed for a further eight and a half hours in Committee and four hours were spent on Report. There were 17 hours of discussion in all. That indicates, as the record shows, that many Members of Parliament wanted to contribute to the debate. They all brought to it, as do the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Hamwee, and myself, experience at the sharp end from listening to constituents who have undoubtedly suffered. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that local authorities had received 130 complaints.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, 130,000.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is right. The figure is rising. There are probably at least that many complaints that have not been reported because much fear is engendered in communities by people who are blatantly noisy, sometimes threatening and often violent. People sometimes keep quiet and do not complain in those circumstances. This is a serious problem. However, I share the reservations of the noble
962
Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the Bill. We welcome the Bill and shall not in any way inhibit its passage, but we have to be exceedingly careful that there are not people outside who think that the Bill constitutes an automatic solution of their problems. Local authorities have my highest regard and I should not wish them to be the butt of complaints from communities and individuals as a result of people believing this Act of Parliament means that local authorities should take certain action.
It is right that we should place on record our questions as regards the Bill, but in this area it is easier to mention the problems than to find solutions to them. I do not think that Harry Greenway MP is expecting this measure to achieve a great deal immediately. The kind of noise people are subjected to arises from noisy parties, drinking parties and summer events. However, people who live in flats are subjected to other noise. I was proud to represent Edmonton which has many tower blocks. However, the first tower blocks in the London Borough of Enfield were built in Southgate. I attended the opening ceremony. In those days tower blocks had not acquired a bad name.
People who live in flats may suffer from noise which emanates from their neighbours. That noise may not arise as a result of parties but flat dwellers may still suffer from the noise created by their neighbours. I understand that the Government welcome the Bill and will do nothing to inhibit its passage. I have a briefing from the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection which appears to be a reputable body. The briefing asks whether,
"the legislation would effectively mean a 11 p.m. curfew on all parties—is there no discretion for allowing one-off celebrations"?
It would be helpful to be told whether that is the case.
There is also the matter of the resources which will be required by local authorities to enable them to carry out their responsibilities in this area. I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards the role of the police. No one, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would wish to criticise the police for wishing to carry out what they consider to be more important work. However, it is the local authority officer who has the power to issue warning notices. Unless he has the co-operation of the police and is accompanied by a policeman when necessary, he and councillors will be frustrated as regards taking action and residents will despair of their problems being resolved. I hope that we can be told more—at a later stage, if not tonight—about how the police view this matter. I believe it was the honourable Member for Bromsgrove who said in another place that 17 people had been killed either through suicide or in disputes arising out of noise. We are discussing a matter which affects the health and mental stability of a great many people.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness has taken into account some of the information which the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection has gathered. It contacted senior officers of local authorities on the Noise Bill prior to its introduction. It received some interesting and I would say depressing answers to its questions. To the question, "In addition to these new prosecution powers, would you also be likely to use the

963
proposed fixed penalty powers?" 103 replied, "Unlikely to use"; 102 replied, "Too early to say"; and 34 replied, "Likely to use".
Another question asked, "If the Government clarified the law on powers of equipment confiscation, how likely is your authority to use these powers?" To that, 181 replied, "Likely to use"; 21 replied, "Unlikely to use".
The most significant question asked local authorities to select what they considered to be the major constraints on their ability to control noise nuisance. Thirty-four said lack of police co-operation, 169 said lack of staff and resources, 47 said lack of effective legislation, and 35 replied that there were no major constraints.
The noble Baroness, who is always fair in these matters, will recognise that we should not indicate that the Bill is an instrument which will be welcomed by local authorities. The general intention to do something about noise is welcome. In my continuing role as joint president of the Association for London Government, I keep in touch with London local authorities. They have a horrendous task trying to sort out finances and priorities.
On this side of the House, we welcome this initiative. I realise that there are time constraints on the Government but had this been a government Bill it would have been taken much more seriously by local authorities. However, the Official Opposition welcome the Bill and we shall do nothing to inhibit its progress.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for bringing this Bill to the House. I congratulate her and my honourable friend Harry Greenway on giving it life in another place. I hope that its passage here will be speedier than it was in the other place and that it will attract fewer amendments than the Bill whose Committee stage we have completed this evening.
It is surely right that there should be an adequate system of controls on noisy neighbours. Where education and guidance no longer work, we need to address the problem through legislation. Local authorities already have powers to abate noise nuisance but they are slow and expensive and do not work as well as they might. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this Bill is no panacea but neither is it a white elephant. It will fulfil a useful purpose in addition to the existing powers, and we welcome it.
My noble friend explained the provisions of the Bill in some detail. I shall not repeat what she said, but I should like to offer some comments on particular aspects of the Bill and on how we see it working in practice. After that, I shall make a few comments in response to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
As regards whether the provisions of the night noise offence be adoptive or mandatory, it was decided in the other place that the offence should initially be adoptive but that this should be reviewed after two years. We also
964
agreed that the Secretary of State should be given a power to direct local authorities to operate the new offence should that become appropriate.
That seems to us to be the right balance in the long term. The 24-hour complaints service required to fit in with this Bill is likely to be inappropriate for areas where night-time noise nuisance is uncommon, such as many rural areas. In those areas existing powers continue to be available, as elsewhere.
Next, I emphasise that there must be an actual sufferer from whose dwelling the nuisance is measurable. This Bill is no charter for busybodies or officious local authorities. There will be objective standards (determined by the Secretary of State) for noise nuisance both as to the permitted level and as to how that is measured.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, our proposals for the permitted noise level are that to trigger the offence noise would have to exceed 35 decibels and would have to exceed the underlying noise level by at least 10 decibels. That underlying noise level would be measured over a period of five minutes and would, therefore, include the "long lows" as well as the "short highs" of a building under an aeroplane flightpath.
We have not set the figure of 35 decibels or of 10 decibels on the face of the Bill. We believe that the figure should be flexible and one which can be adjusted from time to time as the technology advances or, indeed, as people's views of the offence change. Therefore, I disagree on that point with my noble friend Lord Balfour. Thirty-five decibels is typical of night-time noise levels in bedrooms with closed single-glazed windows fronting a busy suburban road. Just how many bells there are on a pink elephant I would not know.
Research indicates that 90 per cent. of the population of England and Wales is expected to experience noise levels of less than 35 decibels inside rooms on the front of their dwelling at night. The World Health Organisation issued guidance in 1980 that,
"a level of less than 35 decibels is recommended to preserve the restorative process of sleep".
I am sure that that is something that we are all looking forward to.
A possible measurement protocol, including the permitted level and the manner in which the noise is measured, has been tried out in a number of local authorities in England and Wales. Those trials have shown that the new offence is likely to apply to prolonged excessive noise such as that produced by amplified music.
The trials show that noise from conversation held at a reasonable volume or from listening to television, radio or amplified music in the normal course of life would not usually exceed the proposed permitted level. Intermittent or impulsive noise such as sporadic hammering, slamming of doors or dogs barking will not be measurable for technical reasons. As the owner of three peacocks, seven guinea fowl and a couple of dozen bantams, I must say that I am grateful for that fact.

965
The local authority officer, once he has established that an offence is being committed, will have a wide discretion. Such discretion will enable him to deal appropriately with cases where, for instance, an offending noise is simply the result of a one-off celebration such as a wedding, anniversary or a birthday. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that we expect those people to act with common sense.
The local authority officer may conclude that it would be inappropriate to take action in such circumstances. He may allow time for the event to finish; he may require the noise to be reduced to a reasonable level—and, indeed, may advise on what that level is; and he may seek to resolve the problem informally.
If a local authority officer issues a warning notice under the Bill and that notice is not complied with, he has the alternatives of taking the matter to court, where the maximum fine will be level 3—that is currently £1,000. We agree that that strikes the right balance and reflects the seriousness of the problem of neighbour noise. Alternatively, he will be able to serve a fixed penalty notice which not only provides a more immediate sanction on offenders but also prevents less serious cases reaching the court. The level was set in another place at £100. That is higher than any other fixed penalty currently in place. The Government's acceptance of that level for this offence should not be seen as a precedent for other fixed penalties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked who would keep the money and why it should be the Government and not local authorities. It is a simple matter of it being a criminal offence. We do not believe that there should be a financial incentive for the people who are charged with creating, so to speak, that criminal offence. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, my point was whether it was appropriate for the Secretary of State, presumably, of the Environment to do so. I assume that he would be a conduit into the Treasury and that, therefore, it would in fact be no different from the Home Office or another department collecting the money.
The point is this. Should the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Home Office collect the money? I am not clear where fixed penalties normally go. However, I should have thought that they would not necessarily go to the particular Secretary of State. I said that I thought it important to decouple any financial incentive from law enforcement.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. I can assure her without reading what is in front of me that the money goes to the Treasury.
The Bill also clarifies the law on confiscation of noise-making equipment. I can think of no more appropriate sanction against those who commit such offences than to deprive a persistent and thoughtless noise-maker of the source of the noise. The Bill provides safeguards for third party rights; and we welcome that.
966
I turn to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord referred to the NSCA survey. That was undertaken before local authorities had had an opportunity to examine the detail of the Bill. We agree that the Bill is only part of a solution. It is also necessary to improve local authority practice and the liaison with the police.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of alarms. Those will be covered by the Bill under Clause 11(2)(b).
The noble Baroness referred to the issue of vibration which may be difficult to measure under the protocol in the Bill. However, it may still be possible to take action under statutory nuisance.
As regards whether the level of the fixed penalty is too high, it is a balancing act. If one sets the level too low, people do not take it seriously. If one sets it too high, people wish to take their chance in court. The other place has taken a view on it and we are content to see how that works out in practice. But we shall keep the matter under review.
As regards co-operation in practice with the police, in line with one of the recommendations of the neighbour noise working party, a joint code of practice is being prepared by the professional bodies of the environmental health officers and the police. This will offer best practice advice on effective liaison between the police and the local authority in environmental noise control. Currently police involvement in noise control enforcement is almost exclusively required where there is a threat of breach of the peace, public disorder or violence or where confiscation of noise-making equipment is being attempted. Where the threat so described continues to exist, I am sure that the police will still seek to attend as at present. However, in many instances I am told that the police involvement largely reflects the uncertainty felt by many local authority officers about the legality of their position in undertaking confiscation of sound equipment without specific power. We believe that the clarification provided by the Bill of the powers of temporary confiscation and forfeiture of such equipment may reduce the need for police involvement in such cases.
I turn now to resource implications for local authorities. The Government recognise that those local authorities which adopt the provisions of the night noise offence will need to provide a noise complaints service 24 hours a day. One of the messages from responses to the consultation paper on neighbour noise control was that those authorities with the greatest need for out-of-hours noise complaint services already tend to provide them. Indeed, in 1993–94, 35 per cent. of local authorities already operated a full 24-hour service.
The additional cost of manpower for local authorities to enforce the night noise offence is estimated to he £1 million in the first year, rising to £3 million per year in the third year. Our calculation of these additional costs is based on a gradual take-up of the night noise offence provisions by those local authorities not currently providing a 24-hour noise complaint service.

967
The Government have undertaken that those additional costs will be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, although the additional cost is designed to take account of the additional take-up, will those authorities which have already voluntarily started a service be recompensed? Alternatively, will those who have been doing the job well for a short time have to soldier on paying their own costs, while the Johnny-come-latelies get a subsidy of some kind?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that we will differentiate between those who came first and those who have yet to arrive. However, if there is any question about it, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The Bill before us will give local authorities an additional weapon in their attempts to address the distress and suffering that are caused by night-time neighbour noise. The Government welcome it as providing a suitable balance of increased controls on the thoughtless and persistent noise-maker, with provisions to ensure that the rights of the individual are not unduly curtailed.
10.16 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation in the debate and for the many interesting points that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, brought up the technical matter of defining the decibel level. I shall look into it to ascertain the technical answer for which he asked.
Another interesting point raised is the decibel level permitted at work by the Health and Safety Executive. It is a relevant point and we shall seek an answer to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the problem of alarms, which I thought was already under control, and the Minister responded. Nowadays one has to have a 20-minute cut-off point on an alarm. Only someone whose alarm is defective or who has failed to replace it with one of the proper type will be an offender. For many years I suffered over long weekends when an alarm rang for three days. I quite understand the events which the noble Baroness describes.
Whether local action should be mandatory or discretionary is an important point to which we should return at Committee stage. The fact that it is discretionary at the beginning makes it clear that people will be able to determine whether the action suits their area and the demand for it.
I support the point made by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that local authorities must balance tight budgets and assess value for every penny they spend. In this city, London, there is a 24-hour noise patrol which has proved hugely successful. It is so valued by the ratepayers that they would give up most benefits for it except the rubbish collection—that is the first priority on every resident's list. The noise patrol has been hugely successful, but it has experienced difficulties in getting a successful
968
prosecution under the present law. It is more difficult when one has to establish nuisance than when there is an objective assessment, as in this case.
Another advantage of the objective assessment is that the complainant would not have to appear if the case goes to court. A certified report would be issued by the qualified person. That would be helpful because many people are frightened to complain about a neighbour. We know from the road rage cases recently that people are often intimidated and do not wish to fall foul of their neighbours. Tempers can get very hot and recently there have been bad incidents with people who live near each other. It is a good point. There will be a more objective assessment which will be certified. There will be cases like the drink driving cases where people prove that the equipment is faulty. Hordes of people got off because the equipment was established as being defective. Plenty of cases will be argued on that basis.
The noble Baroness asked for my views regarding the £100. I have had no information from the Magistrates' Association, so I do not know its views. I quote only my own. A penalty has to hurt a little. By the time I had stopped being an active magistrate, parking fines did not mean a thing to people; they were just accumulated by the dozen. But what really upset them were wheel clamps, because those hurt; they were an inconvenience. I therefore think that a fine of £100 would be something of a pain to pay, while £40 would probably not be enough.
The other day I heard someone say: "I had to pay my dentist £40 for my treatment". I do not know whether it was national health treatment; it probably was. I heard people complaining about it on a television programme. Yesterday I paid the washing-machine man £40 to walk through the door—and he did not have to do all the years of studying that dentists have done. Forty pounds these days is the call-out fee on most appliances. Therefore the £100 proposed and accepted in the Commons is about right.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene to pass on the advice I have heard that dentists ought to charge while the tooth is still hurting and not afterwards. Then people would be more willing to pay. I also want to ask whether my point about the views of the Magistrates' Association might he taken up during the Bill's passage through this House. I take the personal comments of the noble Baroness, but I am concerned about the balance between the fixed penalty hurting and the provocation to resist it and take the matter through the courts.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point. I certainly hope that we shall be able to get the information from the Magistrates' Association. That would certainly be the body to give such advice.
Money values have changed so much. In my day, the old-age pensioner came for a half-a-crown extraction. You took the tooth out for that amount. Whenever I quote something at an old price, my sister tells me that I am still thinking in the days of the threepenny

969
meat pie. That is true. It is possible to forget how money has changed in value. We will seek those views. They would be very interesting.
The noise patrol that I mentioned is a 24-hour, seven days a week service. The local authority had chosen to fund it as part of its expenditure. It may be that in another area the call-outs would be few. In the case of the Pink Elephant, which we both knew well—it was not exactly a disco; in those days such places were called late night music and dancing establishments—the licensing control lay with the Greater London Council. Every time we used to bring in a busload of local people to explain how awful it was. The case was heard across the water. The people sitting there frankly did not believe it. There was no objective evidence. Had the decibels been measured it might have been rather more effective. Measurements could have been taken in any one of 20 houses in the area. Since then, licensing has moved to the local authorities. The London Borough of Enfield would now know what was happening. In fact, the London Borough of Enfield opposed renewal of the licence, but that had no effect at all because it was seen as the view of "Big Brother" without anyone being informed. It is very important that control now genuinely comes under the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned being outdoors in the summer. As I understand it, the Bill will not cover noise out of doors; it will only cover noise affecting people within a building. I find the one-off celebration the most difficult. I would hope that in most cases people would go round to see their neighbours and say that they were having a 50th wedding anniversary or 21st birthday party. It depends on an area, but very often people will ask those who live locally to join in. Then there is a great tolerance of such an event. Even if that were not the case, the officer could issue a warning, or could call first and give a verbal warning before entering into any of these formal procedures.
In the past, for years I knew people on whom the police had called before the nuisance legislation came in. People would turn the music down until the police car had gone round the corner and would then immediately turn it up again to its previous level. The
970
only way the police could have stopped the noise would have been to stay there all night, which would of course have been impossible. So the one-off celebrations would, I hope, be dealt with by common sense.
Walkman radios have affected people's hearing to the extent that sounds now need to be louder than they used to be. One is meant to use the Walkman radio in one ear at a time so as not to damage the hearing too much. But the people who sell Walkmans do not ever advise that. However, it means that people's hearing has in fact been damaged, as research in America shows. Also, people's sensitivity to sound differs greatly. That is why an objective amount above the noise level is an appropriate objective assessment. Traffic in general is covered by different regulations and does not come into the Bill at all.
I believe that I have covered all the points raised. Certainly, there will be much more discussion at Committee stage. I thank all those who have taken part. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Police Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty six minutes past ten o'clock.

  Scottish Research Bodies: Prior Options Reviews
  Scottish Research Bodies: Prior Options Reviews
  Freight Facilities Grants: NAO Review
  Freight Facilities Grants: NAO Review
  "Right to Buy" Discounts
  "Right to Buy" Discounts
  Nursery Education Voucher Scheme: Promotion Costs
  Nursery Education Voucher Scheme: Promotion Costs
  Prisoners: Exclusion from Education
  Prisoners: Exclusion from Education
  HMSO: Shortlist of Bidders
  HMSO: Shortlist of Bidders
  Former Yugoslavia: Army Reserve and TA Call Out
  Former Yugoslavia: Army Reserve and TA Call Out
  Council of Europe and WEU Parliamentary Assembly: Report of UK Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU Parliamentary Assembly: Report of UK Delegation
  Recruitment and Assessment Services
  Recruitment and Assessment Services