Sitting of 21 November 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Milk Quota
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the level of the milk quota in the United Kingdom. [3719]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Commission will present the Council with an options paper on the future of the dairy industry early next year. I shall continue to resist any arbitrary cuts in the United Kingdom's allocation.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and for visiting my constituency recently and talking directly to several farmers who have been hit by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. He heard the concerns of farmers in my constituency, especially Mr. Paul Kenny who has a farm in Slaidburn and who spoke about the milk quota problem. Our milk quota is not sufficient to meet the amount that we should produce for home consumption. That problem has been exacerbated by the BSE crisis because many cattle that would not normally be in the fields are being kept out and producing milk. I fear that we will hit our quota sooner rather than later, but may face a shortage of milk thanks to the quota problem. Can he reassure farmers in Ribble Valley that he is working hard to ensure that we get an increased milk quota and that he is doing all that he can to ameliorate the current crisis?
    Mr. Hogg: I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency and I remember Mr. Kenny and the point that he made. In the long term, we would like the system of quotas to be done away with. In the short term, the position is more encouraging than some people have imagined in the sense that milk production is now 0.5 per cent. below the quota profile. That is an encouraging state of affairs.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is not the reality that the Government failed the country in 1984 when they agreed to milk quotas way below our requirements? Is not the solution to that problem the abolition of milk quotas? Has the Minister discussed with the new members of the European Community—Sweden, Finland and Austria—their views of the future of milk quotas?
    Mr. Hogg: There are several concepts of what we should have when the present system of milk quotas
    1086
    expires in 2000. The United Kingdom would much prefer to do away with quotas and price support of the present sort, although there would have to be a fairly extended transitional period. We must await the options paper, which we will get early next year. It is extraordinary that a Labour Member should make a point about a bad baseline, however, because we got less than we would have liked as a direct consequence of the agri-monetary policy pursued by the Labour party in the 1970s, which prevented us from having a sufficient output to justify a larger basic quota.
    Mr. Garnier: May I take it that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the dilemma faced by dairy farmers in my constituency and elsewhere? With the uncertainty over the accelerated cull, they do not know whether to dry off their cows or continue to milk them throughout the winter and thus go over quota. That causes difficulties with forward planning. Will he take that into account in his discussions with his European counterparts?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend makes a sound point. It is highly desirable that dairy producers in his constituency should know the situation as exactly, and as soon, as possible.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that milk quotas, with his deregulation policies, have pushed up prices, destroyed jobs and caused problems with doorstep delivery? Will he make more effort to encourage children to drink milk rather than make policies that store up health problems for later life, such as osteoporosis?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Lady, but the first part of her question was total nonsense. The process of deregulation has actually been a great success.

    BSE (Pet Food)
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to ensure that BSE-infected cattle are not used by pet food manufacturers. [3720]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Since 1988, all cattle suspected of having BSE must, by law, be notified to the Ministry; those affected are then slaughtered and the carcase incinerated.
    Mr. Heppell: Does the Minister have any contingency plans if any cross-species infection is identified, so that we do not have the same sort of inept muddle that we have had with mad cow disease if we identify mad dog disease?
    Mr. Hogg: That is not a well-directed question.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the industry has always been in the lead on safety matters? For example, the member companies of the Pet Food Manufacturers Association had a voluntary ban on the use of specified bovine offal six months before the House passed legislation on human use. Will he reassure the House that he will keep in the closest touch

    1087
    with the industry at the highest level as well as at official level, so that the industry is fully apprised of European developments?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes, indeed; but the controls that we have in abattoirs, rendering plants and knackeries are the toughest in Europe and address all the points about which my hon. Friend is concerned and which underpin his question.
    Mr. Tyler: In connection with all the measures for the eradication of BSE to which the Minister has referred, does he accept that there is continuing concern about the mismanagement of the slaughter programme? Has he read the article in a recent edition of Professional Engineering, which refers to the fact that, although the welcome increase in the slaughter programme to around 55,000 a week is dramatic, only about 1,000 carcases are being safely disposed of? The report states—I hope that he will confirm this—that the Ministry is still "frantically searching" for a safe solution to that problem. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is still widespread concern at the Government's failure to take a grip on the cull?
    Mr. Hogg: I really do not think that that criticism is especially well founded. On the over-30-month scheme, we now have the slaughter rate up to around 60,000— the total was slightly more than 60,000 last week—and, given that rate, I am confident that we can clear the backlog by the end of the year, as we said some time ago.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Which year?
    Mr. Hogg: At the end of this year. That is an absurd intervention. The hon. Gentleman is simply causing confusion.

    Set-aside (Bird Life)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to protect bird life on set-aside land. [3722]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): The management rules for set-aside are designed to protect wildlife and the environment. Further changes are being introduced in 1997 to restrict the cutting, and prohibit the cultivation, of set-aside during the main nesting season to protect birds such as lapwing and skylark.
    Mr. Spring: I welcome the new changes in the management of set-aside as it affects bird life. Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of bird life is one of considerable interest to those of us who are lucky enough to live in rural areas? Is he aware, for example, that the rare stone curlew comes to nest at Elveden in my constituency, and that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, with lottery funding, is recreating the natural habitat of the fens at Lakenheath as it existed prior to the draining of the fens several hundred years ago?
    Mr. Baldry: The Government and landowners do an enormous amount, both on set-aside and non-set-aside land, to promote bird life. We have environmentally sensitive areas and the countryside stewardship scheme,
    1088
    and landowners co-operate with the farming and wildlife advisory group. Those are excellent initiatives. Indeed, encouraged by the RSPB, they are all worthwhile initiatives to promote bird life.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Minister mentioned the agri-environment regulations, but can I direct his attention to the organic aid scheme? Birds thrive in an organic environment and, although I applaud the Government's action on the organic aid scheme, why is no help given to farmers who already farm organically? Is not that a change that should be made?
    Mr. Baldry: Farmers who farm organically will find increasingly that they will be rewarded in the marketplace. They should not require reward from the Government. If they believe that there is a demand for organic farming, that reward will come to them in the marketplace subsequently.

    Intervention Buying
    Mr. Trickett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of expenditure on the intervention buying of agricultural commodities in the United Kingdom in 1996–97. [3723]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Estimated expenditure on the intervention buying of agricultural commodities in the United Kingdom in 1996–97 is £320 million.
    Mr. Trickett: Can the Minister confirm that 413,000 tonnes of beef now stands in a mountain in intervention? Does he accept that that is a clear measure of the Government's failure to deal with the BSE crisis adequately? Does he accept that the only way to restore consumer confidence is to establish an absolutely independent, customer-oriented food standards agency, which might help to restore consumer confidence?
    Mr. Hogg: In the financial year 1996–97, purchases of beef are expected to amount to about 100,000 tonnes. We have had to intervene in the market as a consequence of the collapse in consumer confidence that has occurred as a result of what is commonly referred to as the BSE crisis. It is a consequence of the lack of market confidence.
    Mr. Salmond: Intervention buying is an important way to stabilise agricultural markets, so what action are the Government taking to stabilise the European market in farmed salmon? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer blocking progress to stabilise that market? Could it be that an industry that contributes 6,000 jobs and £250 million to the Scottish economy is not important enough to deserve effective action from the Government?
    Mr. Hogg: That is a question of such complexity that I propose to respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister agree that his vacillation over the Florence agreement is undermining efforts to restore beef markets throughout Europe? The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes great play of the fact that the UK has met four of the five Florence obligations, but does he realise that three of those four conditions relate to human and animal health and should have been met

    1089
    years ago, and that the chaos in the Government's over-30-month slaughter scheme led to the fourth condition—that the Government get their act together? Regarding the fifth condition, for which, apparently, the Minister has not yet presented proposals, will he tell the House today whether he will implement a selective slaughter programme—yes or no?
    Mr. Hogg: The premise that underpins the hon. Gentleman's question is the lack of confidence in European markets. There is indeed a lack of confidence in European markets. There has been a collapse in the sale price of beef in European markets, and there is much anxiety among the farming community. That has certainly had an effect on members of the European Union, making them less willing or able—two ways of describing the same thing—than they previously were to proceed rapidly and substantially to lift the ban.
    An accelerated cull has absolutely nothing to do with human safety and is not justified on those terms.

    Set-aside (Charity Events)
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in respect of changing the EU rules which prohibit charity events on set-aside land. [3724]
    Mr. Baldry: I am pleased to be able to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister secured an undertaking from the European Commission in July that the use of set-aside land for charitable events would be permitted in future. The Government welcome that as a sensible change to the set-aside rules which meets public concerns.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the prohibition is one more reason why the public in the United Kingdom are beginning to dislike the European Union? This is nonsenseland. Can my hon. Friend assure me that he will progress the revision of the common agricultural policy as soon as possible?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the type of approach that the Commission took at the end of 1995, when it wrote to us ruling out the use of set-aside land for charitable and local fund-raising events, brings the Commission into disrepute; that is why we sought to persuade the Commission to relax the rules for such events. We were successful, and whenever necessary we seek to ensure that the Community proceeds on the basis of commonsense policies.
    Mr. Morley: I have been listening carefully to the Minister's reply, but the House has not yet heard the whole story. As I understand it from the Commission, the Government did indeed approach the Commission for clarification, but concentrated in their interpretation on the issue of the lucrative use of set-aside land—including for charitable purposes. The Commission maintains that the Government's own interpretation is what stopped the charitable use of set-aside land for at least a year before the issue was clarified. The rules most certainly have not been changed—the Minister did not say that they have—but they have been clarified.
    1090
    The problem is that the Ministry often interprets European Union rules to suit itself—and sometimes wrongly—and then blames the EU, when the blame should rest with MAFF itself.
    Mr. Baldry: That is complete hogwash. The simple facts are as follows: at the end of 1995, the Commission wrote to us ruling out the use of set-aside land for charitable and local fund-raising events, and made it perfectly clear that it was tightening up on the rules. The initiative came from the Commission, not from us—
    Mr. Morley: Not on the interpretation of lucrative use.
    Mr. Baldry: I know that it is difficult for anyone in the Labour party to understand the idea of "lucrative". When charities organise fund-raising events, they hope to raise money from them. Such activities are, therefore, lucrative. The Commission made it very clear that it was tightening up the rules. We had to take the initiative to get the Commission to change those rules back, and that is what we have done.

    Meat Retailing Sector
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish an independent inquiry into the pricing practices of the meat retailing sector. [3725]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): We do not see the need to hold an inquiry into the meat retailing sector at the moment.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that beef farmers in this country, who get no help in the present difficult circumstances—
    Mrs. Browning indicated dissent.
    Mr. Sheerman: Most beef farmers raise their beef and take their cattle to market, where they get 20 per cent. less for them than they did before March. That has made it not worth feeding the animals over a long period. They want to know—it has not yet been explained to them properly—why a 20 per cent. cut in the price they get at market works through to a reduction of only 1 per cent. in the price to the consumer and housewife—and butchers and supermarkets. Those facts have been checked with the Minister and with the House of Commons Library. Farmers and consumers are not satisfied that they are not being robbed by someone along the food chain.
    Mrs. Browning: It is quite fallacious to say that the Ministry has not supported the beef farmer. We have done so with two tranches of money—£29 million already distributed at more than £60 per head of cattle that have gone into the food chain; and another tranche of £29 million due to be paid shortly to support farmers—
    Mr. Sheerman indicated dissent.
    Mrs. Browning: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head: it is a matter of record. The hon. Gentleman may not like the truth, but here it is. I do not know how often he does his shopping: I hope that he, like me, goes to the supermarket and the butcher every week. If he does, he cannot fail to have noticed that, since 20 March—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it. It is pathetic that when this important market and the issue of consumer confidence in this product are discussed in the House, Opposition boys and girls are so quick to run down this vital industry. [Interruption.] The supermarkets have supported British beef; they said from day one that they would sell it, and they have. I offer the hon. Gentleman one example—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has a right to answer without being barracked.
    Mrs. Browning: Let me give the hon. Gentleman one fact—there are many more. In November 1995, Tesco was selling British mince at 139p per kilogram. This week, mince is on sale in Tesco, as it is in many other supermarkets, at 94p per kilogram. Such a display of confidence will get people back to British meat. That is what the supermarkets are doing.
    Sir Donald Thompson: That was telling them —I thank my hon. Friend. I do not believe that she has had any inquiry from butchers for financial support, however deserving they may be. Does she agree that the high street butcher can tell the customer exactly where the meat comes from, how to cook it and what price to pay for it?
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed. My hon. Friend mentions an important sector of the meat retailing trade. The independent butchery trade is responsible for the retailing of 40 per cent. of British meat. We have been supportive of, for example, campaigns run by the Meat and Livestock Commission, especially to promote important sales of forequarter cuts such as braising beef and mince. I was pleased to launch the 8,000th independent butcher selling MLC-accredited mince. It has been an extremely successful campaign and it has done a great deal to restore British confidence.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that there is a relationship between the amount of beef consumed and the price? Does she agree that one way to clear the stocks of intervention beef quickly is to give it away to charitable organisations so that they can distribute it to the needy in areas such as mine? Will she extend that scheme beyond beef to butter and, if she wishes to be popular, to wine and cheese?
    Mrs. Browning: I can inform the House that 64,000 tonnes of intervention beef has been stewed and canned and is being distributed as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    EC Fruit and Vegetable Regime
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the reform of the EC fruit and vegetable regime. [3726]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): Now that the Council regulation has been agreed, we are working with our growers to ensure that the detailed implementing rules reflect their needs.
    Mr. Lidington: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the reforms that he and his European colleagues have secured to the fruit and vegetable regime. Will he confirm that only through a thorough overhaul of the common agricultural policy will it be possible to eliminate the waste and corruption that is still endemic in the present system of subsidies? Will he also strive for the repatriation of some elements of agricultural policy to Britain so that, for example, the minimum size of fruit that can be sold in our shops can once again be a matter for the consumer, not for politicians or bureaucrats?
    Mr. Boswell: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. Credit for negotiating the fruit and vegetable regime should go to our right hon. and learned Friend. My hon. Friend is right to say that our view of the common agricultural policy does not stop at the limited review and reform of the fruit and vegetable regime. We want a much more market-related and competitive CAP. There have been regulations on fruit sizes in the United Kingdom for many years—predating the CAP. No significant changes are being enacted under the CAP or the fruit and vegetable regime, save in respect of one or two of the minimum sizes of traditionally larger apples. I have read some press comment, not all of which is well conceived, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that the Cox's Orange Pippin, and the small Cox's Orange Pippin, are safe in our hands.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Why are the Government going to such lengths to turn Europe into a continent of vegetarians? Since the Prime Minister told the House four months ago that the beef export market could be reopened if the British Government fulfilled the Florence criteria and carried out the selective cull of cattle at risk from BSE, why is the Ministry refusing even to undertake preliminary work to identify the cattle that would need to be culled in order to fulfil those criteria?
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. and learned Friend has already responded fully and sufficiently to the issue of the selective cull. The initiative for depriving continental colleagues of the opportunity to eat British beef came at their behest, not ours. We regard the ban on selling excellent British beef in Europe as misconceived and legally inappropriate. We shall press at all times for its removal.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend inform the House whether any progress has been made in Brussels on establishing a potato regime?
    Mr. Boswell: We support the introduction of a modest potato regime along the lines of the fruit and vegetable regime, but with no recourse to intervention. It should protect and expand the market, but not involve waste or expense. We adhere fairly closely to the Commission position and we are pleased that several member states came into line with that position at the recent Council meeting. However, we have by no means secured the consensus that will lead to a common regime—although that remains a highly desirable objective.

    Intensive Farming (Disincentives)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce disincentives in respect of intensive farming. [3727]
    Mr. Boswell: The Department's codes of good agricultural practice provide guidance to all farmers on protecting the environment. Environmental incentives are available through our agri-environment schemes, which in many cases promote extensive farming. In addition, extensification premiums are paid under the suckler cow and beef special premium schemes.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister recall that one of the principal mistakes of over-intensive agriculture emerged in the realisation in 1988 that ruminant protein was almost certainly the main cause of BSE and that it was banned from cattle food? Is it not unbelievable that the Government confessed only recently that the date on which we can be certain that BSE contaminants were no longer in animal feed was 1 August—not 1988 but 1996? Will the Government apologise to the nation for their criminal delay, which has escalated the BSE tragedy?
    Mr. Boswell: I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman should award himself the prize for the worst link between a supplementary and a main question. His original question referred to the extensification of agricultural production. If the hon. Gentleman looks at virtually any textbook from 100 years ago on what ruminants may be fed, he will find meat meal mentioned.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that the issues have been rehearsed very well and that the Government have consistently followed the scientific advice that they received in implementing the ban on ruminant protein. He knows also that the ban and the measures taken in 1989 and 1990 have resulted in a progressive elimination of BSE in this country. An independent study has shown that the epidemic will end by about 2001. Recent measures reinforce, rather than lessen, the impact of the original measures that were taken appropriately in light of knowledge at that time.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best incentive for our farming community to extensify production is for the United Kingdom consumer to pay a fair price for a good product?
    Mr. Boswell: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. British beef is excellent, it is well produced and it deserves to be consumed.

    BSE (Isle of Wight)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that cattle from the Isle of Wight are allocated a regular slot in an abattoir under the BSE slaughter programme. [3728]
    Mr. Baldry: I expect abattoirs at Bath, Bridport and Langport, which have regularly taken over-30-month cattle from the Isle of Wight, to continue to do so.
    Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend and his staff for the help that they have given the island farmers, but there is
    1094
    a problem with very short notice—often late on a Friday—of an allocated slot at 8 am on a Monday. Owing to problems with ferry bookings, that creates difficulties—of which I know my hon. Friend is aware. We need a regular weekly slot for about 25 head of cattle; we could then deal with the balance in the usual manner. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his considerable ministerial influence to assist me in obtaining that concession from the Intervention Board.
    Mr. Baldry: I note my hon. Friend's specific point about the logistics of transporting cattle from the Isle of Wight. When we introduced the registration scheme, 438 cattle were registered as part of the backlog on the island. Of those, at least 170 have been slaughtered. I expect the remaining 260 or so to be slaughtered in the next two or three weeks. It is therefore a short-term problem and, when the OTMS continues, I do not expect any difficulties in ensuring that island farmers get a weekly slot as and when they need it.

    Quarantine Regulations
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to vary current quarantine regulations. [3729]
    Mrs. Browning: We are looking again at rabies control policy, taking account of the most recent information. If new moves are decided on, an announcement will be made. I stress that our paramount need is to protect the health of people and animals in this country.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that the great weight of public opinion and, increasingly, scientific opinion, is moving against the absurd rabies and quarantine regulations in this country? There has been no recorded outbreak of rabies coming from a pet animal anywhere in Europe, ever, yet thousands of animals and pets die in quarantine each year because of all the diseases that they pick up while there from other animals, and the appalling conditions that prevail in many quarantine kennels. Is it true, as was reported in The Sunday Telegraph, that the Prime Minister has asked the Minister to produce a report on the regulations by the end of this month? Is that true, and will he have that report?
    Mrs. Browning: I certainly will not comment on reports in the newspapers that are a private matter between the Prime Minister and a Minister. I have made it clear to the House—I shall repeat it for the hon. Gentleman if he did not hear me the first time—that we are looking again at rabies control policy, taking account of the most recent information, which will, of course, include recent scientific information.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend will be aware that her Department has spent considerable sums over the past few years—or rather more than the past few years—in promoting a fear of rabies in the British population. Will she now consider spending a similar sum in bringing up to date the scientific advice, on not only the veterinary side but the health side, so that the British public can view the matter in a rather different light from mediaeval witchcraft?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend was Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee, which produced a very

    1095
    useful document, and we promised to keep the policy under review. I assure him, as I have the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that all the latest scientific evidence on this subject—some of it is quite recent—will be taken into account as part of the review.
    Mr. Pickthall: Has the Minister read the report by the Agriculture Select Committee? If so, she will have noticed that the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ruled out any change in quarantine regulations before the Select Committee had made its recommendations and reached a conclusion. Is it not time that the Ministry revisited that report? Will she bear it in mind that many of us on that Committee approached the study convinced that quarantine had to remain, but we were convinced of the opposite after we had examined all the evidence?
    Mrs. Browning: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Select Committee report generated quite a long debate on the Floor of the House in which he and I took part. I can assure him that we shall study the report as part of the review.
    Mr. Key: I warmly welcome the cautious but determined way in which the Government are reconsidering this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that nobody—including me—who advocates change to our quarantine rules is advocating relaxing or slackening the rules? It is quite the reverse. We wish to see a tightening of the regulations, using the latest scientific and technological equipment to eradicate the need for smuggling, which is probably the greatest threat.
    Mrs. Browning: I am familiar with my hon. Friend's views. He has made them available to the Ministry on more than one occasion. We hear quite a few reports of smuggling, but the fact that a few people break a rule is not necessarily a reason to abolish that rule.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister bear it in mind that anyone who is concerned about human beings does not want a single person in the United Kingdom to die from rabies? The decisions that she takes will have an immediate and important effect, and I know that she will bear that in mind.
    Mrs. Browning: I am conscious of the very important point that the hon. Lady mentioned. Indeed, I would go further and say that any proposal that is to be seriously considered must also take into account the fact that, in countries on mainland Europe that have been free of rabies for many years, people bitten or scratched by an animal still must have preventive treatment. For example, 10,000 people in France had to undergo injections as a result of being scratched or bitten by a dog. In the UK, that is not a treatment that people have to endure.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of (a) compulsory decommissioning of fishing vessels and (b) quota hopping. [3730]
    Mr. Baldry: The Government have made it clear that they are determined to find a lasting solution to the problem of quota hoppers. We have tabled a proposal in the intergovernmental conference. We have made it clear that we will not accept any compulsory decommissioning objectives for United Kingdom fishermen while the quota hopper issue remains unresolved.
    Mr. Waterson: When I am next in the fishermen's club in Eastbourne, may I give my constituents the Minister's assurance that we will not accept up to a further 40 per cent. reduction in our fishing fleet, that we will not allow 20 per cent. of our fleet to remain in foreign ownership and that, for the British Government, nothing less than a treaty change will do?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes. Fishing is one of the only policy areas in the European Union that applies national quotas. It is a perfectly straightforward proposition that UK fish should be for UK fishermen.
    Mr. Trimble: I welcome the Minister's robust stand on quota hopping. Will he be just as robust on the unrealistic proposals for reductions in quotas that are coming from Brussels, which fly in the face of reality—particularly in the Irish sea? Brussels is trying to impose on fishermen regulations on the size of catch that do not take account of the species that inhabit those waters.
    Mr. Baldry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK fishing industry, of which the Northern Ireland industry is an important part, made sensible proposals on technical conservation, which were all but ignored by the Commission. The Commission produced some complex and disadvantageous proposals, which, I am glad to say, we were able to kick into touch and will not be debated at tomorrow's Fisheries Council meeting. The Commission has been told to go back and get its tackle in order before coming forward with further proposals on technical conservation.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that developments on quota hopping and boats in foreign ownership become more bizarre each day? Has he seen today's Daily Mail, which contains an account of a sea rescue involving a Nimrod and two helicopters from my constituency that lifted a Spanish fisherman to Cornwall? It seems that the man was not ill after all. That is apparently only one of a number of such incidents. Has my hon. Friend got to the bottom of the mystery of the Spanish fishermen who turn up in benefit offices in Cornwall and register for national insurance numbers? What on earth is going on?
    Mr. Baldry: There can be no justification for large numbers of Spanish-skippered, Spanish-owned, Spanish-crewed vessels in south-western waters masquerading as UK vessels and seeking to catch fish from our quota. That is crazy and it must come to an end. We are determined that it should end as speedily as possible. The only reasonable inference I can draw from the fact that Spaniards land from quota hoppers and take taxis to local unemployment benefit offices in my hon. Friend's constituency is that in some bizarre way they are

    1097
    seeking to justify an economic link. It is the craziest of all economic links if the only link that they can justify is that of claiming unemployment benefit.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that vessels engaged in industrial fishing should be compulsorily decommissioned as soon as possible? He cannot deny that industrial fishing vessels have inflicted damage on commercially valuable stocks. When will the Council of Ministers ban industrial fishing?
    Mr. Baldry: Quite apart from my concern that we should tackle the problem of quota hopping, I am worried about the Commission's proposals on decommissioning, because they make hardly any reference to industrial fishing. It is daft that proposals that are intended to deal with conservation measures do not deal with industrial fishing. If we are to reduce fish mortality, we must tackle the effects of industrial fishing, particularly on some of our stocks in the North sea.
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been spent on decommissioning fishing vessels over the last three years. [3731]
    Mr. Baldry: This year's scheme is still in progress, but it should add about £12 million to the £26.2 million spent in the previous three years.
    Mr. Legg: Does my hon. Friend agree that this seems to be a cynical attempt to scupper our fishing fleet`? Does he agree that the problem seems to be not too many boats chasing too few fish, but too many Spanish boats chasing our fish? May I urge him to take a leaf out of Sir Francis Drake's book when it comes to dealing with armadas, and to press the issue at the intergovernmental conference until it is settled to the satisfaction of our fishermen?
    Mr. Baldry: I could not have made it plainer to the House that we are not prepared—the United Kingdom fishing industry is not prepared, and I do not think that any sensible person is prepared—to accept any compulsory further reductions in the UK fishing fleet until the whole issue of quota hoppers is resolved. Some 20 per cent. of our beam trawler fleet is now, in effect, foreign owned. The situation is crazy; it must be stopped, and we are determined that it will be.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3749]
    The Prime Minister(Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report in today's issue of The Independent which states
    1098
    that, yesterday, three members of the IRA's Army council were brought to the House of Commons by Labour Members? Is he aware that one of them was allowed to wander around for 20 minutes unaccompanied? Will he please instigate an immediate investigation?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has written to Madam Speaker about the incident. My understanding is that those representatives of Sinn Fein were invited to the House to meet a number of hon. Members, that no prior notification about the meeting was given and that the representatives were, from time to time, left unattended. I do not know what the outcome of the inquiry will be, but I think that it is stunning naivety on the part of any hon. Member not to realise the connection between Sinn Fein and the IRA.
    Mr. Blair: In view of the extraordinary importance of the European reports on a single currency—matters that may be decided by Ministers in December—does the Prime Minister not agree, on reflection, that it would be monstrous to deny hon. Members a chance to debate the reports in full on the Floor of the House, especially as that was the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation? Does he not agree that a general debate on European matters prior to the Dublin summit is no adequate substitute?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right about the last point. There was detailed scrutiny in the Standing Committee, and in due course we shall table the appropriate motion. No final decisions are made at the meeting of Finance Ministers; that will be a matter, if appropriate, for the European summit in Dublin. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, and as my right hon. Friend the Lord President has made clear, the House invariably has an opportunity to have a full debate before such a summit, and there will be a full debate—in which this matter will be relevant—before the Dublin European summit.
    Mr. Blair: Those explanations were specifically and unanimously rejected by the Select Committee. May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has actually written that decisions may be made over the next few weeks? In any event, surely we would be failing in our duty if we did not debate these matters properly in the House. Would the Prime Minister not be a good deal more honest if he simply stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he was afraid to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand and debate the issues? That speaks volumes about the disarray of his Government.
    The Prime Minister: Anyone who thinks that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not willing, able and confident to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone, on any subject at any time simply does not know my right hon. and learned Friend. I repeat the point that I made to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago: no decisions will be made at the Economic and Finance Council meeting. The matter will come forward to the Heads of Government meeting in Dublin. If decisions are to be taken, they will be taken there, and not even that is certain. In any event, this issue and other issues will be the subject of a full debate before Dublin.
    Mr. Blair: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is in contradiction to the letter from the Chancellor to the

    1099
    Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but if the Chancellor is indeed happy and prepared to debate these issues, let us have the debate. There can be no possible reason for not debating these questions. How can the Prime Minister be trusted with Britain's future in Europe when the internal party management of the Conservative party—because that is what it is about—always takes precedence over the interests of Britain or even, as here, British democracy? If he is not afraid of the debate, let him call one.
    The Prime Minister: This is the right hon. Gentleman who once wanted to leave the European Union. This is the right hon. Gentleman who said, "I will never be isolated in Europe." If he is never prepared to be isolated in Europe, he could not possibly defend the British interest in Europe. We are prepared to be isolated where necessary. We do defend the British interest. It will be debated in the House and I will defend the British interest at Dublin.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yesterday in European Standing Committee B, which I attended, there was no proper scrutiny of these important regulations, which affect the powers of the House. We were discussing the so-called stability pact, whereby important decisions about the British economy would be transferred from Britain to Frankfurt and Brussels. As my right hon. Friend himself has not made up his mind about whether Britain should join the single European currency, why should the House agree now to these regulations?
    The Prime Minister: These regulations, were they to be approved in due course, would apply only to those countries that enter into a single currency—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. It is no good saying, " No." That is the fact of the matter. Whether Britain enters a single currency will certainly be determined in the House and it would then be determined in a full referendum of this country.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is simply running away on this issue and the whole country knows it.
    The Audit Commission said today that we are now less effective on tackling youth crime than we were 10 years ago, that, of the 7 million youth crimes committed in Britain every year, only about one in 10 reach court and that the Government's programmes are ineffective, inefficient and wasteful. Given the fact that the Government have been in power for 17 years, whom do they blame for that?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would do well to read the Audit Commission report in full. He will find that it endorses our strategy for intervening early with young people who might offend. I look forward to his support for the Green Paper, which he knows is coming forward. I hope that he will consider it. I hope
    1100
    that he will support it and I hope that he will, for once, have some proactive and worthwhile ideas to contribute to the debate.
    Dame Jill Knight: Since today's press shows that Labour's answer to the question, "When is a pledge not a pledge?" is "When it is a commitment," will my right hon. Friend assure the House—(Interruption.)
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be heard. I want to hear her question. She is usually in order and I bet that she is going to be in order now.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give the House and its Members the pledge that he will continue to speak clearly and without ambiguity as to his plans for this country?
    The Prime Minister: I find it extraordinary that 89 spending promises suddenly disappear, apparently overnight. The Opposition claim that what we said yesterday was untrue—I think "lies" was the word that they used—but, as we were quoting what they said, I wonder who the deceivers really were.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3750]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Prime Minister recall his promise—indeed, his pledge—to construct a classless society in this country? If he really meant that, why is he so set against the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to scrap the right of hereditary dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and lords to speak and vote in the House of Lords? Could it just be that the boy from Brixton, whom I remember, has got a feeling to make himself into a nob after he leaves here? Does he really want to be remembered as the nob from Brixton?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the future Lord Banks will reconsider what he has said about that matter. My remarks about a classless society were about equality of opportunity, and not about the grey uniformity that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see in this country.
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3751]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lidington: May I ask my right hon. Friend to order an urgent Government study into the recent report from Goldman Sachs which suggested that every household in Aylesbury would pay an additional £70 a year for its electricity alone if a windfall tax on the utilities were introduced? Those households would also face higher charges for gas and water and for the use of the telephone. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that such

    1101
    a tax would hit hardest at pensioners and people on low incomes—all those whom the Labour party pretends that it cares about?
    The Prime Minister: It may be that we will find, yet again, that the windfall tax is another promise that is not. Perhaps we will find that out this afternoon.
    What we do not know about the windfall tax is substantially more than what we know about it. We do not know who will pay it; what rate it would be levied at; and whom it would impact upon. We do not know why some utility chairmen think that they would not have to pay it. We do not know how much it would provide for the promises, mounting up to £30 billion, that the Labour party has made. I hope that we will get some of those answers this afternoon, but I doubt it.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3752]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAllion: Although I regret the Prime Minister's decision to duck a debate on the single currency, I warmly welcome his courageous decision to sponsor this afternoon's debate on the privatised utilities and the Tory party's links with the bosses of those companies that have made obscene profits on the backs of the rest of us. Can he confirm that many of those companies have made large donations to the Tory party and have provided top jobs for ex-Tory Ministers? This afternoon's debate will allow the House to expose the Tories for what they really are—the political wing of the privatised utilities.
    The Prime Minister: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise the question of the Leader of the Opposition's secret fund. I wonder whether we will hear which business men fund it; we certainly have not heard that yet. We were told by the Opposition spokesman that the fund has been set up as a blind trust to ensure that there is no linkage between donations and political influence. There were no names given, and nothing about the openness that the Opposition promised us some time ago. Because of a newspaper examination, all we have is the fact that the fund exists, and I hear that the deputy Leader of the Opposition has a research fund as well.
    One minute, the Opposition attack share options; the next, they accept money from the millionaires who benefited from them. They attack successful business men and then host fund-raising dinners for those
    1102
    successful business men. They then call for openness in funding, but have a secret fund themselves. I wonder what the parliamentary word is for that behaviour.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3753]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Barnet council recently voted to have its refuse collection done by the direct labour department despite the fact that an outside tender would have saved £500,000 over the length of the contract? Does he agree that that shows that Labour and Liberal councillors are more interested in jobs for the boys than in value for money for the ratepayers? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take action to see that Barnet ratepayers are protected against dogmatic socialist policy?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what my hon. Friend had to say. It is no secret that the Labour party is hostile to competitive tendering, even though it saves money for the council tax payer—a fact which is an irrelevance to Labour. As the deputy leader of the Labour party once said,
    "Society should tolerate relative inefficiency in labour intensive sectors".
    In other words: jobs for the boys, not savings for the council tax payer.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3754]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain: How much will the Prime Minister's proposal to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax cost the average taxpayer? Will he tell us whether that is a pledge, a policy, an aim, an aspiration—or merely another Tory tax lie?
    The Prime Minister: As I have frequently told the House, we are pledged to abolish, as affordable, capital gains tax. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. Such action will create jobs and stimulate employment, which is what I am determined to achieve in this country. The hon. Gentleman might like to create unemployment with extra social costs, but I wish to price people back into jobs by generating investment.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill.
Consideration of supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 26 NOVEMBER—My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 28 NovEmBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 29 NOVEMBER—Debate on tourism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 27 November there will be a debate on water for human consumption in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on the former Yugoslavia in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Government business will be taken.
THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER—Government business will be taken.
FRIDAY 6 DECEMBER—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that it will be proposed that on Wednesday 4 December there will be a debate on air carrier liability in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on protection against third country legislation in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I should also tell the House that I have in mind two changes to the arrangement of statements during the Budget debate, which I hope that the House will think are sensible. The English local government finance statement will now be made on the second day—Wednesday 27 November—which will give local authorities a little more time to take their budget decisions. The social security statement, which hitherto has taken place on that day, will be replaced by a social security debate on the third day—Thursday 28 November—thus giving the House a proper opportunity to debate the social security aspects of the unified Budget settlement.
[Wednesday 27 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 7208/95, Water for Human Consumption. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 70-xxii (1994–95), HC 51-v, HC51-xxii and HC 51-xxix (1995–96).
European Standing Committee B-Relevant European Community Documents: (i) 7312/96, Former Yugoslavia: Aid for Reconstruction and Rehabilitation; (ii) 10602/96, Future Contractual Relations with Certain Countries in South Eastern Europe. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (i) HC 51-xxiii, HC 51-xxvi and HC 51-xxix (1995–96); (ii) HC 36-ii (1996–97).
Wednesday 4 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 5231/96, Air Carrier Liability. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-ii (1996–97).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 9573/96, Protection against Third Country Legislation. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xxix (1995–96).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Will he ensure, following the statement in answer to the private notice question on the channel tunnel on Tuesday, that the matters that were mentioned will be followed up? Will he also ensure that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the issue of channel tunnel safety? I am sure that he agrees that that is an important issue. We must not be alarmist, but it is important that the House should be kept informed. When the results of the public inquiries are announced, the House should have an opportunity to debate that important subject.
Secondly, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in the near future on the Audit Commission report entitled "Misspent Youth", which was published today? The report is a devastating commentary on the failure of the youth justice system and the Government's record on youth crime, not least because it says that, although crime has doubled since the Conservatives came to office, overall, less is done now than was done a decade ago to address offending by young people. It also criticises the lack of cross-departmental co-operation to tackle those problems. Surely we should be told what action the Government intend to take. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will not simply bury the report and forget it? Our constituents will certainly not forget the problems that they face as a result of youth crime.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, given the events yesterday and the comments made at Prime Minister's questions today, when it was clear that the Prime Minister did not understand the significance of the documents put before European Standing Committee B yesterday—the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) confirmed that there was not proper scrutiny in that Committee—will the Leader of the House reconsider the points that have been raised about those documents? Will he acknowledge that there are two aspects to the problem: first the importance of the documents, despite what the Prime Minister says; and, secondly, as Madam Speaker said yesterday, the fact that the issue involves maintaining the integrity of the

1105
procedures of the House? The Leader of the House has expressed concern on many occasions about the rights of hon. Members and the reputation of the House. Will he therefore think again, and think carefully, before rejecting the idea of a full debate on the Floor of the House? The documents are important, as is the reputation of the House. The Government cannot sweep the issue away. If there is not a full debate on the Floor of the House, not only the integrity of our procedures will be at stake, but the authority of the House.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady has raised three issues. I am grateful for the way in which she put her point on the channel tunnel. She acknowledged that the appropriate time to consider a debate will be when we have the results of the three inquiries that are taking place. I need hardly say that I shall keep the issue very much in mind.
I suppose that I ought to observe mildly that I find some of the hon. Lady's remarks on the Audit Commission report somewhat curious, given that Labour has voted against almost all the measures that we have taken to tackle the problem of crime. Leaving that aside for the moment, while we clearly do not agree with everything in the report, it appears to endorse our strategy of intervening early with young people who might offend. I shall bring the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because we shall be publishing a Green Paper shortly. I am sure that he will take her remarks into account.
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that I am not in a position to add significantly to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago about the documents debated yesterday in European Standing Committee B. However, the notion that my right hon. Friend does not understand those matters does not correspond with reality.
No one is disputing the importance of the documents. I emphasised last week that the Standing Committee provides an opportunity for effective scrutiny. I also drew attention to the fact that there will be an opportunity—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said—for debate before the Dublin Council to which the ECOFIN will be reporting. As for maintaining the integrity of the House's procedures, what has been proposed and is taking place is entirely within the Standing Orders of the House.
Sir John Stanley: As someone who supports the Government's position on a single currency, and therefore has no axe to grind on the issue whatever, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give serious further consideration to the issue of a debate on the documents being considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation? Is he not aware that under resolution of this House and by its Standing Orders, that Committee has a clear responsibility and duty to advise the House when specific documents should be debated by the House as a whole? It is highly undesirable—and a potentially dangerous precedent—for the Government to sweep aside a unanimous recommendation from that Committee.
Mr. Newton: Obviously, whether they come from my right hon. Friend or any other hon. Member, I always look carefully at such concerns. But since the changes to the procedures of the House—which were designed to reduce the amount of business taken on the Floor—it has been
1106
necessary for judgments to be made on particular recommendations. That has happened before, and this is not a unique occasion. I continue to believe that the debate in Committee, taken together with the opportunity for general debate before Dublin, was the right course.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Who does the Leader of the House think he is pleasing by keeping this matter off the Floor of the House? He has infuriated a large part of his own party, he will get no thanks from those of us who believe in the merits of a single currency but want to see the issues debated on the Floor of the House, and he did not save the Government from defeat in the Committee. That having happened, surely he must recognise the need for a debate on the Floor.
While we are discussing single market issues, can I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that 700 UK vehicles containing food produce are being blockaded in France by French lorry drivers, with no apparent effective action being taken by the French police? Will he make sure that representations are made on this issue at the highest level? If not, we will have to return to that matter also next week.
Mr. Newton: I will ensure that the latter remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are drawn immediately to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Transport who, no doubt, will be concerned with that matter. On the first part of his remarks, I cannot add to what I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have already said.
Sir Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend will have noted that, belatedly, the Opposition have joined the referendum bandwagon on European currency. But has he noticed that, according to a recent report, they want a referendum not on that issue alone, but on every subject under the sun? May we have an opportunity to consider the future of referendums and their use? If we go down the line suggested by the Opposition—new Labour, new policy—we all might as well go home and leave everything to be decided by opinion polls.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an important point which is largely for those hon. Members at whom I am looking across the Chamber. They, no doubt, will respond in their own way to my hon. Friend's very effective point.
Mr. George Stevenson: May I reinforce the calls for a debate on the Floor of the House on the European regulations? I do not intend to repeat the arguments about the fact that the Select Committee was unanimous in its decision and that hardly any debate took place on the matter. I underline the fact that the Prime Minister reacted to an earlier question by saying that there was nothing in these regulations that applies to the United Kingdom. I refer the Leader of the House to the stability pact regulation, article 13, which refers to arrangements being made for sanctions and penalties on any member state that is not a part of economic and monetary union. In the circumstances, is it not imperative that we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the three vital regulations?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly important that those documents should be scrutinised and that is what we

1107
sought to arrange through the debate in European Standing Committee B. It appears that at least some of those present chose to raise points of order rather than to concentrate on the issues in the documents. I am not complaining about that, but equally I do not think that I can be held responsible for it. As to the question of the stability pact, whether we take part in the single currency or not, it is in this country's interest to ensure that if it goes ahead it is sustainable and does not damage our main export market.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate on local government finance so that I may bring to the House's attention the cuts of £30,000 a year in adult education provision by the Labour council in Ealing? The cuts will take access to adult education away from hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Ealing, even though the Labour party professes to believe in such access. If we have a debate, I will be able to bring that disgraceful behaviour by Ealing Labour council before the House.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard me make the point that there will be a statement on local government finance on the day following the Budget. He may wish to raise his point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Since European Standing Committee B has reported to the House that it came to no resolution, is it not now the procedure, as used before, for the Leader of the House under Standing Order No. 102 to put down a motion on those three documents which must be decided forthwith? If he did that, would not he be going against the unanimous view of the Committee, under Standing Order No. 23, because the requirement for scrutiny would not have been discharged? If, however, the documents were to be debated under a motion covering a much wider range of issues, as the Prime Minister suggested this afternoon, a diverse debate would take place on no specific motion or resolution. In either case, would the requirement for scrutiny have been discharged? I suggest to the Leader of the House that it would not, and that is why we must have a debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening closely to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he would have heard him indicate that the necessary motion will be tabled in the normal way.
Mr. Michael Carttiss: Does not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House recognise that our hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) has already made the valid point that we might as well all go home if we cannot discuss issues that will be fundamental? May I also ask my right hon. Friend why the Government are afraid to have the debate on the Floor of the House when the Opposition have got as much to answer for as we have?
Mr. Newton: While I agree that the matter is important, I have already made it clear that we have
1108
provided opportunity for debate in what we thought was the most appropriate way and that there will be further opportunity before the Dublin summit.
Mr. David Clelland: Will the Leader of the House make time for an early debate on the future of Hadrian's wall? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) yesterday raised the prospect of the wall being policed to keep out the Scots? Is the Leader of the House further aware that when people in the north get to hear about that, there is a grave danger that they will descend on the wall in their thousands and remove it, stone by stone, several hundred miles to the south so that they, and their good neighbours the Scots, might be on the opposite side to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield? Indeed, members of the public from all over Britain would gladly and enthusiastically rebuild the wall in a circle around the hon. Gentleman and his like.
Mr. Newton: I am slightly at a loss for words for once, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his point could be in order in the debate on tourism.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On the subject of the stability pact, which was not, before the Leader of the Opposition blundered in this afternoon, a party political issue, but an issue between Parliament and the Executive, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not agree to anything at the ECOFIN Council in Dublin? By not having a debate before the Council meets, the Government are riding roughshod over Parliament and they are being contemptuous of democracy. In that case, why should they deserve support and why should anybody hold their Whip?
Mr. Newton: I appreciate the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings, and I was grateful for his courtesy in coming to see me the other night, as I hope he will not mind my mentioning, in order to underline his point. I recognise that, but the fact is that we have provided opportunity for debate, and I have now said several times that there will be further opportunity before the Dublin Council.
Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate on the rules governing eligibility for incapacity benefit? I ask that because of the number of complaints that I receive from people in my constituency, which is one of the poorest in the country. I am thinking in particular of the case of David Holmes, who for more than a decade suffered from a severe heart complaint and received incapacity benefit and mobility allowance. As others were, he was called up for examination to see whether he could continue to receive those benefits, and after the examination he was declared fit for work. That put tremendous pressure on him, as he recorded in a letter sent to the Department of Social Security. A few days later David died—from a massive heart attack, it was believed. Is it not now time to examine the rules governing the benefit?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, even were I in a position to do so, it would be wrong for me to attempt to comment on the details of that particular case—although, naturally, I hear of the outcome with

1109
great sympathy for the family and all those involved. I shall of course, as is right, bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, and I am sure that he will consider them carefully.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost all the police agencies in the country, the Security Service, and even Customs and Excise, are united in the belief that there is one measure that the Government could adopt which would assist in the fight against crime? That would be to allow telephone intercepts to be used in evidence in court. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the curious ambiguity that allows intercepted conversations recorded in America, but not recordings made in this country, to be used in the courts in this country? Does he accept that there may be an opportunity to amend the Crime (Sentences) Bill to allow those intercepts to be used in criminal prosecutions?
Mr. Newton: I cannot offer my hon. Friend an immediate judgment; in any case it would not be for me to decide whether an amendment to the Crime (Sentences) Bill would be in order. However, I shall ensure that his thoughts on the matter are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of House encourage the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement next week about his delays in implementing the report concerning the interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland? This is the second time within less than two weeks that the actions of the person who claims to stand for the Union have militated against the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and in this case also against the interests of the miners of Scotland, who could be producing the power.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will study the hon. Gentleman's words with care.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend will agree with the general proposition that matters touching on the constitutional powers of the House should always be debated on the Floor of the House; it was a mistake to take the matter in question in a specialist Committee with limited membership and time. May I press him a little further beyond what he has already said and remind him that we are talking about draft European regulations, and that once such regulations are agreed in the Council of Ministers, they are directly binding in their entirety on the citizens of each member state, without any further reference to the House of Commons? I therefore ask him not to draft a motion simply inviting the House to take note, but to use a substantive motion asking us to approve, and to say whether we agree to the transfer of our powers as suggested in the regulations.
Mr. Newton: On the first part of what my right hon. Friend said, I need to underline, as the Prime Minister did, the fact that the fundamental protection for the rights of the House is the opt-out itself, as negotiated at Maastricht, together with the fact that the House and the country will
1110
have a proper opportunity to consider whether it is in this country's interest to join a single currency when that decision needs to be taken. On the remainder of my right hon. Friend's remarks, I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Leader of the House aware that the proposals for a stability pact mean a change in the operation of the Maastricht treaty as it applies to excessive deficits? The Maastricht treaty was debated on the Floor, approved and ratified by Her Majesty's Government. Should not a change in its operation also be debated on the Floor?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation. It is certainly the case that the Maastricht treaty sets out the basis of the stability pact, but it also makes it clear that no fines or other sanctions could apply to Britain unless we were in the single currency.
Mr. Barry Field: Has my right hon. Friend seen the article in The Times today about the remarkable improvement of British beaches as a result of the privatisation of the water companies? May we have a debate on the Environment Agency? An anomaly has arisen on the Isle of Wight whereby Ventnor achieved the standard but does not have a sewage scheme, while Ryde failed to but does have one. The Environment Agency does not know why.
Mr. Newton: I cannot comment on the precise position in the Isle of Wight, but the bathing water quality results for 1996 certainly show a further increase in the number of bathing waters that meet the key standards of the directive, which is good news for all concerned.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House will understand now, if he did not before, that the House of Commons is strongly committed to the need for open discussion of sensitive political issues on the Floor. I hope that he will therefore be prepared to ask the Secretary of State for Transport to explain to the House next week article 33 of the intergovernmental convention with the French on the channel tunnel, which ensures that total confidentiality of information will not apply in any investigation of what happened in the channel tunnel during the fire.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is, as the hon. Lady will have registered, due to answer questions next Monday. I will bring that possible question to his attention.
Mr. John Townend: May I implore my right hon. Friend to think again about a debate on the stability pact? It is a constitutional issue that has not had adequate scrutiny. Does he appreciate the size of the bundle of documents involved? Many of the proposals can be changed by qualified majority voting and will, or could be made to, apply to Britain whether or not we are members of the single currency. Does he understand how sensitive we are after Britain was double-crossed over the social chapter opt-out? It is vital that the matter should be scrutinised on the Floor. It is not sensible for the Government to take on the whole Chamber.
Mr. Newton: I of course note what my hon. Friend said and, as with my hon. Friend the Member for

1111
Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the strength of feeling. It must by now be apparent that, with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier and what I have sought to say in the past few minutes, there is little more that I can add.
Mr. David Winnick: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 209.
[That this House congratulates Karamjit Singh Chahal on his release after more than six years from Bedford Prison following the landmark judgment concerning his case by the European Court of Human Rights; is delighted Mr. Chahal was freed, enabling him to rejoin his wife and two British-born children in Luton; believes Raghbir Singh, detained in Birmingham on national security grounds, should now be released; urges Her Majesty's Government to scrap the Advisory Committee on National Security—the so-called 'three wise men'—which is an outdated and unjust procedure, as was recognised by the ECHR; further urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that in any future cases concerning national security the accused and the courts are given adequate factual information about alleged national security breaches; and believes the Labour Party must commit itself to introducing such legal reforms if Her Majesty's Government fails to act.]
I tried to discover whether my constituent, Raghbir Singh, would be released from prison after being held for 18 months with no charges. Will the right hon. Gentleman find out the latest position, which I have been unable to obtain from the Home Secretary's private office? If Raghbir Singh is to remain in prison, despite last week's ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in an identical case where a person was held for five years without charges, will the Home Secretary make a statement to the House to justify his being held in prison without charges?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend will know that I have raised this issue for three weeks running and it will not surprise him to learn that I am going to raise it again: a debate on the Floor on the proceedings that took place in European Standing Committee B yesterday. These matters do not solely concern countries that will be in the single currency; there are huge matters that concern those who will be outside it. Further recommendations on the restriction of the powers of national Parliaments are among the matters that will be passed by the ECOFIN Council. Will he please, please listen to what we are saying and give us some time on the Floor?
Mr. Newton: I am not surprised, and I do not resent my hon. Friend, with his well-known and long-standing interest in these matters, raising the matter again in this way. It is precisely because arrangements of that kind do have effects, even on non-members, that it is important that we should play a part in the discussions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that it would be a very shabby decision by the Government to put down a "forthwith" motion about a matter that had gone to a Committee but that had not been agreed by that Committee, in the knowledge that they would be able to sneak it through in the Table Office, at a time that was inconvenient to others, even a non-sitting day? Will he also confirm that it is possible, if we catch him laying that motion in time, that we could table an amendment to it and that, even though it could not be debated on the Floor of the House, we would be able to divide on that amendment; or that, failing to put an amendment down, we could divide on the motion?
As Leader of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman be generous enough and decent enough to ensure that, if he puts down that motion in that fashion and refuses a proper debate on a subject that undoubtedly affects a majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, people are told in advance so that we can have a legitimate vote—even though we would like a debate—and so that we can send it back whence it came?
Mr. Newton: I said earlier, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the necessary motion would be tabled and moved in due course.
Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents are involved in the road haulage industry, carrying British exports through the port of Dover and on into Europe. Many of my constituents' companies are faced with enormous difficulties as a result of the outrageous dispute in the French road haulage industry, which is blocking the roads. Can we have an urgent statement, and can that statement be given after a Foreign Office Minister has been sent to the Ministry of Justice in Paris—preferably either by air or by ferry from Dover, rather than via the channel tunnel, which is currently experiencing difficulties? Can we make sure that that British Foreign Minister gives the Ministry in Paris the firm impression that we really mean business and that the police in France must enforce the law and ensure that British lorries can carry British goods into Europe?
Mr. Newton: I made some reference to that matter earlier on, when it was raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). All that I can add at this stage is that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary are due to answer questions next week.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was quite shameful? He will not even promise the House that sufficient notice will be given of a motion being tabled to give us an opportunity to respond. In those circumstances, why should those of us who have been members, since their start, of the Select Committee on European Legislation or European Standing Committees continue to plod away, time after time, at rather unglamorous activities? Those bodies should discuss matters of the sort that are down to be considered next week, not a measure that is of such significance that the members of the Select Committee are united in asking for it to be dealt with in

1113
the Chamber. We should have what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asked for; it is the least that the Leader of the House should offer at this time.
Mr. Newton: I note that request, as I noted the request from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I have to say that I do not think that the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman was in any way shameful.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I say to my right hon. Friend that the matters on the stability pact that were very briefly discussed in Committee yesterday were not mere technicalities?
May I say to my right hon. Friend that it saddens me to see him, as a custodian of the responsibilities of this place, risk his reputation and risk also an allegation that he has been a willing participant in a disreputable subterfuge? Can he now assure the House that, in the two days of Government business next week, he will allow a proper opportunity for the House to debate the merits or otherwise of a stability pact before the Chancellor goes to Dublin, potentially to stitch us up into something from which we cannot withdraw?
I say to my right hon. Friend that I now comprehend the rage that filled the breasts of the parliamentarians in the civil war in this country and of the colonists in the American revolutionary war; the issue at stake on both occasions was an abuse of Executive power.
Mr. Newton: I would obviously much regret it, and with some feeling, were my hon. Friend to feel as he suggested in some of his comments, but I have made it clear that we do anticipate further opportunity for debate before the Dublin Council.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the Leader of the House noticed that one of our more enthusiastic Europeans, Mr. Sean Connery, who spends more time in Spain as a tax exile than he does at home, is returning to these shores to make a party political broadcast for the Scottish National party? Does he agree that some time should be devoted in the Chamber to considering the rules under which people can be tax exiles, whether it is appropriate for someone to avoid paying taxes in this country but to influence the votes of his fellow citizens, and approximately how much money is lost to the Exchequer by the system of permitting people to avoid tax by living abroad?
Mr. Newton: It would appear to me that, with the imminence of five days' debate on the Budget, the hon. Lady should have an opportunity to raise that point.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on competitive tendering? During the debate, tenderers in our constituencies could be fully advised of the booking arrangements for them to have lunches with the chairmen of the committees that take decisions; I am sure that the Liberal spokesman in that debate would oblige the House.
Mr. Newton: There is a Liberal spokesman in his place. I do not know whether he will oblige the House, but I am sure that he listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Leader of the House clarify what kind of motion he intends to table to enable us to debate the stability pact papers? Is he saying that, during another debate, he nevertheless will table a motion either to take note of or to approve the documents concerned?
Mr. Newton: What I have indicated, I believe both last week and this, is that I anticipate the type of general debate before the Dublin Council that we have had on previous occasions.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the use of the English language? Is he aware that individuals tour the country, saying that services are underfunded, expecting their audiences to assume that that is a spending pledge, and then complaining like billy-o when someone tries to quantify the extent of that extra spending?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. There may well be opportunities for him to speak during the debate on the Budget, which also covers public expenditure.
Mr. David Wilshire: I realise that being repetitive makes one unpopular; similarly, disagreeing with one's own Government makes one feel even more unpopular. But may I say as gently as I possibly can that I believe that my right hon. Friend is profoundly wrong not to allow the House to debate fully and to vote on the matters that were not scrutinised yesterday?
Mr. Newton: I do not in any way resent the repetition by my hon. Friend. Unless I am to repeat the same things over and over again, however, I do not think that I can add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Eric Clarke: May I support the plea of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to bring the Secretary of State for Scotland to this place to tell the House why he has overturned the decision of the recorder on that specific aspect of the interconnector between Ireland and Scotland? There has been a six-month inquiry. I learned today from a press release which I happened to get from Dover house—because I asked for it—that the recommendation is that the decision of the recorder on this important link between Northern Ireland and Scotland be overturned.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will already have heard me undertake to bring that concern, expressed earlier but now underlined by him, to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Leader of the House—some time before next Easter while he is still Leader of the House—arrange for a statement by the Government, or preferably a debate in Government time, in which they can make clear their views on the community's role in respect of an opencast mining proposal which is so large that four constituencies are directly affected? On such an important matter, the community's say should be clear; it is not clear in the

1115
minerals planning guidance. We need an opportunity to debate what powers the community has to ensure that such a proposal does not go forward.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that questions concerning the minerals planning guidance are primarily for the Secretary of State for the Environment, to whose attention I shall ensure that his remarks are brought.

Madam Speaker's Statement
4.11 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. On Monday, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised with me the question of communication between Members and civil servants in the officials' Box. She referred to incidents that occurred on Friday, when it appeared that Back-Bench Members were being directly briefed by officials. My deputy in the Chair at the time last Friday dealt properly with the points of order raised with her.
It may be helpful if I make clear to the House the conventions that apply in this case. The officials' Box is intended for civil servants and political advisers with civil service status whose attendance is deemed essential by the Minister responsible. Their attendance is by my permission, and a list of names is required to be submitted to my office in advance. Their function is to provide information and briefing to Ministers as required.
It follows that in general the only Members who should approach the Box are the Minister concerned, the parliamentary private secretary or, in the absence of the latter, another Member operating with the Minister's authority. There may be other occasions when it makes sense for a Member on either side of the House to approach the Box—for example, to check an apparently inaccurate fact or a reference in a Government document under discussion—but I would expect such occasions to be very rare indeed.
I do not regard it as acceptable for Members to engage in social discussions with officials in the Box, since this could be open to misinterpretation and cause irritation to other Members.
There is one other point that I should like to underline. Officials in the Box are required to conduct themselves discreetly at all times. In particular, they should not show any partiality in the course of a debate. I am glad to say that this is an issue which has been raised with the Chair on very few occasions—although there should never be cause for it to be drawn to my attention again.

Points of Order
4.12 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Social Security given you notice that he intends to come before the House to make a statement on his proposals on chronic bronchitis and emphysema? He has today answered a written question in which he proposes to implement in full the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council as from next April and without retrospection.
I have checked with the company that now manages the mineworkers pension scheme, which informs me that an average of 700 elderly miners die each month. That means that, in the 14 months between the end of the review and implementation of the recommendations next April, roughly 10,000 miners will have died. I am not saying that all of them would have had a claim, but a good number of them would have. It is very important that the Secretary of State should come to the House to make a statement so that we can question him on these matters.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement on that matter. Had that been the case today, we would have known it already, because it would have appeared on the Annunciator.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that it is the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation that scrutiny should not be given to the package of financial measures unless and until there is a debate on the Floor of the House. You will know that it is possible for the Government to table a "forthwith" motion, and that that could be done late in the evening when no Member was available to table an amendment. In that case, it would be possible for some Members to seek to put a manuscript amendment before the House the following day. Given that the powers of the House are at stake—democracy is at stake—if a manuscript amendment were tabled in such circumstances, can you give an assurance that you would look favourably upon it?
Madam Speaker: It is hypothetical at this time, but I would look very carefully at any manuscript amendment that came my way.
Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday at Question Time I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland a question. He replied that the social work department of Glasgow district council was unsure how many social workers it employs. That is an inaccurate statement. I have evidence from the Glasgow social work department that it knows how many staff and social workers it employs. Furthermore, the Scottish Office was informed of those numbers some time ago. The Secretary of State should have checked with his Department so that
1118
he could give the House accurate information. I ask that he should come before the House and clear up that misunderstanding.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might like to consider an Adjournment debate, which would allow him to air the problems of his local authority and give the correct figures.
Mr. George Stevenson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to Standing Order No. 102(9), which states:
"If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Community document".
I raise this point of order in the context of European Standing Committee B. Clearly, Standing Order No. 102(9) is inconclusive, as the wording is "If any motion", not "Any motion must be". Will you ensure that there must be a report back, and that time is allowed for Back Benchers or other Members to table amendments to the motion?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to the statement that I made yesterday.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that from time to time hon. Members have been concerned about the fact that, with regard to the agencies that the Government have set up, statements have been made without parliamentary debate or questioning of Ministers. Yesterday evening a journalist gave guidance to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that there would be a statement today on prisons. On inquiring, my hon. Friend discovered that there would be no ministerial statement, but a press release from the director of prisons dealing with release and other aspects with which I would have some sympathy. By allowing such statements to be made outside the House by those who are not directly answerable to the House, we have gone too far: there is no opportunity for proper scrutiny. I hope that that will be borne in mind in future.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about press releases in advance of statements in the House.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have heard several Members mention, and the Leader of the House say two or three times, that the Prime Minister said that a "forthwith" motion would be tabled. I checked with one or two of my hon. Friends, who say that they did not hear that, but we must assume that such a motion may be tabled. The Leader of the House—who has, unfortunately, departed—refused to assure you and the House that such a motion would be tabled in such a way as to allow considered amendments to be tabled for your possible selection. Will you give an assurance that if any hon. Member moved the Adjournment of the House prior to such a motion being taken forthwith, you would look upon it favourably?
Madam Speaker: I can give no commitments to the hon. Gentleman, but I have noted his comments.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you give your support to a rough

1119
sleepers initiative for the benefit of hon. Members? You may be aware that last night five hon. Members slept rough in the room opposite the Public Bill Office in order to secure ten-minute Bill time. Conditions were most uncomfortable, but we had the opportunity for in-depth discussion and we agreed that the procedure should be abandoned in favour of selecting hon. Members perhaps in the same way as they are selected for oral questions. We believe that the present procedure is archaic and inefficient. It wastes time, it is unfair to female Members of Parliament and it has no place in a modern Parliament.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I support the hon. Gentleman in his request for a much better system. Last night and in the early hours of this morning, I flatly refused to sleep in a small conference room on the Committee Corridor with three gentlemen. [Interruption.] I would not consider sleeping with Conservative Members of Parliament and I certainly would not sleep with Labour Members.
Madam Speaker: I have noted the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who raised the original point of order. I understand that a relevant report from the Procedure Committee of the last Parliament remains on the table. The hon. Gentleman may wish to ask that Committee to consider the matter again.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that last night there was a massive power failure on the London underground which trapped many thousands of Londoners in tunnels for more than an hour. I had hoped for a ministerial statement on the subject, but obviously one was not requested.
Without claiming special treatment for Members of Parliament, those hon. Members who do not drive around in chauffeured limos with police outriders would like to be informed of any problems on the underground before we attempted to travel on it. Madam Speaker, could you request London Underground authorities to inform you if such an event occurs again so that hon. Members and their staff may be warned before they try to use the underground system?
Madam Speaker: I do not think that there is anything special about hon. Members and their staff: they are treated like any other Londoners as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Banks: Yes, badly.
Madam Speaker: You should live above the shop, as I do.

Windfall Tax
4.22 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move,
That this House deplores the dangers and injustices inherent in the concept of a windfall tax on the privatised utilities and condemns a tax that would hit consumers, shareholders and pensioners while damaging the credibility of the United Kingdom as a stable regime for inward investment.
It is now more than four years since the old Labour shadow Chancellor announced Labour's big idea of a windfall tax. Its very name implied that somehow money was there for the taking, that no one would feel the impact, and that fat cats would be punished appropriately. It implied that somehow Labour had found a pot of fool's gold with which to pay for its ever-lengthening list of unquantified spending commitments. It was a tax for the moment: a headline grabber; a soundbite tax.
Four years later, old Labour is gone and the old Labour shadow Chancellor has become the new Labour shadow Chancellor. However, the windfall relic has survived that cultural revolution—the windfall tax lives on.
Four years later, not even the most basic calculation or clarification has been advanced as to what the Labour party proposes. Every day, often in newspapers that are normally sympathetic to the Labour party, the chorus of condemnation grows. I quote from The Independent business section earlier this month:
"this is a tax hard to justify and hard to implement … Labour's tax lawyers and financial advisers are still, years after the proposal was mooted, wrestling with the legal difficulties of defining those the party wants to penalise."
No Conservative Member could have put it more clearly.
Today, we are providing an opportunity for the Labour party to come clean, to answer the questions, to spell out the costs, and, above all, to let the British people know what the windfall tax will cost every one of them.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the windfall tax is a pledge or a commitment, in the phraseology used so often by the shadow Chancellor?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is neither a pledge nor commitment; just a downright threat, I would have thought.
If one is to create the concept of a tax, people are entitled to ask who will have to pay; how much they will pay; where the lines will be drawn; how the victims will be defined; how the legal challenges will be avoided; how to stand up to the already audible cries of protest from international investors. It is interesting: in the most successful part of the rejuvenation of our economy in the constituencies of the Labour party are inward investors, who come to this country because it is the enterprise centre of Europe. Yet what do we hear? The moment attention is drawn to these people, the Labour party goes back to its old tricks of sneering at anything that smacks of an enterprise economy.
The Labour party is so subliminally ashamed of the concept that it has invented a tax that it is now trying to call it a levy—old taxes, new levies. It amounts to an unprecedented attack on our privatised industries. Is it an

1121
attack on all of them, or just some of them? If it is only some of them, which ones? If we are looking at only some of them, how will that be defined when drafting legislation? Which sectors of British industry have been singled out as the old-style milch cow for new-style Labour taxes?
The Labour party has yet to explain which companies it defines as utilities, let alone which utilities are covered. Indeed, we have it clearly on the record. At the Labour party conference, the Leader of the Opposition said that there would be a one-off windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised monopoly utilities.
Sir Irvine Patnick: My right hon. Friend will have received a letter, as will the Leader of the Opposition, from Yorkshire Electricity, pointing out that, before privatisation, it paid £41 million in tax, and that it now pays £90 million in tax. It has pointed out that its prices have been reduced in real terms by 25 per cent. It has also pointed out the effect of a windfall tax on jobs, investment and prices.
Does my right hon. Friend agree, having read the letter, that, in the end, it is the people who use electricity who will pay; that it is the investors who look forward who will pay? In other words, the Labour party is penalising people for its own ends, and it knows not why.
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I happen to have the letter to hand. It is interesting that the Labour party laughs at the effects that will flow to the constituents in Yorkshire, which are clearly set out in the letter from Yorkshire Electricity. What will the tax do? It will
"undermine our ability to sustain the current level of investment … affect jobs … increase prices to customers in the longer term … reduce dividend income for our shareholders, over 100,000 of whom live in our region and are also customers",
and
"reduce pensioners' income as many of our large shareholders are pension funds."
That is what the windfall tax will do in Yorkshire, to the people who are expected to vote for the Labour party, which will introduce the tax, which will penalise the constituents on whose votes it depends.
Sir Donald Thompson: When my right hon. Friend sees today's Yorkshire Post, he will see that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, sneered at journalists who were gathered in Yorkshire, and told them to talk to business men. Labour authorities were being accused of penalising pensioners in the same way as the windfall tax would penalise them. All that the right hon. Gentleman could say was, "Go and talk to the business men."
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would be better advised to talk to pensioners and employees. [Interruption.] Yes, to the pensioners who own shares in the companies on which the Labour party intends to impose a windfall tax. Those are the people to whom he should talk.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is nothing short of sheer hypocrisy for the Government, and the right hon.
1122
Gentleman in particular, to attack the Labour party on its proposals for a windfall tax on public utilities—for which Conservative Members act in a consultative capacity, and which give money to the Tory party for its election funds—when that same Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, some years ago decided to impose a windfall tax on the banks. What is the difference between a windfall tax on banks and a windfall tax on the fat cats who are close to Tory Members?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Why does not the hon. Gentleman ask trade unions, which invested funds in the utilities? For taking the trouble to support the election of a Labour Government—if that were ever to happen—trade unions would have a windfall tax imposed on them.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simple: the tax on the banks in 1981 reflected the fact that large numbers of British depositors attracted no interest on their deposits. That enabled banks to make a one-off large capital gain, which was legitimate. That has nothing to do with the free market operation of selling shares in companies that were floated at a price that the market commanded-they are two totally different circumstances.
To understand the dilemma that faces anyone seriously trying to do business with the Labour party, let us take the dilemma of the chief executive of PowerGen, Mr. Ed Wallis. He made a simple mistake, because he took new Labour at its new face value. He was asked a straight question by a Select Committee of the House, and, being a straight guy, he gave a straight answer. He told the Select Committee that his company, PowerGen, not being a monopoly, would escape the tax. No one can blame him for saying that, because he had the full authority of no less a figure than Alastair Campbell to give him confidence.
In a letter written to The Independent on 5 November, Alastair Campbell confirmed that the tax would hit only monopolies. No sooner had Mr. Campbell offered that helpful confirmation than up popped someone else, rather more modestly referred to in The Daily Telegraph as merely a spokesperson for the shadow Chancellor. He set out the shadow Chancellor's view, which was totally different from the view that was previously believed and trusted in by Mr. Wallis. The spokesman said that, in principle, all privatised utilities will be considered, and that the Labour party will not want to discriminate unfairly.
I am sure that it will be a relief to all those who work in the privatised utilities to know that Labour is not aiming to discriminate unfairly. There will be no unfair discrimination: that is clear. In its place will be fair discrimination. What is fair discrimination, and when will the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Chancellor reach agreement on a definition of who will pay the tax?
Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was reported to have said on the wireless that she would be prepared to include in a windfall tax the British Airports Authority and British Airways? Does he think that that inclusion could be extended to successful, semi-monopoly companies such as British Aerospace, which he and I know well? What would be the implications for those three companies of this iniquitous windfall tax?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend asks an inevitable question. A refusal to define the tax base means that anyone who is interested in his or her tax liabilities will be unable to establish the risks of a Labour Government. It is, of course, precisely because the Labour party does not want anyone to be able to define the precise risks that its members will not answer the basic questions.
What this is really all about is a Labour attack on the successful privatised companies. What, in truth, do monopolies mean in a world in which competition is increasingly spreading all the time? Labour Members are incapable of answering that question.
I am talking not just about British Telecom, which patently faces world competition today, or about the domestic gas market, in which we have opened up competition and in which prices are adjusting downwards in those circumstances. There has been a massive reduction in electricity prices as a result of privatisation. Even in the water industry, we are now consulting about the possibility of greater competition. The fact is that, when Labour Members talk about monopolies, they completely fail to appreciate the revolution in competitive practice that is sweeping the country, and, indeed, the global market.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, last year, Treasury officials considered recommending that the Government introduce a windfall tax, and that some Ministers were in favour of it, including Cabinet Ministers? Is that not the truth?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We have never proposed to introduce a windfall tax related in any way to the Labour party's proposals. There is not a shred of evidence that members of this Government have supported such a proposal, and the Labour party knows it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee—a Conservative Committee—expressed support for a windfall tax? Can the Deputy Prime Minister stand at that Dispatch Box and absolutely deny that any member of the British Cabinet has expressed support for a windfall tax in the past two years? Let us have a denial from the Dispatch Box.
The Deputy Prime Minister: This is rich. We cannot get an answer from the Labour party about who will pay, how much they will pay or which companies will pay, and the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can divert attention from the bankruptcy of Labour's ideas by asking questions to which he knows the answers as well as I do. There are no proposals for a windfall tax in the Conservative party, there never have been, and as far as the present Government are concerned, there never will be. Let us be quite clear about that.
Business people, to their cost, have a tendency to take new Labour's words at face value. "Blind trust", I think, is the term for it. That is a very dangerous thing to do with new Labour. New Labour's policies are not about specific proposals; they are about winks, nods, sideways glances, hints and suggestions. They are about anything other than the facts and the details. The fact is that, the
1124
more questions are asked, the more the realisation grows—as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) pointed out—that behind the windfall tax there is a bill: a real bill, for real people to pay.
The owners of our privatised companies today comprise millions of individuals who had the faith to buy those companies with their own savings in a free market. Ten million shareholders have pensions and insurance policies based on extensive investment in the utilities—British pensioners, whose pension values are now threatened by Labour's determination to tax them retrospectively, as an act of vicious political spite.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a day when the Government are unable or unwilling to find time to debate the implications of European monetary union, the Government have time to attack Opposition policies and yesterday civil servants were involved in costing Opposition promises. Who has time to run the country?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As we have the most successful economy in western Europe, it is pretty obvious that it is the Government who have the time to run the country.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On business confidence in political parties, will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in congratulating the directors of the Haymarket Group, who made the shrewd decision in 1994 to make no donation to the Conservative party?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have nothing to do with the management of the company, but it made up for that in 1995.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in that fascinating and candid letter from Mr. Chatwin, chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity Group, he says:
"that threat of a Windfall Tax is depressing our share price which makes us far more vulnerable to take-over".
Does not Labour's stakeholder tax make it more likely that successful British companies will fall into foreign hands?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is a classic situation. The Labour party did everything in its power to undercut the value of nationalised industries at the time of their flotation. Every political smear was used to keep prices down. Now we have made a success of them, it is undermining their success in the marketplace. As my hon. Friend says, that means that, if there were to be a takeover bid, the acquisition price would be lower. The Labour party has played politics with vital British assets.
If we are to make this economy the most successful in Europe, as we want to, we must attract inward investment into Britain. I wonder whether the Labour party has thought through exactly what it is doing. What will happen when overseas companies, having acquired British companies, are threatened retrospectively with a tax? What does Labour think will happen in the rest of the world when British companies seek to develop there? Does it think that such a tax, retrospectively and arbitrarily imposed on overseas companies in Britain,

1125
would be quietly accepted by overseas Governments? Of course it would not. There would be retaliation and pressures. The Labour party lives in a naive world if it thinks that British interests would not be damaged by the tax that it is contemplating.
Sir Jim Spicer: Directly on the question not of inward investment into Britain, but of British investment overseas, my right hon. Friend will know better than most hon. Members the expertise that many of our privatised companies have built up. They go out, do the consultancy work and spearhead jobs for other British companies overseas. Does he think that those consultancies, which do not bring in a vast amount of money but help enormously in the export sector, will continue at the same scale if we go down this road?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The windfall tax will have wide ramifications, because it will prejudice the good name of Britain as a home for inward investment. That will affect British companies' reputation, which is a priceless asset, in both manufacturing and service industries throughout the world. The Labour party cannot live with the fact that, having fought to prevent privatisation all through the 1980s and still today in the 1990s, there is not a country left in the world that subscribes to its attitudes to ownership of industry. We have utterly won the intellectual argument, and virtually every country is privatising its industries.
The Labour party cannot live with the success that we forced through the House, despite its opposition, to the immense benefit of Britain's public. It simply cannot contemplate the thought that a nationalised industry has, for example, reduced its prices, improved its service or expanded into overseas markets, but that is what has happened, to the immense benefit of our economy. What, therefore, does Labour want to do? It wants to punish the companies that made it possible.
Labour cannot live with the thought that British Telecom has reduced prices by around 40 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, that it has brought huge improvements to its customers and that it is now a major internationally competitive company. Labour cannot stand the thought that British Gas has penetrated markets in more than 20 countries, bringing enormous new opportunities and jobs for Britain, or that water companies are investing more than £3 billion a year since privatisation, improving water quality and the infrastructure. The figures before privatisation, under the last Labour Government, were roughly half of what is now being spent by the privatised companies, which plan to invest a further £24 billion between now and the year 2005.
I was in the House, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were, in the 1970s when the Labour party slaughtered the water industry's investment programmes. We are still suffering the consequences of the fact that, when the International Monetary Fund came here and took over the running of our economy, at the top of the list of the cuts were the nationalised water industries. Labour cannot forgive the fact that we have restored that investment and doubled it.
What it comes to is that the Labour party wants to punish success. That affects everyone with a telephone, a gas bill, an electricity bill and a water bill. This is not a levy on utilities, but a tax on everyone who lives in Britain.
1126
One might reasonably ask, therefore: how much is Labour going to seek to raise by way of a windfall tax and how many years in a row does it intend to do it? The concept of a windfall tax was that it could be levied just once, in one year, but the one-year-alone policy has now conveniently disappeared from view. It was The Guardian today that explained it. It says that the shadow Chancellor
"twice pledged in his conference speech"
to abolish the 16-hour rule. We put the cost of that at £875 million—(Interruption.] Just like Labour Members now, the shadow Chancellor protested vigorously, but let me quote from The Guardian:
"Abolishing the 16-hour rule is part of Labour's plan to up-skill the workforce, and is likely to happen swiftly. The windfall tax is supposed to pay for it—but there is only one windfall, and a permanent increase in spending. Direct hit by the Government."
That is not from a Tory newspaper. That is the basis of the mounting criticism that is being levied across the spectrum at Labour's windfall tax.
There is therefore a simple choice, and the Labour party should come clean. Either this is a total confidence trick, with the Labour party making on-going commitments that will not be funded by a one-off tax—and therefore the commitments will not be met—or this is not a one-off tax, because, once Labour has tasted blood, why should it not go on gnawing relentlessly away? Either way, we should be told. Is it a one-off windfall tax or will it be an annual levy to pay for Labour's commitments?
Of course the Labour party has not answered the questions and I have little expectation that it will try, but the House has been helped by Goldman Sachs International Ltd. It has told us what it thinks a windfall tax is going to amount to. It could be up to £5 billion, it says, although other people suggest higher figures. I expect that, somehow or other, in all those forays to the City, with a nod here and a wink there, those clever bankers have worked it out. That of course is extremely convenient for the Labour party, because it will not give the figures. If the Opposition won the election, however, they would then be able to say, "Of course everyone knew what our windfall tax would do. It was all there in the newspapers about the £5 billion. Didn't you read what the City commentators told us? We never issued a denial at the time, so it was obvious that we were going to raise those sums of money."
The Opposition have never answered any questions, but they will not deny the sums that people are bandying around. It is right that the Opposition should come clean on this matter. They should tell us what the facts are. If they do not, they cannot blame us for making our own assumptions and calculations.
Underlying the issue is the fundamental fallacy of the concept of a windfall tax. In Labour's dream world, the idea is that somehow one can pluck money out of the air, and somehow there is a pot of molten gold to be poured down into the national economy, all without any consequences. Nothing could be more typical of the naive and self-serving approach of the Labour party. Nothing could show more clearly that the windfall tax would be a new tax imposed on business by people who know nothing about business, but of course know a great deal about taxes.
Has the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) told people in all seriousness that the tax would not have any knock-on effects on businesses,

1127
shareholders, investment, jobs, inward investment and confidence? Is he telling us that one can take £5 billion from a limited number of companies with no consequences?
The fact is that windfall taxes, like any other, must come from somewhere—in this case from British companies. They would be forced to pay higher taxes, and they would have a limited number of means of dealing with that. One of them is to raise prices. That is in no way surprising to the shadow Chancellor, because he admitted as much recently, when he said that prices would not be allowed to rise. If those prices are not to be allowed to rise, how would he stop them? Would he give a direction to the regulators to make sure that those prices did not rise? Are we going to have a prices policy for the utilities controlled by politicians in Whitehall? Is that what will happen?
The shadow Chancellor has already said that he would be prepared to stop prices rising as a result of a windfall tax, but another alternative is open to those companies—to cut their investment programmes. That, of course, would have an effect on jobs, rising standards and the competitiveness of our companies. We would then be back exactly where we were in the 1970s when the Labour party was in power. As we know, whenever the Opposition are in power, unemployment rises, and we are faced with that prospect yet again. That, together with the inflationary record of the Labour party, is an old, familiar and depressing story.
Sir Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry this week suggests that London Electricity would cut its investment programme if it faced a windfall tax?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely aware of exactly the dangers that my right hon. Friend has pointed out. The fact is that either prices would go up or investment would be cut as a result of the imposition of the windfall tax. There is no loose cash sitting about with no purpose in the pockets of British companies. A windfall tax would affect prices or jobs, or both. That is its only consequence.
I know perfectly well that it is the determination of the Labour party to give the impression that it is a painless tax, but to answer no questions about it. I am certainly not the first person to ask those questions. In July this year, the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed on "The Financial World Tonight" and he was asked, for example, whether British Telecom and British Gas would pay the new tax. He said:
"we are not going to start specifying particular sums of money from particular utilities."
That did not get us very far, so the interviewer tried again:
"Is it all of the utilities that would come under a windfall tax?"
The Labour leader replied:
"Well, as I say, Gordon has said that we are not going to start specifying at this point in time that there are particular utilities who are going to pay particular sums of money or whatever".
The interviewer was singularly unimpressed, and tried a third time, by asking:
"Why won't you give them that detail?
1128
"The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"Well, with all due respect, we are giving that detail. I mean, we have simply said that in relation to specific utility companies we're not going to say specifically how much money companies are going to pay …at this moment".
That from the party which claims it is fit to govern the country. The Opposition have had four years to plan their policy and to show they know what they are talking about, and still there are no answers to the basic questions.
It is no surprise that concern about and criticism of the windfall tax has percolated through to the upper reaches of the Labour party. Alert as ever, the deputy leader of the Labour party has got wind of it first, so he has come up with a wheeze. We are told by the financial Times that he has held a series of meetings with the utilities executives to discuss their involvement in local job creation and regeneration projects, funded by the tax on their excess profits. One might say that that is a worthy vision.
Off the right hon. Gentleman goes to the shadow Chancellor to set out his proposals. He says, "Look, shadow Chancellor, we've got a bit of a dog's breakfast here, left over from the old heady days when you and I were still recovering from peddling the myth that Neil and Roy were the dream ticket. Well, we've all come a long way since that, and I suggest that we hypothecate"—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would have used that word—"and use some of the windfall revenue for worthy schemes."
The shadow Chancellor was, to put it bluntly, unamused. In fact, he took off into outer orbit. He has already spent the money about 35 times over, but there was his right hon. Friend threatening to give the whole bloomin' lot away before he even gets his hands on it.
We should at least give the deputy leader of the Labour party his due. He cannot answer any of the questions, but, my word, he can certainly spot a question coming his way when he has had four years to think about it.
I must tell the Opposition that they cannot go on running from the questions. They must set out the basic principles on which the tax would be based. Tell us which companies would be affected and what criteria would be used. Tell us how big the bill will be for pensioners, customers and shareholders. Is it £5 billion, £6 billion, £7 billion or £10 billion? But then, on second thoughts, why bother? There will not be a windfall tax under the next Government, because the next Government will be a Conservative one.
4.57 pm
Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"notes the plight of unemployed young people and the long-term unemployed and welcomes the Labour Party's initiatives to deal with these problems, to be financed by a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities."
The Deputy Prime Minister sought to prove that consumers, shareholders and pensioners will suffer from Labour's windfall levy. That is the Government's case. We did not hear one word from him about the excess profits that have been made by the privatised utilities. There is no doubt that they have made such profits; even the regulators have recognised that and taken action. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was rather

1129
tired. It contained an awful lot of tired questions and was not even helped by the humour in a couple of set questions with set answers.
The Deputy Prime Minister made much play of the question whether we are proposing a levy or a tax, and no doubt we will hear an awful lot more about that. Perhaps those words do not come easily to him.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): What is the difference between them?
Mr. Prescott: That question was first asked by the first Government to levy a windfall tax, a Tory Government. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"I should require the banks to make a special fiscal contribution."—[Official Report, 10 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 773.]
What is the difference between a tax, a levy and a "special fiscal contribution"?
Mr. David Shaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: I shall give way, in time. I always give way to fools such as the hon. Gentleman.
There has been an awful lot of rhetoric. We want to direct the attention of the House and the country to the fact that excess profits have been made. Let us not argue about the terms. There have been excess profits, and we intend to recover them, to put our people back to work. That is the difference between us and the Tories, and that is the point that we want to make.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) quoted a letter from Yorkshire Electricity. He did riot tell us about the letter from Yorkshire Water, but I shall leave that issue aside for now. The person at Yorkshire Electricity who wrote to the hon. Gentleman is one of the people who have benefited greatly from privatisation. Since privatisation, annual boardroom pay has increased by 565 per cent., and board members have £2.7 million in share options outstanding. I would write a letter to the hon. Gentleman if I thought that those privileges were under attack.
Sir Irvine Patnick: The right hon. Gentleman has a copy of that letter£unless he has not had time to read it.
Mr. Prescott: I have a copy of the letter. I want to deal with the arguments made by the Deputy Prime Minister about the effects of a windfall tax on consumer prices, investments and pensions—which is the Government's case—but I wanted, first, to make those remarks, to deal with the points made by the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech.
Despite the protestations of the Deputy Prime Minister, the privatised utilities were sold off cheaply, weakly regulated and allowed to make excess profits. Labour plans to raise a levy to help put the unemployed of Britain back to work, because we believe that that is social justice.
The British people have paid a high price for privatisation. As I said, the privatised utilities were sold off cheaply and regulated weakly. That was done deliberately, to allow the City to make a financial killing,
1130
which it did. Moreover, often the utilities were provided with financial sweeteners, such as the £14 billion of written-off debt and tax allowances that were given to the water companies alone. Water companies' profits have rocketed, water bills have increased by 83 per cent., boardroom pay has soared, and there have been record share options and other perks. The British public are picking up the bill for privatisation, and we think that that is wrong.
Mr. Rod Richards: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the windfall levy would be used to put people back to work. Will he tell the House whether Labour's plan would also include capital projects?
Mr. Prescott: I am sorry; I did not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Richards: I asked whether the Labour party's plan would include capital projects. If so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will outline some of them for us.
Mr. Prescott: I shall deal with how we will use the money when I come to that part of my speech.
Mr. Shaw rose—
Mr. Prescott: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that I will not deal with it.
Mr. Shaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the 3 million small business owners in this country and the 2 million other employers what is the Labour party definition of "excess profit?" Under Labour's definition, how many extra pounds in tax will small business people have to pay?
Mr. Prescott: That is a proper question, and I shall deal with it at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman has told us his opinion on such matters, but I remind him that he led the campaign to stop taxation of share options. Should the Chancellor, in his Budget—he will not tell us anything about it today—introduce a capital gains tax, people with share options will enjoy an even greater windfall than they have so far. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) would support that.
Today, we have seen the Deputy Prime Minister weeping crocodile tears for taxpayers, pensioners and consumers. This Government profess to have concern for the taxpayer, but are they not the Government who imposed 22 new taxes on the taxpayer? They profess to have concern for the pensioner, but are they not the Government who broke the link between pensions and earnings to fund tax cuts for the better-off? They also profess to have concern for the consumer, but are they not the same Government who slapped value added tax on to domestic fuel consumers, and penalised consumers—especially many pensioners—who cannot afford the heating bills imposed by the Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister must know that that value added tax increased fuel bills by £3 billion in three years. Are they not the same Government, and the same Deputy Prime Minister, who imposed the fossil fuel levy, which

1131
further increased fuel bills by £6 billion in the past five years—with more increases to come? How dare they talk about the burden on the public.
We have heard a great deal from the Deputy Prime Minister about shareholders and pension funds, of which he knows a great deal because of his business background. Was he thinking about shareholders when he encouraged firms to delay paying debts, which is the main cause of bankruptcy for small firms in enterprise Britain?
I recall when the Deputy Prime Minister sat on the Treasury Bench as a Tory Transport Minister, in 1970, when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament. I recall the debate that we had on the Mersey docks and harbour board, and I am sure that he, too, remembers it well. We were dealing with a statutory trust, which had statutory trustees. All the pensioners who invested in the trust thought that they had Government bonds, which were as safe as the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister, who was then a Minister, belonged to a Government who slashed the price of those bonds and the value of that trust's assets by one third. That action affected pensioners, and I protested about it to a Government who were supposedly concerned about pensioners and shareholders, but who imposed that tax on those pensioners and that trust fund.
I shall give the Deputy Prime Minister another example. He has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, and I cannot simply sit here and listen to him tell us how much he feels for shareholders and pensioners. Does he remember the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, when he was an Opposition transport spokesman, protesting about our formula for compensation? No doubt he will remember that. He said that the Labour Government's terms for compensation to shareholders were unfair. Day after day, he protested about those terms in the House. But after he became the Minister with responsibility for dealing with compensation claims, he rejected that stand and endorsed Labour's settlement for shareholders. It was simple hypocrisy.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The very reason why we could not restore the legitimate rights of the shareholders was that there had been so many transfers of ownership after nationalisation and before we came to power. It is precisely the same story here. There is absolutely no justice in penalising people who have bought shares at today's value because of mythical accusations of what happened yesterday.
Mr. Prescott: It sounds like another broken promise to me. The Conservatives promised one thing in opposition, and they delivered something else when they were in government. But the right hon. Gentleman should not take my word on it; shortly after the event, the editorial in The Times—I do not think that it is a Labour newspaper—judged that
"their treatment leaves a stain on this government, as on its predecessors, and on the reputation of those ministers (Mr. King, Mr. Heseltine) who made so much political noise and so many implicit promises at the time but who, when they enjoyed power, found it expedient to do nothing."
That was not the Labour party; it was the editorial in The Times.
1132
Let us come more up to date—to Tuesday 7 March 1995. The right hon. Gentleman claims to be concerned about shareholders. What about the £4 billion wiped off the market value of electricity companies in one day because the regulator, appointed by the Government, got his sums wrong on the formula?
I was particularly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman dared to mention pension funds, when he belongs to a Government who spent most of their time raiding the pension funds of most of the industries that they privatised. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for that—the Government were condemned by the pensions ombudsman for it. He took the view that a £200 million surplus had been taken out of the National Bus Company pension fund. He arrived at the judgment that the removal of the surplus was a breach of trust. The Conservatives raided the pension funds, but they have the audacity to come here and talk about a windfall levy on pension funds.
A common thread runs through all those incidents—the Deputy Prime Minister was in the Government on each occasion, usually pretty close to the source of the crime, intervening before breakfast, intervening before dinner and intervening before tea. Never did he act in the interests of the consumer, the pensioner, the taxpayer or the public. That is hypocrisy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): May I take the deputy leader of the Labour party away from his memoirs and bring him back to the windfall tax? Can he explain why he is not able to say whether the tax will apply to British Telecom?
Mr. Prescott: It is very interesting for the Chancellor to break his purdah and come to the Dispatch Box to ask that. I have some questions for him. Will he abolish capital gains tax? Will he reduce income tax?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Clarke: I shall answer all questions about my Budget next Tuesday. Will it take the right hon. Gentleman until next Tuesday to answer my question? Why is his party unable to say whether the tax will apply to British Telecom? He has had four years to think of that detail, as he describes it.
Mr. Prescott: I shall give the same answer. We shall give all the details in the first Budget of a Labour Government.
Let me say something else in response. All the Deputy Prime Minister's questions about to whom the levy will apply, what the levy will be and how we will do it are proper questions, no doubt about it, but when the bankers' levy or—what was it?—fiscal contribution was announced in the Budget, Conservative Members were whipped through the Lobbies without being told any of those details. They were told that the details would be in the legislation when it came before the House. The measure did not apply to every bank, as the Chancellor knows. People were asking which bodies would pay and which would not. The then Chancellor replied, "We will tell you when we bring the Bill to Committee."
The Prime Minister said today that he wanted answers to those questions. He was a junior Whip in 1981, driving Conservative Members through the Lobbies with no

1133
answers to those same questions. It is a bit much for the Chancellor to ask us that. I shall trade some secrets with him behind the Chair if he will tell me what he will do in his Budget. No doubt he will not tell us, but who knows?
Let us stay with the realities. The windfall levy is not an original idea, I confess. It is not even particularly a Labour idea. It is a Tory idea. They did it to the banks. In 1981, the Conservative Government applied a windfall tax on the clearing banks that had made excess profits. In his 1981 Budget speech, the then Chancellor Geoffrey Howe made his position clear:
"Indeed, bank profits in recent years have increased sharply, both absolutely and by contrast with the experiences of most other businesses …
Certainly the contrast with the sharply reduced profits of industrial companies is, if anything, more striking. In present difficult circumstances, I cannot avoid the conclusion that I should require the banks to make a special fiscal contribution."—[0fficial Report, 10 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 772-73.]
Just put the words "public utilities" in that quotation and the justification for the windfall levy has been made by the former Chancellor.
We have given four years' notice of the principle of the tax. The Conservatives gave no notice in their election manifesto. Unlike the Tories, we have given industry plenty of warning. Even the shareholders and the pension funds have known since 1992 of the possibility of the windfall tax and its implementation. They have no doubt taken it into account when judging their earnings.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: No. I give way only to full-time Members.
The shadow Chancellor has made our point clearly. I do not know where the chairman of the Conservative party—the other half of the double act with the Deputy Prime Minister—is today, but on Monday he produced a document to try to whip up fear about the windfall levy. It was based on the remarkable assumption that the whole cost of the levy would be passed on to the customers. That was his assumption for the effects on jobs and prices; in other words, he assumed that there were no excess profits in the privatised utilities. I know of nobody who has come to that conclusion, except the chairman of propaganda, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), if I can say that about him—sorry.
There is a mass of evidence to show that excess profits exist—not that evidence and facts have ever made much impression on the chairman of the Tory party. The evidence is clear for all to see. The excess profits fuelled the fat cat salaries and share options to which we have referred. Directors of electricity companies have received £5.5 million a year—an 800 per cent. increase since privatisation. Payments to water company directors have gone up from £1.3 million to £6.4 million a year—a 500 per cent. increase. The Deputy Prime Minister would be happy for the Chancellor to abolish capital gains tax in the Budget. I do not know whether the Chancellor has told him if he will do it. They have probably had their Budget chats. If capital gains tax is abolished, those directors will pocket a £30 million tax windfall by cashing in on their share options. That is wrong and we intend to look at that windfall.
1134
We have heard an awful lot about share prices.
Mr. Tim Smith rose—
Mr. Prescott: I want to address some of the economic points, which are legitimate issues.
Northumbrian Water was sold for £157 million; a month later, its share value was £207 million—up by 30 per cent. The electricity company Seeboard was sold for £246 million; it is now worth £1.2 billion. Case after case shows that taxpayers were short-changed—indeed, I believe that they were robbed.
Hon. Members may say that the large sums of money that have been made go into investment, but the regulator has expressed concern about under-investment in those industries. Hon. Members should read the regulators' reports. The regulators have agreed price rises on the basis of false investment forecasts from the companies. The gas regulator said that British Gas had underspent by one third on its capital expenditure allowance. In other words, the companies were allowed to charge customers for capital expenditure that never took place. The water regulator found that not only did the water companies fail to honour investment promises, but they were given massive tax relief to encourage them to do so. Capital expenditure by the gas, electricity and water industries has fallen by nearly one fifth in real terms since 1995. Those are statements of the industry.
What about the tax take from those companies? I hear an awful lot said about that. Compared to the normal rate of corporation tax paid by other industrial companies, the privatised utilities have underpaid on tax, despite massive and obscene profits. Some water companies paid no corporation tax at all, while others paid less than 7 per cent—those figures compare with the typical 30 per cent. paid by industrial companies. Altogether, the energy and water companies alone have gained a tax windfall in this way of £4 billion since privatisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Old Labour."] Is it "old Labour" to point out that it is wrong that excessive profits are being paid for by our people in jobs, prosperity and prices?
The takeover frenzy for companies—with firms from America and France queuing up to spend £12 billion on the electricity distribution companies alone—belies the Government's claim in the motion about inward investment. The chief executive of the American company bidding for Northern Electric said that he had taken account of Labour's plans for a windfall tax. Apparently, it is still profitable to invest in this country—even for those responsible for inward investment, as they have taken the effect of a windfall tax into account. The Deputy Prime Minister should listen to an investor who has not been put off by the tax.
Mr. Keith Mans: If the chief executive of the American firm has taken account of a windfall tax, does that not mean that he will be paying less for a national asset than he would without such a tax?
Mr. Prescott: The figures that I have given show that the firms are not paying a lot less, and they have certainly taken into account a windfall tax. The Deputy Prime Minister said that a windfall tax would deter inward investment, but apparently the Americans and French firms have taken into account what my right hon. Friend

1135
the shadow Chancellor has been saying for four years. There is every possibility that a Labour Government are around the corner, but those firms are still investing and buying into the utilities. They are putting their money where their mouth is, and we should listen to them.
There is plenty of evidence of excessive profits, but can the utilities still afford to pay the tax? I have heard quotations from various analysts—some of whom, including Goldman Sachs, have been mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer him to the expert team from Warburg, a bank that has advised the Government on almost every one of their privatisations. Warburg has looked at the windfall tax and considered the various estimates, and makes it clear:
"The ability of most of the companies to cope with a Windfall Tax is once again demonstrated …a £5 billion overall levy is already broadly discounted."
That is the judgment of Warburg, and Goldman Sachs has also made assumptions on the matter, but we will not make a judgment until my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has talked to the regulator and the industry.
Some of the opinions quoted by the Deputy Prime Minister show that companies have discounted the windfall tax. They have not flooded out of the country and their shares have not collapsed. This is the key—a one-off specialised payment will not affect the long-term trend of shares, profits and investment. I am referring to the opinions of investment houses—including Warburg—to which the Government have paid millions for their advice on privatisation.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have here Warburg's assessment of a windfall tax, and this is what it says: "unjust and arbitrary". It is right.
Mr. Prescott: Every tax is basically arbitrary. [Interruption.] That is a simple point, and I do not know why it is causing such consternation. As for "unjust", that is a judgment, and there are clearly differences between us about the justice of the tax. We will use those excessive profits to put people back to work—the Conservatives will put those profits in their own pockets. After a detailed study of pre-tax profits, debt, dividends and forecast share prices, Warburg concluded that the ability of most companies to cope with a windfall levy "is once again demonstrated".
I also call in aid the Institute of Directors, from which Labour receives little help or advice. However, an article in The Guardian quotes the IOD as saying:
"We acknowledge that some of the utilities do have spare cash at the moment, and that the economic impact of the tax might be insignificant".
I presume that the Deputy Prime Minister is a member of the Institute of Directors—it is right up his street. Is he a member?
The Deputy Prime Minister indicated dissent.
Mr. Prescott: No. Does he agree or disagree with the IOD's opinion?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have here a letter from the IOD with which I agree. The tax will be "hard to
1136
compute", is "not the best way" to raise revenue, and "customers will suffer". How many more bits of evidence do I have to produce? No one likes this tax.
Mr. Prescott: I do not doubt that a lot of people do not like tax. People in this country have every reason not to like tax as a result of the tax burden after 18 years of Conservative government.
The IOD acknowledged that there was spare cash in the utilities, but the Deputy Prime Minister said not a word about that in his speech. He did not say that the economic impact of the tax "might be insignificant", and his whole speech was about how significant and dire it was going to be for the utilities. It was a load of nonsense. The companies have the capacity to pay up without increasing prices or significantly affecting the long-term dividend and share values.
We plan to introduce a levy in the next Labour Government's first Budget. After that, we will receive representations from interested parties—by God, there are many in the Conservative party—and consult the regulators about the levy. First, it will be a one-off levy, and not an on-going tax like VAT on fuel. Secondly, the levy will be applied to privatised utilities that have gained excess profits. In principle, all privatised utilities will be considered as candidates for the levy without fear or favour. There will be no way out by lobbying or by avoidance schemes—or even by joining the team that the Deputy Prime Minister has reportedly set up. Thirdly, we will ensure that the levy is taken from excess profits, and not higher prices. That is what the regulators are there for, and they have made it clear that they will not allow the cost to be passed on to prices. Those regulators were appointed by the Government in previous legislation.
Fourthly, the proceeds will be put to a good use. What is, in our judgment, a "good use"? In 1981, the Government introduced a programme of fiscal contributions from banks. We have made it clear that the excess profits will be used to get people back to work. The Government took the view in 1981 that they were going to transfer the resources from the banks' excess profits into industry. I do not know where that money has gone and, at the moment, it does not matter. We are saying that we will direct those resources towards investment in our unemployed people.
The proceeds from the levy have been earmarked for two particular measures, and we promise that they will be put to no other purpose during the next Parliament. Our youth unemployment is almost double the level in Germany. Currently, some 265,000 young people have been unemployed for six months. Our pledge to every young person unemployed for more than six months is that we will offer him four options: a job with training, voluntary sector work with training, full-time study or the chance to join one of the environmental task forces. All those options have been spelt out in detail by the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
A quarter of a million young people will be offered new opportunities to gain jobs and skills and we will offer financial incentives to employers to take on the long-term unemployed. That is important for the whole country. The present situation, where one in five non-pensioner families have no wage earner in the household, cannot continue. It is a disgrace. We are seeing a two-nation Britain and a wasted generation of young people, and a Labour Government will set about the task of putting that right.

1137
It seems that some utility companies have taken to lobbying to seek exemption from the levy. I have a better proposition to make to them, since the Deputy Prime Minister referred to reports in the papers about what they could do. The Government and a future Labour Government will appeal to all companies and industry to help people to get back to work, and that proposal is often made at the Dispatch Box by Ministers. We will say to companies, "Think of ideas and help us to train our people. Provide the people with jobs and we will help you with organisation and financial incentives." That is at the core of our policy to get 250,000 people back to work.
From their constituency experience, many hon. Members will remember that the gas, electricity, water and railway industries all used to have very good training centres that contributed not only to training for those industries but to training provision in their areas. They trained more people than they required, but one of the first consequences of privatisation was that all the training bodies were scrapped—(Interruption.] I suggest that Tory Members go and look at the situation. What happened was that accountants became members of the board and pointed out that training was no longer a statutory requirement because the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the Government had scrapped all the regulations and the utilities no longer had an obligation to train people.
It is time that those big companies thought seriously about how they can help to train our people, provide jobs and rebuild regional economies, but that is not tied to the levy. The levy will be paid directly to the Chancellor. The Labour Government will want to work in partnership with industry to see how we can provide good-quality training and not the skivvy training under the youth training scheme that the Government have provided.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. He will raise a one-off windfall tax in one year to pay the cost of employing 250,000 young people. What will happen in the second year?
Mr. Prescott: Perhaps it has not dawned on the Deputy Prime Minister that when people are taken off the dole—which costs £9,000 per person, according to the Government's figures—in the long term, more money is saved by reducing other public expenditure. [Interruption.] No Labour Government have had to live with 3 million unemployed. Unemployment was less than 1 million in 1979. It costs £20 billion to keep 3 million people on the dole, and I wish that we had heard a little more from Conservatives about how to get our people back to work so that we do not waste money keeping them on the dole.
We need to use our resources to get people back to work to meet the community's needs. That is the intelligent way to deal with the matter and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has constantly made the point about how much it costs to maintain people on the dole. In our proposals for incentives for the long-term unemployed, we have stated how much will be used for the financial incentive to keep people back at work. [Interruption.] I would have thought that the hon. Member for Dover, as an accountant, would know about the changes in losses and profits that will occur if people go back to work instead of staying on the
1138
dole. The hon. Gentleman will have his own concerns about being out of work, because our proposals will return the Labour candidate in Dover to replace him as the Member of Parliament. [Interruption.] The people are listening, even if Tory Members are not.
The chief executive of United Utilities, Brian Staples, quoted in the magazine "Utility Week", said that his company had better prospects under a Labour Government than under a Conservative Government. That is what he said and he is right.
Mr. Atkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: No. I have given way far more than the Deputy Prime Minister did.
The utilities would still have to pay the levy to the Treasury, but they could play a great part in local and regional regeneration to benefit our skills base and build our regional economies. In that way, they could play a key part in tackling the whole unemployment cycle.
Independent experts confirm that the levy can be raised from excess profits without passing on the cost to the customer. The windfall levy is fair, transparent and popular and we will put it to good use. The unemployed and the decent people in Britain cannot wait for us to give new hope to our young people and the long-term unemployed. It will not be long before we will get the chance to do it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call any Member to speak, I wish to point out that many Members want to speak and the debate must end at 7 o'clock. I therefore ask that Members make their speeches as short as possible.
5.34 pm
Sir John Cope: That was an irresponsible speech from the deputy leader of the Labour party, because it increased rather than decreased the uncertainty that surrounds the windfall tax. It shows that the Labour party is not fit or ready for the responsibility of government if it behaves like that with the taxation system.
I want to consider the precise terms of the amendment that the right hon. Gentleman moved. The amendment says that there would be
"a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities."
"Windfall" is a slightly odd word to use in the context as windfall apples are those which fall prematurely from the tree because of high winds. As a result, they do not count in the production of apples from that tree. Windfall apples are often bruised and worth less than other apples, except to the urchins who climb over the wall and pick them up. So referring to a windfall tax is an inappropriate use of the word.
Mr. Denis MacShane: As an urchin, perhaps I may help the right hon. Gentleman by suggesting that the windfall levy could be called a fiscal

1139
contribution, which is the same language that his party used for the same tax a little over a decade ago. Would that help him out of his problem?
Sir John Cope: That is not the phrase used in the Labour party's amendment.
Ms Jean Corston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the legal definition of the word "windfall", which is something that accrues to a individual through no effort of his own?
Sir John Cope: I am always prepared to take legal advice from the hon. Lady as I know that she has legal training, but I am using the word in the ordinary way. A windfall benefits not the person who owns the tree, but the urchins who climb over the wall.
The more important definitions, rather than just the name of the tax, are those concerning "excess profits" and "privatised utilities". Those are the important words in the amendment and they are the nub of the debate. Those words summarise the questions that need to be answered and have not been answered after four years, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out earlier. The two main questions are how the tax will be calculated and which companies will pay it. Until we know that, we cannot work out what the effect will be on the companies, the consumers or anyone else.
On the question of how the tax will be calculated, the deputy leader of the Labour party said early in his speech that he would explain the definition of excess profits, but he never did. We have had profits taxes and excess profits taxes in the past.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman, as I often did in the past when he was deputy Chief Whip. He will know that Scottish Power made a hostile bid for a water company in the south of England and has made equally hostile advances to Merseyside and North-Western electricity board. If Scottish Power is so rich that it can engage in such predatory activity, surely it has the money to pay the windfall tax.
Sir John Cope: I acknowledge the co-operation that the hon. Gentleman has shown in the past, but it is no good imposing a tax on a company because it has made a takeover bid. One has somehow to define excess profits so that the Government can say, "You will pay X per cent. of the profit that you have made."
Basically, there are two ways in which that might be done. The first would be to tax the operating profit. Sometimes the deputy Leader of the Opposition appeared to be looking towards the companies' operating profits, and spoke of their making excess profits in that sense. The other way would be to use the share values. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the companies being sold off cheaply, and other parts of his speech suggested that the excess profits would be calculated on the basis of the way in which share prices had moved.
One thing is clear: whatever the definition is—whether it relates to operating profit or to share values at different points in time—the same definition must apply right
1140
across the companies on which the levy, tax or whatever one likes to call it, will fall. Apart from any other consideration, the Bill would be hybrid if that were not the case. A single definition must cover all the different companies to which the measure will apply.
We are not clear which companies will fall into the category, but if the right hon. Gentleman considers the possibilities, he will see that it is difficult to use a single definition in a fair way.
Mr. Tim Smith: Did my right hon. Friend see the table published in the Financial Times on 31 October, which showed that if the levy were based on total return until 1 January 1993, British Telecom would have to pay £1,500 million, whereas if it were based on total return until 1 January 1996, it would have to pay nothing? Is it not extremely important that we should be told not only what is meant by excess profits, but the date from which the levy would be calculated?
Sir John Cope: Yes, because without that detail we do not know. The sums are arbitrary.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Cope: I shall give way one last time, but I have already given way several times. Other people want to speak, too, and I must obey your instructions, Madam Deputy Speaker, by making my speech short.
Mr. Timms: Was the right hon. Gentleman not a Whip on the Finance Bill when the measure was passed in 1981?
Sir John Cope: I have been all sorts of things, including a Treasury Minister. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the banks levy, he will remember that the so-called windfall tax, if he likes to use that phrase—I have already expressed some doubts about it—came about not as a result of any operation by the banks but because there had been exceptionally high interest rates for a period. The tax was levied only on income from cash deposit accounts, and the measure was precise and well arranged.
I was asking whether the Opposition intended to impose the tax on operating profits or on share values. It is extremely difficult to find a definition of excess operating profits. What is an excess profit? There are regulators assessing all the companies and making judgments all over the place. Somehow or other they must come up with a legal definition of "excess".
If the Opposition intend to use operating profits, they might just as well increase corporation tax on all companies in a certain class. Indeed, the old profits tax which existed many years ago when I first started to study accountancy had some special rules for nationalised industries and utilities—although those concerned special reliefs rather than a special levy. I suggest that that would be a much simpler way.
At other times, however, the deputy Leader of the Labour party spoke as though the levy would fall on changes in the share values. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the difficulty with that

1141
idea is that the people who originally bought electricity shares in 1990, for example, are often no longer the shareholders.
In the case of SWEB, one of the companies which covers my area, none of the original shareholders is still there. The Southern Company, which bought SWEB, paid £9.65 each for the shares. The idea that shares are now worth more than that is difficult to measure, and may not be true. The other day when I asked the company, I was told that it would need to borrow money to pay the tax. That would hit its investment plans. Similar considerations apply in every case.
Although there was a rise in the share price of many of the companies after privatisation, that money is not within the companies, and never was. It rests with the shareholders, or rather with those who were shareholders at the time. Any levy imposed on the company itself will not get at the profit made by shareholders in the early stages. It never would have done, and never can do.
In almost all the companies, some existing shareholders show a loss on their investment. I looked at the share prices this morning, and different companies always have highs and lows. The high point for Anglian Water this year was 631p, but its shares stood at 567½p yesterday. Much the same could be said of the electricity companies. There are many shareholders whose shares show a loss at this point in time, although clearly they hope to show a profit in due course. The money never was in the companies, and certainly it is not there now, yet those people will be indirectly penalised. Those are some of the disadvantages of trying to raise the levy on the basis of changes in share values.
Another important set of questions has been asked, but not answered, today. On which companies will the levy fall? The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) largely followed the wording of the Opposition amendment, which says that the levy would be based on
"the excess profits of the privatised utilities".
But the Leader of the Opposition said to the Confederation of British Industry that the target would be the privatised monopoly utilities. That is a different phrase, and covers a different set of companies.
Mr. Tim Smith: Far fewer.
Sir John Cope: Yes, far fewer. Certainly many companies are mentioned in that context which are in no way monopolies. British Gas, for example, may be included, yet in my part of the country there is competition with British Gas, to say nothing of British Telecom and the rest. BT has faced competition right from the start, with Mercury and so on, and now there is even greater competition. BT operates in the big world market. It is not a privatised monopoly utility at all, and neither is British Gas. The British Airports Authority is not one either. I am not even sure whether BAA is a utility. The word "utility" is not very precise.
Mr. Allason: And British Airways?
Sir John Cope: I cannot see how one could say that that was a utility. It is certainly not a monopoly. The only word that fits is "privatised".
Mr. Tim Smith: And successful.
Sir John Cope: Of course—my hon. Friend is right.
1142
As was pointed out in an earlier intervention, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said that the Labour party has not ruled out any of the privatised companies. Those include British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, which employs some of my constituents, as well as some of the right hon. Lady's. I cannot see how on earth the definition could be extended to cover those companies. They are obviously not utilities. Using the definition in the amendment rather than that used by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace escape—but so far as I can see, so do British Telecom, BAA, British Airways and the others.
What about Bristol Water, which supplies water to many of my constituents? It has never been nationalised; it has always been a private water company—and there are others. When it is loosely stated that there will be a tax on all utilities—that is what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said—we must think about Bristol Water. Are such companies entitled to rely on the wording of the amendment, which refers to "privatised utilities"? Does the deputy leader of the Labour party's emphasis at the end of his speech on "privatised utilities" mean that Bristol Water is out of it? I hope that we shall hear definitely whether such water companies are out of all this, as they should be. They do not come under any of the definitions that the deputy Leader of the Opposition gave. We need much greater clarity about the companies that will be involved, should the levy ever come about, or we shall not be able to tell what will be its effects.
There is no doubt that the main effect will fall on consumers, whatever the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says. He said that it would not fall directly on consumers because Labour would not allow prices to be adjusted. That means that it will hit the companies' investment—and failure to invest ultimately hits consumers just as much as putting prices up.
Many companies are investing huge amounts. SWEB is investing £60 million this year to improve the distribution system, its service to customers, and so on. Yet City analysts, doing their best to find out what all this means, tell it that it might have to pay between £20 million and £80 million, the spectrum is that broad, to meet the levy. SWEB and Midland Electricity, which also serves my constituents, give excellent service—a better and cheaper service than when they were nationalised.
It is difficult to make out from what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said today or from previous statements by leading Labour spokesmen, some of which are contradictory, whether the leaders of the Labour party know the answers to my questions and will not tell us or whether they do not know the answers because they not worked them out yet. It must be one or the other; either way, it is damaging. The basic questions remain: which companies will pay? How will the tax be levied? What effect will it have?
The mere announcement of the tax four years ago, and the constant repetition of it since, has inhibited investment. Companies, shareholders, regulators and consumers do not know where they stand. Whatever the answers are, and however it is set out, the tax would be very damaging—so I am glad that it will not happen because there will not be a Labour Government.
5.52 pm
Mr. Ken Purchase: The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) spent an incredible time and no little energy in discussing, almost with himself, definitions. That is the least of the problems. The principle of the tax is established with Labour, as it was formerly with the Conservative Government in which he was a Minister, when the windfall tax on the banks went through. Is he saying that every i was dotted and every t crossed before the 1979 general election, when the Conservatives were planning to be a Government? Did they know exactly how, on whom, and when the windfall tax would operate? That is nonsense and is no more true than it is today.
Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen already have in their grasp almost precisely the definition for which the right hon. Member for Northavon is searching. Rightly and properly, they will wait to take the appropriate advice when it becomes necessary. Let me remind Conservative Members that they paid out an absolute fortune to find out how to privatise the former nationalised industries. That was because they did not know how to do it. They had to take advice. How much did they spend on denationalising Railtrack—was it £6 million, £7 million or £8 million? Whatever it was, they had to take appropriate advice. Surely they do not believe that it is beyond our wit to do the same by a due process of consultation with industry, commerce and the City and with those who would be affected by a windfall tax, to determine a definition that will stand up to rigorous scrutiny and on which we can depend to bring in this much needed cash.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Purchase: I shall not give way. Time is too short and other hon. Members want to speak. I wish you to know that I will not be interrupted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
For Conservative Members to talk about the management of the economy is a disgrace. Was it not they who on black Wednesday blew £10 billion—we cannot be sure that we will ever know the proper total—on the hopeless cause of trying to defend the pound when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated that he would pay any price to defend it? Was it not obvious that the City would take the bait and rip the Government apart? It was the Government who got into such a fix over the despicable poll tax that they had to add 2 per cent. to the general rate of VAT to recover their position. They have never been able to take it off.
I want to move directly to how the mess—and it is a mess, as I shall demonstrate—has come about. Regulation has troubled us since the beginning of the denationalisation programme. How do we regulate a monopoly? It is impossible to ape all the machinations and variations that typify a market in which there are any number of sellers and buyers. We do not always have that situation. In the case of what we call the pipes, the wires and the tracks, there is only one supplier. I will deal with TransCo in some detail later.
It is impossible, however bright the regulator may be, to create a market where none exists. That is the first lesson. We are discussing an inexact science. That has led to the difficulties that we daily have to deal with and is the basis
1144
of the assumptions that Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen make about the need to redress the wrongs that have been caused. It is a matter not only of taxation but of a new remit for the regulator and of a new approach to regulation that we will ultimately have to develop and implement in the interest of avoiding further excessive profits being made at the expense of the British taxpayer.
We must recognise that, however badly the regulators have regulated, personal squabbles aside—it has not been an enterprise covered in glory—the staff and resources of the regulators are too tiny compared to the resources available to the denationalised monopoly industries. Puny is how I would describe them. The regulators cannot cope. The Trade and Industry Select Committee's proceedings were mentioned earlier, so I feel at liberty to say that every witness to the Committee to date has said that the regulators' staff and resources do not and cannot match those available to British Gas or the electricity industry.
We are told that the Americans have mastered the art of regulation. If they have, where do American companies get the capital and revenue to buy up our utilities? It is because they have been making a bundle in the United States, despite the so-called tighter regulation there.
I have some Library figures that I got 12 months ago. They are not right up to date, but deal with the year 1994–95. I want hon. Members to know what the Library researchers were able to dig up from company annual reports. They found that, in that single year, the pre-tax profits of the denationalised utilities were £9.06 billion. Tax paid was £2.4 billion—27 per cent., instead of the full rate of corporation tax. Of course it is gross to net, we understand that, but that does not alter the fact that those figures represent an aggregate underpayment by the privatised utilities. We then find that dividends paid totalled £3.5 billion, which is 38.5 per cent. when expressed as a fraction of the £9 billion.
Those figures would be extraordinary by themselves, but we have to consider how they arose. The biggest contributor is the fact that, during the years of privatisation, no fewer than 146,776 people were sacked—dispensed with, finished—from those industries. That led to externalised costs for the rest of the community and the taxpayer of an average of £9,000 per person out of a job—for the utilities alone, every single one of the 21 million households in the United Kingdom bears a cost of around £63 per annum. How can the Conservative Government trumpet the great gains from privatisation when the truth is that it has been paid for in human misery and suffering and by every household in the United Kingdom?
The right hon. Member for Northavon asked about water companies and I shall give him some examples. I shall deal specifically not with his water company, but with the top three in terms of pre-tax profits. I start with Thames Water. That company's profits in 1994–95 were £303 million, but tax paid was 7 per cent. or £22 million.
Mr. Tim Smith: That was because of capital investment.
Mr. Purchase: It was not because of the company's capital investment.
Mr. Smith: There is a very simple explanation as to why the water companies paid below average corporation tax: it is because of their high level of capital investment.
Mr. Purchase: That is only part of the answer, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. In a short speech, we cannot

1145
deal with these matters in the way that he wants and I will not get tied up by doing so. The headline figures are exceedingly important and give a proper flavour of the subject of this debate.
To return to my speech, the North West Water group's pre-tax profits were £284 million, but the company paid tax of just 5 per cent. Severn Trent's profits were £268 million, but only 11 per cent. was paid in tax. The area I represent is covered by Severn Trent and I have figures showing that, since privatisation, the company's profits have totalled £1.836 billion. Of course, there is overrewarding in the boardroom—directors' remuneration this year totals £1,249,000. Snouts in the trough would be a better description than overrewarding.
Competition has been mentioned, particularly in the south-west, which is the local area of the right hon. Member for Northavon. Competition has been introduced, but evidence to the Select Committee shows that the Gas Consumers Council has recorded a 90 per cent. increase in the number of complaints. That figure refers only to the unresolved complaints that have had to be dealt with by the council, not the whole range of complaints that have been made to the gas company.
How did we reach a position in which such enormous profits are made? One of the reasons was the terrible, tragic and crazy undervaluation of assets at the time of privatisation. In almost every instance—perhaps without exception—there was a significant undervaluation of the asset. Actually, one exception comes to mind—the nuclear industry. When it became perfectly clear that the industry could not be sold as a whole because money could not be made from it, the Government divided it up. They took the brand-new nuclear reactor—Sizewell B, which had cost £4 billion to construct and which had only recently been commissioned—and sold it for £2.9 billion. The rest of the nuclear liability was left in the public sector to be picked up by the taxpayer. That was a clear example of money being taken from the public purse to put in private pockets.
Finally, I want to address the question of TransCo, which is a natural monopoly because no one wants to dig into the ground to lay another set of gas pipes. The gas companies will all use the same gas pipes and the competition to which the right hon. Member for Northavon referred is between suppliers. What do the suppliers have to say about TransCo? To some extent, they agree with the regulator that prices are too high. When the regulator brought price capping into play, TransCo complained that 10,000 jobs would be lost. The truth was that it already had somewhere in the region of 9,000 job losses in the pipeline.
Then TransCo shares fell slightly in price and everyone's reaction was, "How terrible. The regulator is ruining the industry." The truth is that, of the 1.8 million shareholders, 1.1 million were small shareholders, having fewer than 500 shares. If the regulator's price capping in respect of TransCo is adhered to, those 1.1 million small shareholders will actually be better off losing £130 on the value of their shares because of the lower gas prices that they will have to pay. That says a lot.
I spoke earlier of the privatised industries externalising their costs through massive unemployment. If we add together the costs of unemployment arising from privatisation and the regulator's proposals in respect of TransCo, we find that the British people would be far
1146
better off if TransCo had remained nationalised. If the gas suppliers had competed properly to put their gas down the tubes, the nation would have been better off, we would have had the money to put into unemployment, and, generally speaking, people would have seen some value in return for the assets that were stolen from them by the Conservative Government.
6.7 pm
Sir Michael Grylls: If any Conservative Members had doubted the wisdom of having this debate, those doubts must have been swept away by now. Clearly, we have flushed out Labour in respect of the extraordinary windfall tax about which Opposition Members have been talking for the past four years. The resulting headline might be, "New Labour, old attitudes".
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), but I hope that he will forgive me if, because of the shortness of the time available, I do not follow him down some of the paths he laid out. However, at the beginning of his speech he commented on the regulators and the way in which they had not got going as strongly as they should have, and I think that that is unfair.
Although America had previously had regulators for monopoly industries, the privatisation programme in Britain broke new ground. I am not trying to make a party point, but the country owes a huge debt to the regulators. Some have been better than others and there are many different opinions about their effectiveness, but the regulators have tried hard and I think that they have been successful in getting to grips with the problem of how to regulate—especially in respect of prices—monopoly or near-monopoly industries.
If one wanted any proof of that, it is that, by and large, in all our utilities—with the exception of water companies, which are in a special position—prices have decreased considerably. If a regulator's job is to protect the consumer, the regulators have done their job well. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, they could always press down prices a bit more, but: I shall not go too far down that road.
What has emerged from the debate is Labour's old wish to interfere. Labour has lost the intellectual battle on nationalisation versus privatisation. It has been a bitter blow. In the 12 years or so since privatisation started, Labour Members have opposed every privatisation because they did not believe in it. In a way, that was reasonable, because they believed in nationalisation, but they have had to face the fact that the privatisations have been highly successful on almost any measure that one cares to produce, whether it be the consumer's interests, investment, or getting politicians out of those industries' hair. It has been a bitter pill for the Labour party to swallow.
So what happens? Labour finds a different route. Labour Members do not propose to renationalise the utilities, but they would like to interfere in them. It would be more intellectually honest for them to tell the House and the country, "Yes, we want to run those businesses. We think that it is wrong that they are run by professional managers. We should like to run those industries if we ever formed a Government. We think that we would run them better"—not many people would agree, but that is what they would say—"so we would nationalise those

1147
industries and take them over." That would be more honest than trying to interfere through the back door using windfall taxes and so on.
Labour Members also appear to have forgotten—I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will mention this—that the world has moved on since the early days of privatisation, and that companies based in other countries have invested in those businesses and bought the shares. Many of those utility companies are now owned by American or French companies.
Not so very long ago, we had a 13-year battle to get rid of a method of taxation in the United States that everyone agreed was wrong—corporate taxation by the unitary tax method. There was a huge fight, in which both sides of the House were agreed: an entirely non-partisan effort. In the end it was won, to the great advantage of Britain, because British companies in America had been damaged by what hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed was an unfair, unjust, damaging tax.
Now, in 1996, in Britain, we have the prospect—in the unlikely event that Labour forms a Government—of another tax which most commentators outside the Labour party believe to be very unfair. As I believe I was the person who recommended retaliatory action in Britain against a unitary tax, I could not complain if that unlikely event were to happen. I am sorry that we are obliged to go down the fairy-tale route of supposing that there might be a Labour Government but, in all fairness to the public, we should warn them of what might happen if that very unlikely event happens.
If that happens and Labour introduces that lovely windfall tax, we shall not be in a position to complain if the Americans reintroduce a unitary tax, saying, "You have done a bad thing to us so we shall do a bad thing to you." Those 13 years of hard work would be thrown away.
Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have not yet heard an answer from the Labour party on how "excess profits" are to be defined. Does he feel that all the overseas investors into this country will now say to themselves, "Excess profits will be taxed by any future Labour Government if there is one, so should we invest in the United Kingdom?" Is he not worried that all the small businesses for which he has fought hard over the years now know that their profits are at risk because they might be defined by a future Labour Government as excess profits and obscene profits? Has not Labour today frightened 5 million business people in this country?
Sir Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which will be taken on board very widely by people, because the notion of "excess profits" is entirely subjective.
Let us suppose that one of the excellent small businesses that has been encouraged and helped to start by the benign regime of 17 years of Conservative government—low tax and all that stuff—has got going. Let us suppose that the firm is situated in Dover—an excellent place to be because it has an excellent Member of Parliament—and the firm invents a tremendous new product with fantastic scope and starts making a lot of
1148
money. The managers might say, "My goodness. There might be a Labour Government, and they might judge that our profit was obscene—whatever `obscene' means." It is an extraordinary route to take.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been told—I am sure that you will have heard it as well—that Labour has changed, that it now believes in all the things that the Conservatives believe in. I believe that there has been a change this afternoon. Labour Members were going one way; they have suddenly returned to a crossroads and are going off to the left again. They are saying, "We do not approve of profits" or "We do not approve of obscene profits"—but let us have a definition. They are saying that "profits" is a dirty word.
Mr. Purchase: You approve of obscene profits.
Sir Michael Grylls: The fact remains that the higher the profits, the bigger the corporation tax take, so there is more money for all the things that we all care about, such as education, and all the social services which always need more money. Taxation cannot be raised if there are no profits.
This is very boring stuff, I know. [Interruption.] Well, it is. We thought that Labour had left all that behind, but it has not. The great advantage of having held this debate is that we can warn people what Labour is really all about.
There is no excuse for a windfall tax on the privatised utility industries. The Opposition must know that there is no comparison with the one-off tax that was imposed on the banks, because they had inflated profits for an external reason—interest rates. Profits have been earned by the privatised utility industries because they have been well managed. They have made themselves efficient and made good profits by their own—internal—diligence. I use the word "good", not "obscene". That is different from the case of the banks. The banks did not argue with the tax. They had a one-off increase in their profits because of the very high interest rates, not as a result of their actions.
What will companies do if that unlikely event happens? We have been told that the regulators would not allow them to increase prices. I am not sure whether that will mean another piece of legislation to instruct the regulators not to allow the companies to pass the tax on in prices, but let us assume that Labour sits on the regulators and they say that the companies cannot pass on the tax in higher prices. What do the companies do then? Cut investment?
Mr. David Shaw: Cut jobs.
Sir Michael Grylls: Or cut jobs? The accountants' report on the regional electricity companies—[Interruption.] The Opposition should listen to this; I am just about to conclude. The report says that, in the regional electricity companies, it is thought that they would have to cut about 6,000 jobs. The deputy leader of the Labour party said that all that money would go into job creation. It will not. The tax will destroy jobs.
This is a job destruction tax. I do not like soundbites, but that one should go out across the country. The job cannot be done by the regulators, according to Labour; so the price will be paid either in investment or in a loss of jobs—probably both.

1149
Today we have flushed out Labour on this subject, and the country should be duly warned. It is not just a question of a few remote companies suffering from the tax. The fact is that the improvements in these important utilities—water, electricity, gas,telecommunications—of the past few years would all be endangered. Investment would slump and there would be job cuts.
I believe that today the House has done a good job by drawing the attention of the country to what Labour's plans would mean. I hope that the electorate will see that this is a thoroughly dangerous and irresponsible tax, which shows up the old Adam in the Labour party.
6.20 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is rather strange that we are having this debate at all this afternoon. Not untypically, it was led off by the Deputy Prime Minister, who rushed into the House in his usual fashion, launched his broadside, and then disappeared—doubtless to fight more fires burning throughout the Government, or possibly to deal with the fallout from the bombshell that the Government dropped somewhat imprecisely yesterday.
My earlier intervention revealed that the Government are using Government time to attack policies that they say will never be implemented—because there will be no change of Government—and using civil servants to cost Opposition programmes which they do not expect ever to be implemented, so there is no one left with any time to run the Government. But even that does not matter, because they will not be running the Government for much longer. In view of the foregoing, I suggest that the sooner we have the election, the better. Four months of this behaviour will not be good for the country.
A windfall tax is not the right approach, although it is perfectly legitimate for the Labour party to cost one of its own programmes. The Labour party needs to answer some serious questions about the idea, and soon. The Opposition cannot deny that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding who the tax will affect and how. I understand why they are not giving details about the who, the why and the how much; still, the uncertainty persists.
I could not help noticing earlier, sitting where I do, that the more uncertainty about the level of the tax and the number of companies it would affect, the more cheerful the Labour Members who sit below the Gangway in front of me became. They have all left now, but their behaviour suggested that the tax certainly appeals to old Labour—
Mr. Purchase: Are you including me?
Mr. Bruce: I am not being personal—hon. Members can call themselves what they like.
A point of principle is also at stake. This is retrospective taxation, and I believe that to be wrong. Moreover, if there have been excess profits, and if consumers have been ripped off, it is the very people from whom the profits have been made who should get the benefits of any rebate: in other words, the consumers.
It is impossible to raise billions of pounds from the privatised utilities without hurting millions of people. It is all very well to say that the regulators will hold down prices. If they do, something else will have to give—either
1150
the dividend, which will not concern Labour Members below the Gangway, or investment, which should concern us all, or the chance of a great deal more energy efficiency and the alleviation of fuel poverty by reducing fuel bills. The energy utilities could and should be involved in that.
We should also bear it in mind that there are 5 million shareholders who could be affected by such a tax; plus 17 million members of pension funds. It is just not honest, therefore, to suggest that this is a victimless tax which can be imposed without hurting anyone. That does not make it intellectually dishonest; the Labour party is entitled to its argument, which is that the windfall tax is a way of raising money. It is, but it is naive to suggest that no one will be affected by it.
The Deputy Prime Minister made one telling intervention in the speech by the deputy leader of the Labour party, who made an otherwise good and rumbustious contribution, which I thoroughly enjoyed. With his background, he clearly believes in these arguments with a great deal of conviction, but he did not convincingly answer the question about what will happen in year two after a one-off windfall tax.
There are some doubts in the Labour party as to where all this might lead. David Wighton, writing in today's Financial Times, has produced an article with the headline "Windfall's Big Chill". It says:
"Labour says it was told by its lawyers that, while there should be no fundamental legal problems with the proposed tax, it must take great care not to discriminate against particular companies."
That would mean facing litigation, which in turn could result in a delay that could prejudice Labour's spending commitments.
The article also points out:
"However, the US energy groups which have committed almost £6 billion"—
perfectly legitimately and legally—
"to buying UK regional electricity companies … could face a tax bill of more than £500 million and could argue they did not benefit from the earlier windfall."
Mr. Wighton also states that the water regulator has suggested that a tax on the water utilities could lead to a rise in prices. The giveaway line comes in the last sentence of the article:
"But Labour insiders insist they will resist all attempts to undermine the tax, simply because it would jeopardise the party's only promise on extra public spending."
Therein lies the problem. Yesterday the Labour party responded to the Government's challenge—concerning the 89 promises that would cost £30 billion—by sending every available Labour spokesman to every studio in the country to say that it was all absolutely untrue: Labour has no spending commitments of any kind. There is no difference between the Labour party's programme and the Government's current programme, they claimed. That does make one wonder why anyone should bother to vote for a party that will make no difference.
The problem remains that a windfall tax can yield revenue for one year, but it will not pay for a programme for a whole Parliament. That leaves the Labour party somewhat exposed. It is why I conclude by saying that Opposition and Conservative Members alike might be well advised to read the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget, published today—
Mr. Purchase: It is fantasy.
Mr. Bruce: Not so. It is in fact a highly focused, costed programme, leading to a fully costed manifesto. Front

1151
Benchers of the two old parties are attempting to persuade the British people that gravity can be defied—that it is possible to reduce inflation and taxation and increase public spending. The sums of course do not add up; they would require rates of growth without inflation which no Government, Labour or Conservative, have every achieved.
If greater investment is needed in education, as we believe it is, it has to be paid for from honest sources of taxation which can be identified and which people can understand: such as a penny on the standard rate of income tax. A windfall tax would not deliver a credible programme or finance a Government for a full term. It would create so many confusions and uncertainties and hurt so many people that I believe the Labour party will live to regret it.
6.29 pm
Mr. David Shaw: The country needs answers. We have not heard any answers from the Labour party today. We have not heard how excess profits or obscene profits are to be defined, but Labour tells us that people out there are earning them. There are 5 million business owners in Britain, who will be frightened stiff by today's debate. Labour will tax entrepreneurs, those with initiative and those who create jobs.
How on earth do Labour Members expect a windfall tax to create jobs? They say that they will create new training schemes, but when has a tax created jobs through new training schemes? Where in the solar system has there been a tax that created new, permanent jobs, especially in the private sector?
Taxes do not build profits. Taxes do not build products or provide services. Taxes do not create businesses. In my business career, I have been involved in 2,000 jobs being sustained or created. I have never created or sustained any of those jobs through taxation. Jobs are created by investing the profits of a business, not through taxation.
I regret that time does not permit me to debate the matter fully. Labour must provide many answers. I challenge the Opposition spokesman to define "excess profits" to the House.
6.30 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: I do not know about the rest of the solar system, but I believe that the Government's own training programme, such as it is, is funded out of taxation. Like almost everything else that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has ever said in the Chamber, his assertion is wide of the mark.
I am glad that we have had this debate, and that the Government have chosen to debate our policies in their time. For a party that keeps telling itself that there is no prospect of a change of Government, the Tories seem to be rather concerned about it.
The hon. Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) said about half a dozen times that he was sure there would be no change of Government, but just in case there was, he should raise various matters. Conservative Members protest too much. They know full well that people have had enough of them. In their desperation they know that their only chance now is to throw mud at us and hope that some of it sticks.
1152
For the second time in one week, a Tory bombshell has blown up in their own hands. Yesterday they attempted to discredit us by making wild allegations about pledges that have never been made. Each one of the 89 was refuted quickly and shown to be nonsense.
Today we were told to expect great things from the Deputy Prime Minister, but that was yet another damp squib. He failed to rise to the occasion. I read in the Financial Times today that there is a new Tory campaign against the windfall tax which is to be led in part by the Deputy Prime Minister. Anyone who was thinking of joining and paying good money—good money, no doubt, from the profits of the privatised utilities—for that political campaign will have listened to what the Tories said and decided that they had better save their money. Whatever else happens, the Tory party will not be able to do much for them.
It is interesting that the Tories are setting up a campaign against the Labour party. Many people in the boardrooms and privatised utilities will think long and hard about joining a Conservative party political campaign to campaign against anything in the coming general election. Most of them will have enough sense to stay out of it and to leave the Tory party to flounder in its own desperation.
Despite the fact that the Government tell us that there is not enough parliamentary time to legislate on paedophiles or knife control, or for building societies legislation, or even to discuss Europe—one of the most crucial matters facing this Parliament and the next—they find time to discuss our policies in Government time. What an indictment of a Government who have had their day. After 18 years they are so desperate to cling to power that they spend Government time debating the Labour party's policies.
We welcome that opportunity, not just because it allows us to restate the value of the windfall tax, but because it draws attention to another problem facing the Government. The reason why they are not discussing Europe today is that they do not want to reveal the depth of the rift between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Euro-sceptics who make up an increasing proportion of the Conservative party.
It is a measure of the Government's desperation that they have chosen to side with the few who sit in the boardrooms of the privatised utilities against the many who have had to pay the 22 tax increases imposed by the Government, despite the fact that at the last election the Tories promised that they would not increase tax or national insurance and that they would not put VAT on gas and electricity. They did all that, yet they have the gall to attack us for our policies.
In the motion, the Tories have the temerity to refer to the "injustices" of our proposal. What do they know about injustice? What about the injustice of the one in five households in Britain where there is no one in work? Our proposal for a windfall tax is designed to fund a programme that will help young people and the long-term unemployed to get back to work. That is justice and, we believe, it makes good economic and social sense. That is why the tax is fully justified.
When we listen to the questions raised by Conservative Members during the debate, we recognise that the Tories are increasingly the political arm of the privatised utilities. It is a seamless garment, which we have seen today. We see it in the Financial Times article referring to a Tory

1153
Minister, a Tory Lord, a Tory media adviser, a privatised utility and a Tory campaign. Most people believe that any Government who embark on such behaviour have had their day, and the sooner they are out of office, the better for everyone.
Perhaps this is the first time that we have had a sponsored debate in this, the mother of Parliaments. Perhaps, like the weather forecast, the next debate will be sponsored by PowerGen. That is what the Government have reduced us to.
Unlike the Tories, we say what we intend to do and how we propose to fund it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, made clear in his excellent speech, we will tell the people of Britain what we intend to do. We have said for four years that we intend to impose a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.
The Tories said nothing about their windfall tax on the banks in 1981—not a word.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: In a moment. The tax was sprung on the banks on the day that the then Chancellor introduced the measure. He could not say which banks or how it would work. Conservative Members say that the tax had to be imposed because the banks had made profits through no fault of their own. They should read the report of the Committee stage of that Bill on 12 May 1981, when the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now one of the European Commissioners, said that the fiscal requirement was necessary to achieve the public sector borrowing requirement. Is not that surprising? Does not history repeat itself? The Government were in deep debt in 1981 and they are in deep debt in 1996. After 18 years, it is the same story: the Tories put up taxes to pay for the debts that they have run up, because of the way in which they conduct the economy.
Mr. Richards: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred several times to "excessive profits". Will the hon. Gentleman define that term for the benefit of hon. Members?
Mr. Darling: I am exceedingly glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, as he brings me neatly to the next part of my speech. The entire Tory thesis is that there have been no excessive profits. That is what they have all said, time and again. However, no one outside the Tory party holds that view. Industry knows that excessive profits have been made. Analysts have made that point. SBC Warburg, which has no connection with the Labour party, said:
"The ability of most companies to cope with the windfall tax is once again demonstrated."
Every time there has been a takeover, commentators and analysts believe that the case has been made. I quote from The Daily Telegraph, which is also not exactly a Labour publication. It said:
"Each time an electricity company is taken over, Labour's proposals for a Windfall Tax on utilities gains a little more respectability."
Analysts and the privatised utilities admit that there have been excessive profits. The regulators have also encountered that problem: the electricity regulator fixed a
1154
price review only to discover that Northern Electric had found an extra £500 million to defend itself against the Telstar takeover. There is much evidence of excessive profits.
Such profits do not derive from the endeavours of those who run the companies—in many cases, they are the same people who were on the company boards before privatisation. It is interesting that often their first priority—Cedric Brown is a good example—is not to improve investment or to secure the company's future but to increase their salaries and grant themselves share options. The Government never condemned such behaviour.
The Conservatives say that a windfall tax would adversely affect investment. Let us look at what has happened. The Office of Water Services claimed that it required investment of £36 billion for the 1990s. In fact, the water companies have invested only £13.6 billion since privatisation and their current annual investment of £2.2 billion means that they will not meet the regulator's target. The idea that investment will somehow be affected by a windfall tax does not bear close examination.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how excess profits will be defined? Perhaps I can help him: will it be based on the total return above the average for the FT share index since the date of flotation? If so, until what date?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Chancellor made the same point about an hour ago. When he was asked to reveal his plans for next Tuesday, he said that we would have to wait. Unlike the Conservatives, we have said that we intend to impose the windfall levy and we shall make our position absolutely clear when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) presents his Budget. As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the matter, perhaps he will reflect on the following information. South West Water has said that it can afford the windfall tax. A top director is quoted in last Sunday's The Observer as saying:
"We will be able to grow our dividend by 8 per cent. above inflation, even with a windfall tax".
That is good news for the people of Exeter and Plymouth: we will be able to fund programmes to get the young unemployed back to work and their electricity company will be able to perform its functions perfectly well.
Any objective analysis of the privatised utilities will show that the tax is affordable. Conservative Members must face facts: that is the evidence from the market. If there are so many fears and so much uncertainty, why are overseas investors flocking to buy privatised utilities in this country? They know of the proposal—they must contemplate the possibility of a Labour Government in the next 12 months—and they are falling over themselves to buy the privatised utilities.
A large proportion of inward investment in this country comes from French and American companies which have bought privatised utilities. They do not come to this country because they are philanthropists—they do not simply fancy lighting up the midlands or providing water to the north-east of England. They are here because the companies are cash rich. An analyst told me last week that some companies have so much cash that they could afford to make purchases with their own cash. The figures show that that has nothing to do with efforts within those

1155
companies: it has to do with the way in which the taxpayer was short-changed by the Tory party in the early 1990s.
If Conservative Members believe that we are wrong, they should have a word with their shop steward, the chairman of the 1992 Committee. Last year he made it abundantly clear that he thought that consumers had had enough—they had had a raw deal—and he did not object to a windfall tax on utilities. Most objective advisers—even some Government Members—know that the windfall levy makes sense. When my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Cabinet colleagues contemplated such a proposal, he failed to answer—never mind the Opposition not answering questions.
The evidence shows that the utilities can bear the tax. The Institute of Directors—which is no friend of the Labour party—acknowledged that
"the utilities do have spare funds at the moment, and that the economic impact of the tax might therefore be insignificant."
We must bear in mind not only the fact that the tax is justified but where the money will go. Persistently high levels of unemployment have made spending in this country difficult to control and have caused divisions in society.
Unlike the Conservatives, the Labour party believes that it is a duty of Government to give people an opportunity to succeed and to help themselves and their families. One of the best ways of achieving that is by helping people off benefit and into work. That is good socially and economically because people are in work, they earn a wage and they pay taxes—it is a virtuous cycle. We believe that the Government have a role to play in that area, which is why the windfall tax is justified.
On behalf of the Opposition, I profusely thank the Tories: they have done a great service to the people of this country by giving us the opportunity to justify the tax. The people know that they were short-changed by the Tory party when it sold off the utilities and by virtually every Government action since on tax and spending. They do not trust the Conservatives and they do not believe them. The people are looking for a change: they are looking to get back to work and for economic stability to allow this country to grow and be proud. They will get that under a Labour Government.
6.46 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): The chances of that occurring are about as good as seeing pigs fly. I was struck when I looked at the front page of the Financial Times this morning and saw the headline, "Windfall tax: Labour clings to a bad idea". I have heard nothing in the debate that leads me to a different conclusion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) reminds me of a contestant in the radio game where people must speak for a minute without deviating, hesitating or repeating themselves. The only repetition that he made was his repeated inability to answer any of the telling questions posed by my Back-Bench colleagues. He did not deviate from his unwillingness to tell the House and the country what the tax is about.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the debate was occurring in Government time. If he cares to pay attention, I shall tell him. The Government have a duty to
1156
warn the people of this country what the Labour party proposes. The problem is that the Labour party is so frightened by its policies that it has not thought out the tax thoroughly and it will not tell people the truth. In this debate, we can shine some light on what is happening in the economy.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talked of excess profits, but he did not define them. Labour Members failed to define what a utility is, who will be affected by the tax, who will pay the tax and how it will be set. They are too frightened to tell the British people the truth about the windfall tax. They employed the subtle technique that operates along the lines of, "If we tell them about the means, perhaps that will justify the ends," and they talked a great deal about job creation.
The best antidote to a windfall tax is the Government's record. We have lowered unemployment by about 900,000 since its peak during the recession and we have the fastest growing major economy in western Europe. The Government can be proud of their job creation record. Some 210,000 people are now back in work.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Since when?
Mr. Jack: Since last year. [Laughter.] That is an illustration of what happens when the Government take difficult economic decisions. All Opposition Members can do is laugh. Wait until the British people judge us on our economic record, which, since the last election, has made them £700 a year better off in real terms. Those are the real ways in which to judge the benefit of our economic policies, which are lowering unemployment, particularly for the young people about whom we have heard so much.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East tried to suggest that one justification for the tax was that privatised companies have been privatised too cheaply. He clearly has not had time to read the National Audit Office report, which made it absolutely clear that it was content with the way in which the Government had conducted those sales, and I believe that Her Majesty's Government's record has emerged very creditably on this score. The fact that the value of those companies has gone up is a tribute to the fact that the Conservatives had the courage to let them go, to have the benefit of private enterprise and private management. The same companies have invested and grown.
The right hon. Gentleman should look at the facts. He is very fond of bashing water companies and wandering around in the sewage of this debate. Let him just have a look. Since 1991, water and sewerage companies have made £7.8 billion in profit. But they have invested £15.1 billion, and they plan to go on to 2005 and invest some £24 billion. None of that could have been achieved if they had remained in the nationalised sector.
We were given a tour of all our yesterdays. One of the yesterdays for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible was cuts in public investment. Does he remember them? Does he remember the cuts in nurses' pay? Does he remember the queues at the hospitals? That was his yesterday. That was the legacy that he bequeathed to this country. It has taken the courage of the Conservative Government and privatisation to make up for that lost time. It is a record of which we can be proud. [Interruption.]

1157
The right hon. Gentleman chastised us about the fact that we— [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members who wish to contribute from the Dispatch Box should try to intervene. Sedentary comments or yelling are not acceptable.
Mr. Prescott: I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what the level of unemployment was in the periods that he is talking about in the 1970s.
Mr. Jack rose— [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The same applies to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. Jack: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, we now have more people in work than any other major European economy. That is testament to our economic strength.
The right hon. Gentleman chastised us over the question of our tax on the banks' interest. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister dealt with that point. The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of sedentary rhetoric, but he clearly did not read, in his tour of all our yesterdays, what the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of the tax in 1981. It said that it
"had the merit of being applied to a well defined set of firms and of being charged on a tax base that was coherently related to the reasons given for introducing the tax."
It was a tax on profits now, not several years later.
I heard somebody talk about retrospection. This is the biggest retrospective smash and grab raid of British industry that has been proposed. It goes against all the basic principles of what is a good tax.
Mr. Darling: The tax must have been retrospective. Indeed, the then Chief Secretary spent several pages in Hansard explaining why it was retrospective.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman knows that Chancellors, during any financial year, may make advance announcements of what they propose to enact in the next Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is to tax what he deems to be undefined levels of profit and gain in an undefined set of industries that happen to have been privatised many years ago. That, by any definition, is a retrospective tax.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), reminded us, quite rightly—
Mr. Darling: The Minister is desperate.
Mr. Jack: I certainly am not desperate. I have enough information to sink the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central time after time on this tax.
The hon. Member for Gordon reminded us that somebody would have to pay for this tax, and there are no free lunches when it comes to tax. There are no regulators who can simply shut the door to requests from companies to review their pricing position. Mr. Andrew Dilnot, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, questioned whether a regulator was in a position to ensure
1158
that the windfall tax was not passed on to consumers. He said that the regulator could not change the pricing rules that he had previously set and that he could not control them in perpetuity. That means that when companies find the effect on their balance sheets, on their investment, on their pricing, they can come back to the regulator and ask for that to be taken into account.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East treated us to his interpretation of whether the companies could afford to pay the windfall tax. He mentioned the Warburg study. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister read out the words of the study, in which it said that windfall taxation was unjust and arbitrary. My right hon. Friend did not have time to point out that the same study made it very clear that it expected some companies to meet the tax simply by borrowing. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that much scorn has been poured on the head of Mr. Chatwin of Yorkshire Electricity, but he made it clear that his company is not one that is awash with cash, and his company is now offering people the cheapest electricity in the country. His customers have had a 25 per cent. reduction in real terms. His company now pays double the amount of corporation tax. He said that the company would have to raise its borrowings to pay for this tax, and cut back its investment.
I come back to the central issue: why did we call this debate?
[Interruption.] Like all laughing donkeys, right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches make one simple noise—the noise of embarrassed laughter, because we have flushed out their inability to answer fundamental questions about the windfall tax. I remind them of what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said on 16 November, when interviewed on television. She was probed about what type of enterprise would be subject to the tax. She said:
"We don't rule out any of the privatised companies"—
That is a pretty broad field. She then said that Labour would see whether
"a monopoly element would be part of the consideration".
What on earth does a "monopoly element" mean? It is either a monopoly or it is not. Increasingly, throughout the utilities, there is competition—in electricity and gas, and there is massive competition in telecommunications. Opposition Members cannot say what on earth that definition is. Even among themselves they cannot agree the strategy.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), in replying to a debate on energy policy on 16 July this year, said that the utilities tax
"will last as long as salaries as long as telephone numbers are paid to directors in the boardroom."—[Official Report, 16 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 1043.]
It is my contention that the hon. Gentleman understood the long-lasting effect of the tax. It is obvious.
I do not think that Opposition Members realise just how badly this tax is playing. In November, a headline in The Independent said:
"There is no fair way for Labour to levy this tax".
On 9 November, a headline in The Guardian said, "Britain's windfall, Labour's dilemma". Again in The Independent a headline reads:
"Labour gets itself in a pickle over utilities tax".
It is not playing well outside. This debate will have flushed out the inadequacies of the Opposition in answering those questions.

1159
It is a discriminatory, arbitrary and essentially random tax, and it will never be consistently applied. It is retrospective. It attacks company dividends. It attacks pensioners, pension funds and employees. Above all, it attacks this country's record as a low-tax economy for business, which has provided economic growth and has brought falling unemployment. With our record on falling unemployment, there will never be a need for such a tax.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 254.

Division No. 17]

[7 pm

AYES

Abbott Ms Diane

Eastham, Ken

Ainger, Nick

Etherington, Bill

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Fatchett, Derek

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Flynn, Paul

Ashton, Joseph

Foster, Derek

Austin-Walker, John

Fraser, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Barnes, Harry

Galbraith, Sam

Barron, Kevin

Gapes, Mike

Battle, John

Garrett, John

Bayley, Hugh

Gerrard, Neil

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Gilbert, Dr John

Bell, Stuart

Godman, Dr Norman A

Benn, Tony

Golding, Mrs Llin

Benton, Joe

Graham, Thomas

Bermingham, Gerald

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Berry, Roger

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blair, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

Boateng, Paul

Gunnell, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hain, Peter

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hall, Mike

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hanson, David

Burden, Richard

Hattersley, Roy

Byers, Stephen

Henderson, Doug

Caborn, Richard

Heppell, John

Callaghan, Jim

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hoey, Miss Kate

Canavan, Dennis

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Cann, Jamie

Home Robertson, John

Church, Ms Judith

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clapham, Michael

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howells, Dr Kim

Clelland, David

Hoyle, Doug

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Corbett, Robin

Hutton, John

Corston, Ms Jean

Ingram, Adam

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Cox, Tom

Jamieson, David

Cummings, John

Janner, Greville

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Darling, Alistair

Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Kaufman, Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Keen, Alan

Donohoe, Brian H

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Dowd, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kilfoyle, Peter

Eagle, Ms Angela

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

1160

Lewis, Terry

Radice, Giles

Livingstone, Ken

Randall, Stuart

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Raynsford, Nick

Loyden, Eddie

Reid, Dr John

McAllion, John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooker, Jeff

McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

Rooney, Terry

Macdonald, Calum

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McFall, John

Rowlands, Ted

McKelvey, William

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McMaster, Gordon

Sheerman, Barry

MacShane, Denis

Sheldon, Robert

McWilliam, John

Shore, Peter

Madden, Max

Simpson, Alan

Mandelson, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Soley, Clive

Martlew, Eric

Spearing, Nigel

Maxton, John

Spellar, John

Meacher, Michael

Steinberg, Gerry

Meale, Alan

Stevenson, George

Michael, Alun

Stott, Roger

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Strang, Dr Gavin

Milburn, Alan

Straw, Jack

Miller, Andrew

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Morgan, Rhodri

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morley, Elliot

Timms, Stephen

Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Tipping, paddy

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Touhig, Don

Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

Trickett, Jon

Mudie, George

Turner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Vaz, Keith

Murphy, Paul

Walker, Sir Harold

Oakes, Gordon

Walley, Ms Joan

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Wareing, Robert N

Olner, Bill

Watson, Mike

O'Neill, Martin

Wicks, Malcolm

Parry, Robert

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Pearson, Ian

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Pendry, Tom

Winnick, David

Pickthall, Colin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Pike, Peter L

Worthington, Tony

Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

Wright, Dr Tony

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Prescott, John

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Tellers for the Ayes:

Purchase, Ken

Mr. Greg Pope and

Quin, Ms Joyce

Mr. Clive Betts.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bright, Sir Graham

Alison, Michael (Selby)

Brooke, Peter

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Amess, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Arbuthnot, James

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burns, Simon

Atkins, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Butterfill, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Batiste, Spencer

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Bellingham, Henry

Carrington, Matthew

Bendall, Vivian

Carttiss, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cash, William

Biffen, John

Channon, Paul

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Booth, Hartley

Clappison, James

Boswell, Tim

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Coe, Sebastian

Bowis, John

Colvin, Michael

Boyson, Sir Rhodes

Congdon, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Conway, Derek

Brazier, Julian

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

1161

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

Cope, Sir John

Jessel, Toby

Couchman, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cran, James

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Key, Robert

Curry, David

King, Tom

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Day, Stephen

Knapman, Roger

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Devlin, Tim

Knox, Sir David

Dover, Den

Kynoch, George

Duncan, Alan

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Duncan Smith, Iain

Lang, Ian

Dunn, Bob

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Dykes, Hugh

Legg, Barry

Elletson, Harold

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lidington, David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lord, Michael

Evennett, David

Luff, peter

Faber, David

MacGregor, John

Fabricant, Michael

Mackay, Andrew

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Maclean, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forman, Nigel

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Forth, Eric

Major, John

Fowler, Sir Norman

Malone, Gerald

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Mans, Keith

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Freeman, Roger

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

French, Douglas

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gale, Roger

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gardiner, Sir George

Mellor, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Merchant, Piers

Garnier, Edward

Mills, Iain

Gill, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Goodlad, Alastair

Moate, Sir Roger

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Monro, Sir Hector

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Gorst, Sir John

Needham, Richard

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

Nelson, Anthony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Norris, Steve

Grylls, Sir Michael

Onslow, Sir Cranley

Hague, William

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Page, Richard

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Paice, James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hannam, Sir John

Patten, John

Hargreaves, Andrew

pattie, Sir Geoffrey

Harris, David

Pawsey, James

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Pickles, Eric

Hawkins, Nick

Porter, David

Hawksley, Warren

Portillo, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Powell, William (Corby)

Heald, Oliver

Rathbone, Tim

Heath, Sir Edward

Redwood, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Renton, Tim

Hendry, Charles

Richards, Rod

Heseltine, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Higgins, Sir Terence

Robathan, Andrew

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Roberts, Sir Wyn

Horam, John

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Howard, Michael

Rumbold, Dame Angela

Howell, David (Guildf'd)

Ryder, Richard

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Sackville, Tom

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hunter, Andrew

Shephard, Mrs Gillian

Jack, Michael

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Sims, Sir Roger

1162

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Tracey, Richard

Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

Tredinnick, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Trend, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Trotter, Neville

Speed, Sir Keith

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Spencer, Sir Derek

Waldegrave, William

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Walden, George

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Spink, Dr Robert

Ward, John

Spring, Richard

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sproat, Iain

Waterson, Nigel

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Watts, John

Stanley, Sir John

Wells, Bowen

Steen, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Stephen, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Stern, Michael

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Stewart, Allan

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Streeter, Gary

Wilkinson, John

Sweeney, Walter

Willetts, David

Sykes, John

Wilshire, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Wolfson, Mark

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Thomason, Roy

Yeo, Tim

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Young, Sir George

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Tellers for the Noes:

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mr. Michael Bates and

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House deplores the dangers and injustices inherent in the concept of a windfall tax on the privatised utilities and condemns a tax that would hit consumers, shareholders and pensioners while damaging the credibility of the United Kingdom as a stable regime for inward investment.

DEREGULATION
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
That the draft Deregulation (Bills of Exchange) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.—[Mrs. Lait.]
Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Wakefield Nurseries Campaign
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Jon Trickett: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Wakefield campaign against nursery vouchers, which opposes the introduction of such vouchers in the Wakefield metropolitan district. The scheme will clearly lead to a deterioration in the quality of nursery education in the area. The petition has been endorsed by 30,000 signatures.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call an immediate halt to the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme in the Wakefield area.
  To lie upon the Table.

Local Pharmacies
7.14 pm
Miss Kate Hoey: I have the pleasure of presenting a petition on behalf of some 13,000 residents of London, a substantial number of whom are residents of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. It draws to the House's attention the problems that will face local pharmacies if the Government go ahead with some of the changes that have been suggested by the Office of Fair Trading.
The petition
Declares that we the undersigned note that the Office of Fair Trading is considering the future of over the counter medicines and record our concern about the future viability of local pharmacies which are a much valued community asset. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes no action which might jeopardise the future of our local chemists.
To lie upon the Table.

British Cycling Federation (Grants)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Bates.]
7.15 pm
Mr. Jon Trickett: I thank those in authority for allowing me to introduce the debate.
As a member of Otley cycling club, which is affiliated to the British Cycling Federation, I probably ought to declare that I am indirectly a member of the federation.
Watching any skilled athlete engage in any sport is an uplifting experience. For me—as a person who is involved in cycling and has raced cycles for many years—to watch a racing cyclist in harmony with his or her machine is to observe the grace and power of an athlete made effective by a superb bicycle design and the scientific skills of aerodynamic engineers and metallurgists. In recent years, the televisual media have developed the skills and technology to be able to present cycle road racing live to millions of people throughout the world.
Many of us may recall that, when colour television became the norm, snooker and billiards suddenly became accessible to huge audiences. Commercial sponsorship rapidly followed, bringing large sums of money into the sport from the private sector. While cycling has always been able to attract some sponsorship, it is only the advent of technology capable of showing it live on television and to mass audiences that has recently enabled large-scale sponsorship to develop the sport further, and internationally.
It is a striking fact that, whereas elsewhere the sport of cycling is extremely well developed, in the United Kingdom—in spite of British cycling excellence over the years—it has languished in recent times. There have been some signs of revival, associated with particular individuals such as Chris Boardman, Yvonne McGregor and Graeme Obree, as well as the development associated with the velodrome in Manchester, which I am sure we all welcome. Nevertheless, the long-term membership of the primary cycling organisations, such as the Cyclists Touring Club and the BCF, remains static, notwithstanding the massive increase in bicycle sales associated in particular with the mountain bike boom.
There has been much debate in cycling circles about that disappointing performance, and especially about the way in which the sport has been managed by the BCF. I also understand that eyebrows have been raised outside this country, at the highest levels in the cycling world—in the Union Cycliste Internationale, for instance—about the way in which the BCF has managed the sport in this country. That must be worrying, as the UCI is the most important body in cycling.
International companies take a pan-European view of marketing. When they choose to develop sponsorship of a particular sport, they want the commercial potentialities of that sport throughout their target market to be fully developed. They therefore take a dim view of the fact that the United Kingdom market in cycle racing, in particular, is and has been so undeveloped.
Mr. Hein Verbruggen, president of the UCI, has made it known that, while he would like to ensure that major world-ranked races and other events will continue to be held in Great Britain, he is frustrated by the management

1165
of the BCF, which makes it increasingly unlikely that he will have an opportunity to present such events in the United Kingdom. On the Radio 5 programme "On the Line", he said:
"Great Britain is … a completely black spot in the international cycling market".
The programme, which was an excellent example of investigative journalism, conducted by the journalist Mr. Ian Bent, aired many concerns that are the subject of serious audit investigation at the BCF.
It has been suggested to me that at least one major international company, which brought millions of pounds into cycling and which originates within the English-speaking world, has left the sport, disappointed with the poor marketing of cycling, particularly in the UK. Worse still, Britain's multi-stage cycling tour, hitherto known as the Milk race, which again brought much private money into the sport, has ceased even to exist. In my eyes and in those of many of my colleagues whom I have met on bikes on and off the road over the years, the BCF board stands guilty of, at best, a lack of vision and a timorous failure to realise the full potential of this beautiful and undeveloped sport, despite the fact that it receives £500,000 a year of public money, in addition to the annual subscriptions of its private members.
From time to time, graver charges have been made about the manner in which BCF board members have managed the BCF's business affairs. In July, I tabled a question to the Minister responsible for sport revealing publicly, probably for the first time, that serious questions needed to be asked about the relationship between the BCF and private companies with close links with BCF board members. My questions were prompted by the turmoil in the BCF following the election of Mr. Tony Doyle, the former world cycling champion, as BCF president. He was subsequently removed in what can be described only as a coup by board members.
The new president had declared that he wanted to increase the transparency of the BCF board's operations, to make the board more accountable to the membership and to secure the further development of our sport in the UK. For whatever reason, after a short period, Mr. Doyle ceased to be president. A process was begun that may eventually conclude with litigation and substantial legal costs falling on the BCF. I understand that, in November last year and in March this year, Mr. Doyle raised with Mr. Derek Casey his concerns about the way in which the BCF board operated. As you probably know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Casey is chief executive of the Sports Council, a primary funder of the BCF.
A number of events appeared to take place subsequent to my questions, which appeared on the Order Paper in July. It appears that at least one of the companies that was supplying goods and services to the BCF and that was associated with a particular board member subsequently changed the terms of its contract.
I wrote to the BCF and to Mr. Doyle asking that they authorise representatives to meet to seek a settlement of their differences out of court, thereby avoiding expensive legal fees falling on the membership. Such a settlement has not yet been achieved.
Consequent on my questions, the Sports Council appears to have begun an internal audit of the BCF's affairs. I have a copy of that audit. The Sports Council should have acted earlier in relation to the matter, given
1166
the fact that it has custody of £500,000 of public funds, which it has continued to pay on a quarterly basis to the BCF, even though the Sports Council was aware of the seriousness of the allegations and the turmoil in the organisation.
The internal audit reveals a grave state of affairs in relation to the manner in which the BCF has been and is being managed. The audit reveals, first, concerns about the financial position of the BCF, British Cycling Promotions Ltd. and the velodrome, which is the jewel in the crown of British cycling. A substantial deficit in the current year is projected. Secondly, the audit reveals inadequately structured management accounts, with what is described as a major weakness in the accounts in relation to forecasting income and expenditure. Thirdly, the audit finds inadequate financial accountability and control.
Fourthly, the audit refers, worryingly, to actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest involving some board members—some companies are supplying goods and services to the BCF; the principals of those companies have been BCF board members for years. Fifthly, the audit reveals internal conflict in the board. Sixthly, it asserts that board members have become involved in handling operational matters to a detailed extent. Overall, the audit report concludes that the board
"is failing to operate properly and effectively as an Executive Body".
In my many years in public life, this is probably the most damning audit report that I have ever read. Moreover, the published balance sheet shows an artificially low rate of depreciation on fixed assets. I am informed that the provision for stock on the balance sheet allegedly contains many obsolete items that no longer have any inherent value. A falsely optimistic picture of the BCF's health has been described in the balance sheet.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might think that, given the scale of public funding that I have described, the damning nature of the audit report, the allegations in the radio programme, questions in the House and the prolonged organisational turmoil in the BCF, the Sports Council might have acted sooner. If you were to come to that conclusion, I would share your view.
I am not happy either with the way in which the Sports Council delivered the results of the audit to BCF members. At the annual general meeting a few weeks ago, where it was known to the Sports Council that many of these matters would be debated and that the board was to be re-elected, the Sports Council's representatives provided copies of the damaging audit report in advance of the annual general meeting to board members, who were clearly culpable.
I understand that the acting BCF chairman of the meeting was aware of the contents of the report, yet chose not to reveal any of its details until the end of the clay, after the board elections and after the debates on related matters. The chairman did not act with full transparency in ordering the agenda in that way. Given the extraordinary nature of the allegations and the fact that the people who had been accused by the audit report had read it in advance, the Sports Council's representatives had a duty, which they shirked, to bring the report to the attention of delegates before the election of the board and before the debates. The Sports Council failed lamentably in the matter.

1167
Subsequent to the annual general meeting, there has been a further session of the BCF's new managing committee. I am surprised, to put it mildly, that the Sports Council did not ensure that it had a representative at the meeting to monitor the BCF's deliberations, with an eye to ensuring that the BCF, at last, complies with the Sports Council's recommendations. I have expressed my view privately to the chief executive of the Sports Council, Mr. Casey, but I remain dissatisfied with his reason for that failure.
I should have expected that the annual general meeting, which was conducted after a year of organisational turmoil, would be a model of propriety, but no. Three matters concern me. First, the chairman allowed board members who had not been re-elected to continue to exercise their votes after they had been removed from office, votes which they held ex officio by virtue only of the fact that they had been directors. Secondly, the governing board of the BCF was not elected according to its constitution; rather, an interim committee was established, which stands outside the BCF's constitution. Thirdly, there is currently no elected president or chairman of the BCF.
Those three matters put the current BCF outside its constitution. Clearly, that must throw considerable doubt on the authority of people who are now nominally in charge of the BCF to receive and spend public money. That matter must be addressed immediately, because the Sports Council is due to pay a further quarterly instalment of about £125,000 to the federation on 15 December. Lawyers share my doubts about the constitutional position of the BCF.
I have been reluctant to air many of these matters in public because of the danger of bringing a sport that I love, and in which I have participated for a long time, into further disrepute. I have felt it necessary to do so because those matters cannot be swept under the carpet any more. My confidence in the Sports Council as a giver of grants and a monitoring institution has been severely dented. Questions must now be asked about the accountability of the Sports Council to the public and Parliament, especially when its so-called annual report has not been published since 1993. It is a bizarre, almost Monty Pythonesque situation when an annual report does not appear yearly, notwithstanding the fact that the Sports Council is happy to spend £47.5 million of taxpayers' money every year. It does so without, apparently, giving an account of itself other than that provided in its published accounts every year.
I understand that a meeting will be held shortly between the Sports Council and the BCF. The Government, through the Minister responsible for sport, should intervene to ensure that the Sports Council secures the following objectives. First, the true, up-to-date financial position of the BCF should be established. Secondly, the BCF should be brought back into line with its constitution, which should also be updated so that the federation ceases to be an unincorporated association, which therefore has no legal existence. Thirdly, a professional chief executive with appropriate experience should be appointed to take on day-to-day management functions, to carry the sport forward. Finally, independent solicitors, approved by the Sports Council, should be brought in to make
1168
recommendations on how to resolve the current long-standing damaging dispute, with the objective of minimising further legal costs.
I am particularly troubled because, if the Sports Council has been dilatory in its dealings on cycling, especially when it is spending £500,000 every year on the sport, I fear that there may be other areas in which that same dilatoriness is apparent. Given that the Sports Council has failed to produce its annual report for the past three years, it is time that the Minister responsible for sport agreed to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for a report of some kind, if not an annual report, to be published by the Sports Council forthwith. I seek a guarantee from the Minister that that report can be debated and questions asked so that the Sports Council is made answerable to the House.
I thank the House for the opportunity to raise these matters.
7.32 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate. May I say to the House from the Government side that I believe that, by raising certain matters, the hon. Gentleman has done a service not only to the House and to sport in general but to cycling in particular?
The hon. Gentleman is aware that in recent months I have taken an active interest in the British Cycling Federation, and the jewel in the crown of British cycling, the Manchester velodrome. It cost a great deal of money and is an absolutely superb facility. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, however, sadly, it has been grotesquely under-used.
The hon. Gentleman's allegations about the administration of the sport by those on the board of the BCF are entirely accurate. I believe that those who have been administering it are guilty of maladministration, neglect and abuse of their position. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is a flagrant conflict of interest in respect of the companies that are providing services and equipment to the federation and leading, long-serving members of its board.
That matter was drawn to my attention by one of my constituents, Mr. John Kennedy, who has recently taken an active, positive and constructive interest in cycling. He has sought to promote cycling in the United Kingdom and to utilise to a much greater extent that jewel in the crown, the Manchester cycling velodrome. As a result of meetings I had with Mr. Kennedy at his office and home in Macclesfield, I arranged a meeting with the Minister responsible for sport, who is to respond to the debate. The Minister gave generously of his time to me and to my constituent, and the officials present were seized of the problems that face the sport of cycling. Those problems have been articulated and promoted accurately and absolutely down the line by the hon. Member for Hemsworth. He has not sought to decorate or exaggerate those problems; he has expressed accurately the concerns felt by many in that sport.
My hon. Friend the Minister gave me certain undertakings that the concerns that had been expressed and the information that had been provided would be fully investigated. I await his response with great interest. I have no doubt that a large sum of British taxpayers'

1169
money—000,000—channelled, as the hon. Gentleman has said, through the Sports Council to the BCF over a number of years, has been misused, wasted and squandered. Some of the bills that piled up were totally unnecessary and resulted from a conflict of interest and total maladministration of the affairs of the BCF.
I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that those who have been responsible for the maladministration, neglect and squandering and waste of public money will no longer be permitted to be part of the BCF and its board. I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Hemsworth about the way in which the recent annual general meeting was handled. It would have been appropriate for the audit report on what has been happening in the BCF to be presented before the board elections to all those attending the AGM.
I am very interested in cycling. I want the expensive jewel in the crown, the Manchester velodrome, to be properly and fully used. I should like to see it fall down from over-use instead of deteriorating and running down from under-use as has happened recently. A number of competitions could have been held there.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth referred to the international cycling body. My constituent has had regular contact with its president, who has expressed to my constituent and to the hon. Gentleman his deep concern about what has happened and about the fact that that has prejudiced making the United Kingdom the location for major cycling events, especially international ones.
My constituent is interested in fostering the participation of young people who want to cycle. He wants a youth challenge international competition to be organised at the Manchester velodrome. I wish him success, and I shall give him every support and encouragement. When he has sought to work with existing members of the board, however, he has been frustrated from every angle and at every door and corner. That is not how senior representatives of the sport should operate. They should encourage people who are keen to provide sponsorship, administration, organisation and enthusiasm.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth has performed a great service for the sport by raising this issue in such a measured and constructive manner. I think that my comments may have gone a bit further than his. He spoke with great moderation, because of his involvement in the industry and his interest and concern for it.
I appreciate the time that the Minister responsible for sport gave me, and the concern that he and his officials clearly felt about the information that my constituents and I, and the hon. Member for Hemsworth, have presented to his Department over the past months. I hope that his reply to this debate will be helpful. If it is, the hon. Member for Hemsworth and I will have helped to guarantee a good and successful future for cycling in the United Kingdom.
7.40 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I thank the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) for raising this important issue today, for the way in which he did it and for bringing to my attention some of his concerns about the sport of cycling, the operation of the British Cycling Federation, and the use of the Manchester velodrome. I know that he has a keen interest in cycling, and I take his concerns very seriously.
1170
Those concerns were first drawn to my attention last July, when I met my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and one of his constituents. I pay tribute to the typically energetic way in which he has pursued this matter and to his powerful and well-argued speech in this debate. At the meeting, his constituent made serious allegations of financial impropriety against the British Cycling Federation. He also claimed that, due particularly to the federation's policy, the Manchester velodrome was being under-used.
Also in July, the hon. Member for Hemsworth—as he rightly reminded us—raised with my Department four issues about financial concerns and the federation's use of the Sports Council's grant in aid, and about the future of the Manchester velodrome.
As the House is aware, the Government provide support to individual governing bodies of sport through their sponsorship of the Sports Council, which is an independent body set up by royal charter. It is for the council, within an overall policy framework set by the Government, to dispense the resources at its disposal, according to its own detailed policies and priorities, to ensure that those are applied effectively and efficiently and to ensure that value for money is obtained from the public investment made.
Like other executive non-departmental public bodies, the Great Britain Sports Council, and particularly its chief executive, Mr. Derek Casey, is responsible for ensuring that all public funds in the council's charge are subject to financial propriety and regularity, and that they are applied only to the objects and powers of the Sports Council, as authorised by Parliament. In its use of public funds, the Sports Council must comply with the requirements of Government accounting and other standards of good administrative practice set by the Government.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth quite rightly raised the issue of reports. The Sports Council has not produced reports recently because of the restructuring that is currently under way. The Great Britain Sports Council is about to depart for ever, and the new English sports council and the new United Kingdom sports council will take its place. A new report will be published in January 1997. As he knows, however, annual accounts have already been laid before the House.
In meeting its responsibilities, and to ensure the proper accountability and propriety of the sums expended, the Sports Council awards grants to governing bodies and other sports organisations towards the cost of defined programmes that are relevant to the Sports Council's policy objectives. Conditions are attached to each grant, and may vary according to the nature of the activity supported. Among the standard conditions that apply is the need for the grant recipient to provide a concise—but detailed—annual report and forward plan covering each programme activity. The reports should focus on the extent to which the predetermined developmental and financial targets have been met, and form the basis of a formal annual review undertaken by officers of the Sports Council.
The Sports Council's liaison officers also regularly monitor the progress made by governing bodies in achieving the objectives set out in their forward plans, and have regular meetings with officials of the governing bodies to discuss progress, developments and other

1171
matters that arise. Liaison officers also have the right to attend meetings of the committees of the governing body. No further payments are made when compliance with the conditions is not met and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, and the remainder of the grant on offer is withdrawn.
Mr. Trickett: At my meeting the other day with Mr. Casey, the chief executive of the Sports Council, he said that the reason why Mr. Dermott Collins, the cycling officer of the Sports Council, had not attended the most recent meeting of the BCF's governing committee was that he feared that the Sports Council would begin to act as shadow director of the BCF. Does the Minister agree that such a suggestion is bizarre, for several reasons? First, the Sports Council is providing half a million pounds. Secondly, the Minister himself has said that sports officers have a right to attend the meetings. Given the failure to monitor properly the organisation, would not it be appropriate for the Minister to speak to the chief executive of the Sports Council and to ensure that the grant is used properly by the BCF?
At the same meeting, Mr. Casey said that he would not pay the next grant, which is due on 15 December, unless changes are made. Is the Minister aware of any action being taken by the Sports Council to bring matters into order?
Mr. Sproat: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. They are serious matters, and I will draw to Mr. Casey's attention not only the comments made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech but those in his intervention. I will undertake to ensure that a proper reply is sent to the hon. Gentleman.
As I have advised the House and the hon. Member for Hemsworth on previous occasions, all sports governing bodies in receipt of Sports Council grants are also required to have their annual accounts audited and to supply a copy of those audited accounts to the Sports Council. Additionally, the Comptroller and Auditor General may conduct more detailed audits. The Sports Council also has the right to conduct more detailed audits, and the Sports Council's management audit programme includes a review of the operations of a sample of governing bodies in receipt of Sports Council grants. That applies to the British Cycling Federation.
As a result of the very serious allegations and concerns raised by hon. Members about the British Cycling Federation, I have asked the Sports Council to provide me with a full report on the situation. The Sports Council's internal auditors have now conducted an investigation into the affairs of the British Cycling Federation, and it has revealed that financial accountability and control are not as strong as they should be for an organisation with responsibility for spending public—or membership—funds.
The chief executive of the Sports Council has recently written to the board members of the British Cycling Federation, drawing their attention to these shortcomings and making recommendations to address those concerns. The recommendations include the employment of a qualified management accountant, whose immediate role would be to review the financial position of the federation,
1172
British Cycling Promotions Ltd. and Manchester Velodrome Ltd., with a view to making recommendations to remedy the weaknesses identified.
The Sports Council is, however, satisfied that despite the administrative difficulties experienced by the British Cycling Federation, the council's continued investment of £370,000 for the annual development programme to December 1996 represents value for money. The sport is working hard to establish the proper structures necessary to harness the considerable potential that exists and to promote itself more positively to participants, the media and sponsors. In recognition of this, the Sports Council announced in May this year that cycling, among 21 other sports, will be eligible to receive the enhanced service that it is to provide to those activities which have significant development potential and are of particular relevance to the new focus of the Sports Council: young people and the development of excellence.
At the competitive level, Britain already has riders such as Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree, who are among the best in the world. At grass roots level, the British Cycling Federation has begun to focus on attracting more young people into the sport, with a major recruitment initiative being developed. Funding is also providing additional coaching and training opportunities, made possible by the Manchester velodrome.
As I have already mentioned, the hon. Member for Hemsworth has previously raised questions with me about the way in which sports governing bodies, and the British Cycling Federation in particular, let contracts to suppliers of goods and services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was reassured by the answers that I gave him on 24 July, which I have repeated to the House today, providing information about the practices of the Sports Council in controlling and monitoring the use of public funds.
I hope that I was similarly able to reassure the hon. Member for Hemsworth about his concerns for the future of the Manchester velodrome in the light of the threat of legal action between the federation and its former president, and about the protection of public funds in respect of any legal proceedings. The Manchester velodrome is operated by a separate legal entity—Manchester Velodrome Ltd. This company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Cycling Federation. The Sports Council has entered into a formal agreement with Manchester Velodrome Ltd. which requires the operational and accounting records of the company to be kept separate from the records of any other activities of the British Cycling Federation, its associated companies and any related organisations. Also, all transactions between these parties are to be on a full commercial basis. In addition, the Sports Council has formally advised the British Cycling Federation that the grant that it receives cannot be used to pay any legal expenses or costs associated with the legal proceedings between the federation and its former president.
I am sure that the British Cycling Federation will be taking a keen interest in tonight's debate, and I shall certainly be drawing the Sport Council's attention to what has been said in this place. I shall also be seeking the Sports Council's reassurance that any further grant in aid payments to the federation will be on the basis that the Sports Council is fully satisfied that the federation is taking appropriate action to implement the various recommendations made.

1173
The recommendations set out in the Sports Council's letter to the British Cycling Federation were discussed at the federation's annual general meeting on 2 November. There are already signs that the British Cycling Federation is taking positive action to address the concerns. The federation has now formed a new management committee, comprising four members of the previous board and seven new members. The management committee has indicated that it will carry out a complete review of all the federation's activities. It has also indicated that a key priority is to reassure the Sports Council that the British Cycling Federation is now in the hands of a competent, experienced, committed, and democratically elected group of people who are determined to take a firm grip of the situation. The Sports Council is due to meet the new management committee shortly to take those matters further forward.
I am sure that the federation will now be keen to get its house in order and make a fresh start—the more so because of the vast sums of revenue support that the Government have now made available for sport through the changes in the national lottery directions. It is in the interest of all governing bodies to run their affairs efficiently and effectively and, in particular, to satisfy the
1174
Sports Council that they are not only committed to the development of their own sport, from grass roots through to elite level, but that they have the proper financial management systems and controls in place to handle the public funding that they receive.
The National Cycling Centre has taken time to establish itself and begin to fulfil its potential. The minor design faults have been, or are being, addressed. Attendances at events have steadily grown and the cycling track is now used by riders of every level, from elite sportsmen to local schools.
A measure of the status that the velodrome now has can be gauged from the recent world-class successes of Chris Boardman who, in winning the individual pursuit title at the world track championships in August, twice broke the world record that had been set in Atlanta a month earlier. He then went on to break the world one-hour record eight days later at the same venue.
I will expect the Sports Council to continue to monitor the position closely to ensure that proper accountability and control of public funds are maintained.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eight o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Year Against Racism
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to mark European Year Against Racism in 1997. [5438]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believe that the European Year Against Racism will make a valuable contribution to the work already being carried out to combat racism and we intend to take a full and active part in the initiative to ensure its success.

  We are setting up a national co-ordinating committee which will oversee this work in the United Kingdom. The committee will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Department, and I understand that the first meeting is due to take place on 2 December.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3995]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November. [3996]

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

  Government Information (Access)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions part 7, paragraphs(a) and (b) of the code of practice on access to Government information has been used to deny information to hon. Members in each of the last three years, broken down by Government Departments and their agencies. [5445]

  The Prime Minister
  The information in the detail requested is not held centrally. Monitoring reports, showing progress in implementing the code of practice on access to Government information, are produced each year by the Office of Public Service. These include a breakdown of the exemptions cited when a refusal to provide information under the code results in a review of the case, but not a breakdown of the exemptions cited when the refusal is initially made. Copies of the monitoring reports published in March 1995 and March 1996 are available in the Libraries of the House.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he or his Ministers have had with European 628
  Union Commissioners or officials on matters to be considered at the General Affairs Council on 25 November. [5473]

  The Prime Minister
  We have regular discussions with our European colleagues on all matters to be considered at the forthcoming General Affairs Council.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Prime Minister who will be representing the Government at the General Affairs Council on 25 November. [5475]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boothferry, (Mr. Davis) will represent Her Majesty's Government at the General Affairs Council on 25 November.

ENVIRONMENT

  Castle Cement
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor air quality around the Castle Cement plant in Clitheroe. [4715]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment has established a fixed monitoring station in the village of Chatburn in the vicinity of the Ribblesdale plant. The station is carrying out monitoring:for PM10 (fine particles) using both the tapered element oscillating microbalance ("TEOM") automatic method and non-continuous sampling;
  for NOx using the continuous ozone chemiluminescence system;
  for NO2 non-continuously using diffusion tubes;
  for SO2 using the continuous UV flourescence method.

  All pollutant measurements will be quality assured to national standards.

  European Union
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the cost in the last 12 months of sending Ministers and officials to meetings in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe in connection with his Department's handling of EU business; [4944]

  (2) what percentage of his Department's time and resources are spent dealing with administrative and policy matters connected with British membership of the European Union [4954]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Construction Industry (Timber)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to promote the use in the construction industry of timber produced from sustainable industries in rural areas. [4902]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment is supporting a number of innovation projects to encourage the use of sustainable timber from United Kingdom forests. These should assist the development of
  629
  rural industries. One such project will result in the construction of a demonstration building at Hook forest in Dorset.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the reduction in public expenditure from the measures taken over the last 15 years to restrict expenditure by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [4907]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since 1990–91, when capping in its current form was introduced, it has been directly responsible for reducing the budgets of those authorities that challenged their caps by a total that has now reached over a third of a billion pounds a year compared with the budgets originally set. The great majority of authorities did not challenge their caps, but set budgets within the limits implied by the capping criteria; although no direct estimate can be made, it is clear that in these cases, too, capping has been generally successful in ensuring that many authorities have budgeted at a lower level than would otherwise have been the case.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to prevent local authorities setting budgets prior to the announcement of standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement. [4825]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have no powers to stop an authority setting its budget before the statement on the local authority finance settlement. However, it is highly unlikely that an authority would wish to set a budget before this date and I am not aware of any authority having done so in recent years.

  Homelessness (Sheffield)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to reduce homelessness in Sheffield; and if he will make a statement. [4904]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1996–97, £7.8 million of grants are being paid under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary sector organisations which prevent or relieve homelessness. Of this, nearly £2 million funds the national Homelessness Advice Service, based on Citizens Advice Bureaux, which advises people who are homeless or potentially so. The service is available from four bureaux in Sheffield and at the specialist Sheffield debt support unit.

  The remaining grant supports around 180 projects throughout England which offer direct practical help to single homeless people by finding accommodation and providing follow-up support. The Nomad advice centre in Sheffield, which helped over 170 people to find accommodation last year, will receive £25,780 this year.

  Construction Industry (Insolvency Protection)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to begin the independent review of insolvency protection for the construction industry; what the format of the review will be; and if he will make a statement. [4789]
  630
  Mr. Clappison
  I intend to put proposals for the further consideration of these issues to the Construction Industry Council shortly.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), of 1 November,Official Report, column 269, what assessment he has made of the reason for the named areas having high rates of asbestos-related mesothelioma; and for what reasons a breakdown by district is not available from 1991. [5066]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The high rates of mesothelioma in the districts mentioned in my reply of 1 November are related to the heavy industrial use of asbestos in the past in these areas, including shipbuilding, ship repairing and the manufacture of asbestos products.

  The analysis was completed by the Health and Safety Executive only up until 1991 because at the time those were the most recent data available. The analysis will be updated next year to include the data from 1992 to 1995.

  Doncaster Urban Development Plan
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the inspectors' report into the Doncaster urban development plan to be published; and if copies will be made available to hon. Members. [5139]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The inspector's report on objections to the Doncaster unitary development plan is expected to be delivered to the Doncaster metropolitan borough council at the end of February 1997. It will be for the council to decide when to publish the report. Copies of the report would then be available on request from the council.

  Ferris Wheel (South Bank)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to call in the millennium wheel planning application. [5545]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no plans to call in the application for the millennium wheel. The wheel is an inspired idea and an imaginative way to mark the millennium, providing unparalleled, once-in-a-lifetime views of the heart of the capital. It has caught people's imaginations and created a sense of excitement about the millennium, not least among children.

  It will be a boost to the economy of the south bank and will bring visitors and new life to this important stretch of the River Thames.

  Lambeth has consulted widely. I have no reason to believe it has not considered the application thoroughly and taken into account the range of opinion held on the wheel. I am satisfied that it will not be a permanent feature; to ensure that, I have today issued directions to the council to inform me of any future applications affecting the site of the wheel.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department is making with
  631
  the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4983]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment will be introducing its resource accounting system during 1997-98. The Department, in common with others, is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis of the 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the Department will be in respect of 1999-2000.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of training is currently required of employees providing services under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how he proposes to ensure an appropriate level of skills training in relation to any new measures incorporated into the scheme. [5373]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This well regarded scheme has achieved high standards of workmanship and customer care through the efforts of the scheme's managers, Eaga Ltd., and the network of installers providing local delivery of the service. I expect these standards to be maintained or improved on in the future, whether or not any new measures are made available. The specification of any appropriate training requirements for employees working within the scheme is a matter for Eaga Ltd. At present, it requires anyone who gives householders energy advice under the scheme to obtain a specified qualification.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has completed its review of the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [5371]

  Mr. Jones
  I hope to make a statement about the future structure of the scheme shortly.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the additional financial resources needed to fund any new measures introduced as a result of the review of the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [5372]

  Mr. Jones
  Any changes which may be made in future to the home energy efficiency scheme will be structural, intended to make it even more effective and give better value for money. They would not be linked to any particular level of annual financial allocation. We remain fully committed to helping the most vulnerable people to keep warm and use energy more efficiently, and this successful scheme, on which we have spent nearly £350 million since it started some six years ago, has now made over 2 million households more comfortable.

  Tesco Store, Tonbridge
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the public inquiry into the proposal by Tesco for a retail store at Cannon lane, Tonbridge, is due to commence; and to whom and at what address representations about this proposal, including requests to give oral evidence at the inquiry, should be sent. [5444]
  632
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local public inquiry into the proposal by Tesco for a retail store at Cannon lane, Tonbridge is due to commence at 10.00 am on Tuesday 25 February 1997 at the council offices, the air station, West Malling. Representations and requests to give oral evidence at the inquiry should be addressed to Mrs. Christine Kavanagh at the Government Office for the South East, Bridge house, 1 Walnut Tree close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4GA.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the status of the British Waterways Board as a nationalised industry. [5255]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have no plans to change the status of the British Waterways Board as a nationalised industry, but as part of the normal process of reviewing policy options I am continuing to consider jointly with the British Waterways Board whether there are options which would allow the board greater flexibility in generating additional income for the development of its canal network.

  Development Land (Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 323, on proposals for development near Henlow, Bedfordshire, if he will list the representations he has received from individuals and organisations in respect of the development; what acreage of vacant industrial and commercial development land there is in Bedfordshire; and when he hopes to make a decision on a public inquiry about this matter. [5298]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We received a number of representations about the proposal, and those people and organisations will now have the opportunity to express their views at a public inquiry, the date of which has yet to be arranged. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed development will be an issue for the inquiry.

  Housing Ombudsman
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in establishing an independent housing ombudsman service for dealing with complaints against social landlords in England; and if he will make a statement. [5865]

  Mr. Curry
  The Housing Act 1996 provides for the first time that the Secretary of State may approve a scheme for the establishment of an independent housing ombudsman service for dealing with complaints against social landlords—the definition in the Act does not include local authorities. Earlier in the year we invited the current non-statutory housing association tenants' ombudsman to consult widely on a draft scheme for England which could be in place in time for 1 April 1997.

  Following consultation, the ombudsman has submitted a scheme which I have approved. In considering the scheme, I have been concerned to ensure continuity with the existing non-statutory service. But I have also been keen to ensure that the new service is soundly based and able to achieve value for money for members, that its administration is straightforward and accountable, that its

  633
  procedure for dealing with complaints is accessible and fair, and that it has suitable and effective arrangements for safeguarding the independence of the ombudsman. The scheme will be administered by a company limited by guarantee, with equal representation on the board for member landlords, tenants and the public interest.

  All social landlords must subscribe to the independent housing ombudsman service. This scheme should meet their needs and those of others involved. It should also prove attractive to other landlords who may wish to join.

  I have placed a copy of the approved scheme in the Library.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for paying tax relief grant to non-charitable housing associations in 1997–98 and future years. [5866]

  Mr. Curry
  We published a consultation paper on 31 July setting out our proposals for the progressive reduction in tax relief grant payments to non-charitable housing associations. Eighty-eight responses were received.

  Many associations said they needed more time to plan how to respond to the progressive reduction of tax relief grant and to effect any necessary changes. I accept this concern and recognise that associations need adequate time to accomplish a smooth change. I therefore propose that we continue to pay tax relief grant claims at the current norm of 100 per cent. during 1997–98 in respect of associations' tax liabilities up to and including 1996–97.

  Another theme of the responses was that associations would appreciate a degree of certainty about future rates of payment. While I should not wish unreasonably to restrict future discretion in this matter, it seems to me helpful to give a clear steer to associations as to our future plans so that they can make appropriate arrangements. I therefore plan that in future years payments will be on a sliding scale. In 1998–99, in respect of tax liabilities during 1997–98, we plan to pay 75 per cent. of the first £50,000 of eligible claims, then 50 per cent. of the rest. In 1999–2000, in respect of tax liabilities during 1998–99, we plan to pay 50 per cent. of the first £25,000 of eligible claims, then 25 per cent. of the rest.

  The Government believe that public resources for social housing should be allocated directly towards meeting priority needs in ways which produce good value for money. The Government are not convinced that the continued availability of tax relief grant would help achieve this. We therefore remain committed to its abolition when an appropriate legislative opportunity arises. In the meantime, although the statutory discretion to pay tax relief grant will remain, the Government would normally expect that, following the planned reductions outlined, associations will take steps to manage without tax relief grant payments.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4987]

  The Solicitor-General
  All the Departments and agencies for which the Law Officers are responsible will be introducing resource accounting systems during 1997, apart from the Serious Fraud Office which has already done so. The Law Officers' Departments and agencies, in common with other Departments, are preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929, their first published resource accounts will be in respect of 1999–2000.

TRANSPORT

  M6-M65 Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the additional traffic at(a) Blackburn, (b) Burnley and (c) Colne when the M6-M65 link-up is complete. [5240]

  Mr. Watts
  When the M65 Blackburn southern bypass is complete it is expected that the traffic could increase by about 10 per cent.—4,500 vehicles per day—east of M65 junction 6 at Whitebirk, Blackburn.

  No estimate has been made of the increase in traffic on the M65 at Burnley or Colne.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had and with whom on encouraging heavy freight goods to travel by rail; and if he will make a statement. [5392]

  Mr. Watts
  Encouraging freight to travel by rail is an important element of the Government's transport policy. My right hon. Friend and I have frequent discussions with customers, operators and other interest groups.

  Visual Flight Rules Procedures
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult with the Civil Aviation Authority to assess whether the existing visual flight rules procedures are adequate or in need of revision. [4804]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 20 November]Visual flight rules procedures in the UK comply with the minimum standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and contained in annexe 2 to the convention on international civil aviation. The Civil Aviation Authority is not aware of any problems with current VFR procedures but, as with all safety issues, they are kept under review.

  MV Cap Afrique
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the total number of passengers and crew the MV Cap Afrique was carrying when it sailed at 17.30 hours from Dover on 6 November; [5408]

  (2) how many passengers and crew in total the vessel MV Cap Afrique is permitted to carry. [5407]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Questions about the total number of passengers and crew carried by the MV "Cap Afrique".
  The MV "Cap Afrique" is a French registered ro-ro cargo ship. The total number of passengers and crew on board the ship when it sailed from Dover at 17.30 hours on 6 November was 25 persons. The total number of passengers and crew that MV "Cap Afrique" is permitted to carry is 30 persons.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4994]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department will be introducing its resource accounting system on 1 April 1998. The Department is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the year 2000 survey. In accordance with Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the Department and all other Departments will be in respect of 1999–2000.

  Air Freight
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards negotiating an open skies agreement for air freight between the United Kingdom and the United States; and if he will make a statement. [5460]

  Mr. Bowis
  Talks with the US Government about UK-US air services are continuing, with formal negotiations taking place in London on 4 to 6 December. Cargo services are one of the issues for discussion.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those people convicted with the help of assistance from the west midlands serious crimes squad who have subsequently had their convictions overturned and the amount of compensation paid to each of them. [5000]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received from local authorities for CCTV installations; and if he will make a statement. [4828]

  Mr. Maclean
  Applications to the Home Office closed circuit television challenge competitions are made by local CCTV partnerships. Such partnerships are not necessarily led by local authorities, though most will involve them in some way. There were 480 bids in the first competition and 794 in the second. The closing date for bids in the third round of the competition was 20 November 1996.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of CCTV systems in crime reduction. [4827]

  Mr. Maclean
  The reports that we have received from the police and closed circuit television operators confirm that there have been significant reductions in crime and the fear of crime in the areas where CCTV has been introduced. These reductions demonstrate the value of CCTV as a crime prevention measure. In addition, we have published a number of research papers examining various aspects of CCTV effectiveness, the latest of which was "CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies", published in November 1995.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many CCTV systems have been installed in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [4829]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information about closed circuit television systems which have not received Home Office funding is not collected. Of those schemes which have received funding from the Home Office, 73 have been installed in the past 12 months. Approximately 250 more are in the process of installation.

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding the Government have made available for research into alternatives to animal testing in the past five years; what plans he has to increase this funding; and if he will make a statement. [5012]

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for the total Government spending on research into alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures are not available. With regard to the Animal Procedures Committee, the Home Office has in the last five years made the following funds available:

  1991–92: £215,000

  1992–93: £253,000

  1993–94: £308,000

  1994–95: £273,000

  1995–96: £253,000.

  There are no plans to increase the level of funding.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of the applications which his Department has received in the
  637
  past year for licences to carry out animal tests, and the reasons why the applications were granted or not; and if he will make a statement. [5014]

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of such information.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that research into alternative methods to animal testing and the validation of such methods by public bodies and private companies is co-ordinated; and if he will make a statement. [5016]

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom Government helped to establish and subsequently endorsed the European centre for the validation of alternative methods—ECVAM. It is the job of the centre to co-ordinate research into alternative methods including developmental and subsequent validation work.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the licensing process for animal tests; if he will make it his policy to include(a) more rigorous cost-benefit analysis for the proposed testing, (b) details of what alternative tests have been considered and (c) the reasons why such alternatives cannot be used instead of the animal tests; and if he will make a statement. [5013]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to revise the licensing process. We are satisfied that the current cost-benefit analysis required under section 54 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is sufficiently rigorous. The need to consider alternative tests is adequately addressed by section 54 of the Act.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken at an international level to ensure that alternative methods to animal tests are accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries; and if he will make a statement. [5015]

  Mr. Sackville
  The acceptance of alternative methods can be achieved only by their validation and incorporation into harmonisation processes and international guidelines, such as those promulgated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  To this end, the Home Office jointly commissioned, in 1995, a study of the Draize eye irritation test and is liaising closely with regulators who represent United Kingdom interests in international forums.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4980]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department, on current plans, will be introducing its resource accounting capability during 1997–98 and, in common with other Departments, is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the year 2000 public expenditure survey. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the Department will be for the 1999–2000 financial year.

  Mr. Raghbir Singh
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the retention in prison of Mr. Raghbir Singh and (b) the basis for his continued detention following the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Karanjit Singh Chahal. [5149]

  Mr. Howard
  These matters are under review and I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Paedophile Register and Stalking Bills
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when drafts of the proposed paedophile register Bill and the proposed stalking Bill were prepared; and when the Bills will be published. [5251]

  Mr. Maclean
  Preparation of the Bills is well advanced and we will introduce them as soon as possible.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women who were electronically tagged in England and Wales as at 18 November. [5507]

  Mr. Sackville
  By 18 November, 202 male and 14 female offenders had been tagged to monitor their compliance with curfew orders since the pilot trials began in July 1995.

  Dogs (Tail Docking)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make illegal the docking of dog tails for non-veterinary reasons. [5404]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to do so.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and(b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4540]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office has no direct responsibilities for environmental auditing. In common with other Departments, the office seeks to exercise economy in the use of resources and to minimise waste.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4990]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office will be introducing its resource accounting system during 1997–98. In common with other Departments, the PCO is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to
  639
  form the basis for the year 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the PCO and all other Departments will be in respect of the year 1999–2000.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the ways in which the commissioners have(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4545]

  Mr. Alison
  Within their offices at No. 1 Millbank, the commissioners recycle aluminium cans and cardboard, and a paper recycling scheme is to be introduced by the end of the year. Where appropriate, the commissioners buy recycled materials. In addition, the heating system is computer controlled to minimise wastage and a heat recovery system is in operation. The commissioners are in the process of installing long-life, low-energy lamps throughout their offices.

  The commissioners ensure that the needs of the environment and of the local community are properly taken into account in the management of their agricultural estates. On many of the commissioners' residential estates, heat loss—and thereby energy consumption—have been reduced by double glazing, draft proofing and loft insulation. Energy-saving light bulbs are used in the common parts of many buildings and, in conjunction with the Energy Saving Trust, they are installing energy-saving boilers which emit waste that is more environmentally friendly. They also maintain a number of communal gardens on their estates and paper re-cycling is carried out at one of the estate offices.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of his Department's time and resources is spent dealing with administrative and policy matters connected with British membership of the European Union. [4955]

  Mr. David Davis
  Many Foreign and Commonwealth Office home departments and overseas posts are involved, to varying degrees, in activities related to Britain's membership of the European Union. The actual percentage of time and resources spent dealing with British membership of the European. Union could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  MEPs (Pensions)
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions are required from United Kingdom public funds for pensions of United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament;640
  what qualifications are required for drawing such pensions; and to what extent increased pensions are financed through voluntary contributions. [4925]

  Mr. David Davis
  Pension arrangements for United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament are analogous to those for Members of the House of Commons. They are financed by the Exchequer and by contributions from individual MEP's at a rate of 6 per cent. of basic salary. Pensions are normally payable from age 65, based upon the MEPs, length of service and salary during the last 12 months in office. Opportunities are provided for MEPs to transfer service from other pension schemes, to purchase added years, and to make additional voluntary contributions, subject to Inland Revenue limits. Pension payments from UK public funds to former UK MEPs and dependants amounted to £159,000 in 1994–95, with a further –117,000 paid in transfer valued to other schemes.

  MEPs may also subscribe to the EP's additional voluntary pensions scheme, two-thirds of payments to which are made from the EP section of the EC budget and one-third by the MEP. MEPs may draw a pension from this scheme from the age of 60 and after ceasing to hold office, if they have paid personal contributions for five years or more. The 1997 EC draft budget includes 11.6 million ecu, or £8.9 million, for EP payments to the scheme. The UK contribution is not hypothecated to individual budget lines, but expressed as a gross contribution to the total EC budget. The expected cost to the UK of abated expenditure such as administration is about 5 per cent. of the total.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost in the last 12 months of sending Ministers and officials to meetings in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe in connection with his Department's handling of EU business. [4945]

  Mr. Davis
  Journeys to European destinations are not recorded according to the purpose of the visit and the information requested could therefore be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4982]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are making good progress towards our aim of producing resource accounts for financial year 1998–99. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for this Department and all other Departments will be in respect of 1999–2000.

  British Detainees (Venezuela)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he took following the latest meeting between the hon. Member for Leicester, East and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to make representations to the Venezuelan Government concerning the cases of Paul Loseby and James Miles;
  641
  when he was notified that Mr. Loseby and Mr. Miles were to be charged; and when consular officials last met Mr. James Miles and Mr. Paul Loseby. [5295]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Following representations by the British ambassador in Caracas, the Venezuelan authorities have agreed that for the time being James Miles and Paul Loseby will be kept in police custody rather than being transferred to prison.

  Consular officials in Caracas were told that Miles and Loseby were to be charged at 1900 hrs GMT on 19 November.

  Consular officials last met James Miles and Paul Loseby on 19 November.

  Arms Supplies (Rwanda and Zaire)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he first received reports alleging that British companies were arranging indirect arms transfers to(a) Hutu refugees or (b) other groups in Zaire; [5300]

  (2) when he was first informed of allegations of arms sales to Rwanda or Zaire by British companies after April 1994; and what steps he took to investigate; [5301]

  (3) when the Government first received reports of the possible involvement of Mil-Tec Corporation Ltd. in the export of armaments whose final destination was (a) Rwanda and (b) Zaire; and if he will make a statement. [5294]

  Mr. David Davis
  There were rumours in the press of arms shipments to Zaire in 1994. HM Customs informed this Department in early 1995 that they were investigating allegations that arms were being supplied to Rwanda or Zaire. They also investigated information received from the UN in September 1996. No evidence to support criminal proceedings was found. Recent allegations of arms supplies to Rwandan extremists by United Kingdom companies are being pursued. Her Majesty's Government continue to co-operate closely with the UN international commission of inquiry.

  I cannot comment in detail on individual cases in these circumstances but would urge those with the relevant background to provide it to HM Customs to assist their investigation.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that no British companies are involved in the supply of arms to the combatants in the current conflict in the great lakes region of Africa; and if he will make a statement. [5368]

  Mr. Davis
  Order in Council 1993 No. 1787 as amended by No. 1637 of 22 June 1994 provides that, except under licence, no person shall:"(a) supply or deliver
  (b) agree to supply or deliver
  (c) do any act likely to promote the supply or delivery of prohibited goods to Rwanda, or to, or to the order of, a person connected with Rwanda, or to any destination for the purpose of delivery, directly or indirectly, to Rwanda, or to, or to the order of, any person connected with Rwanda."
  642
  This applies to any person within the UK and to any person elsewhere who is a British national or a company incorporated in the UK. This includes British citizens in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. The Government will extend the legislation to cover, inter alia, companies there at the earliest opportunity.

  As announced on 19 November 1996, the Government have tasked an interdepartmental committee to examine rigorously our procedures in relation to trafficking in arms and to determine whether there has been a gap in our controls and if so what action needs to be taken.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the official residences owned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in(a) Japan, (b) Korea, (c) Singapore, (d) Hong Kong, (e) Thailand and (f) Malaysia; and if he will indicate (1) the occasions when Cabinet Ministers on official visits to those countries have (i) used the official residence and (ii) used a residence other than the official residence since 1979 and (2) the cost involved. [4733]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]The following official residences are owned:

  Korea—Seoul

  Singapore

  Thailand—-Bangkok

  Malaysia—Kuala Lumpur

  The residence in Tokyo is held on a long lease.

  The remainder of the information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment was made by her Department, before awarding the millennium exhibition to Greenwich, of the impact on local traffic and travel facilities of(a) the construction phase and (b) the operation of the exhibition. [3705]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The decision to hold the millennium exhibition at Greenwich was taken by the Millennium Commission. My Department had no role in the decision. I shall write to the hon. Member about the commission's assessment of the exhibition's impact on local traffic and travel facilities in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  National Lottery
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the number of projects which have received funding from the national lottery since its inception and (b) the number of projects currently under consideration by the national lottery for funding in (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales. [3864]
  643
  Mr. Sproat
  To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have awarded a total of £2,421,238,117 to 10,681 projects. Applications currently under consideration by the distributing bodies are as follows:

  Name of distributing body

  Number of applications under consideration

  England

  Sports Council for England

  1,393

  Arts Council for England

  220

  Millennium Commission

  28

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  947

  National Lottery Charities Board

  7,222

  Total

  9,810

  Scotland

  Scottish Sports Council

  487

  Scottish Arts Council

  129

  Millennium Commission

  1

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  116

  National Lottery Charities Board

  1,125

  Total

  1,858

  Wales

  Arts Council of Wales

  208

  Sports Council of Wales

  194

  Millennium Commission

  0

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  87

  National Lottery Charities Board

  1,057

  Total

  1,546

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the number of projects in Northern Ireland which have received funding from the proceeds of the national lottery since its inception and (b) the number of projects from Northern Ireland currently under consideration for funding by the national lottery. [3843]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have awarded a total of £44,457,207 to 624 projects in Northern Ireland. Applications currently under consideration by the distributing bodies, in Northern Ireland, are as follows:

  Northern Ireland

  Name of distributing body

  Number of applications under consideration

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  178

  sports Council for Northern Ireland

  153

  Millennium Commission

  6

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  41

  National Lottery Charities Board

  324

  Total

  702

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the number of projects which have been given funding by the Millennium Commission and (b) the number of projects currently under consideration by the Millennium Commission, for (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales. [3845]
  644
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  "Sport: Raising the Game"
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the implementation of Government sports policies set down in the document, "Sport: Raising the Game". [3999]

  Mr. Sproat
  In July 1995 the Government set out in "Sport: Raising the Game", its strategy for revitalising British sport at all levels from primary schools to the Olympic podium. Our aim is to put sport at the heart of weekly life in every school, to ensure that sporting opportunities continue after school, to improve the way we identify and support talented athletes, and to create a British academy of sport as the pinnacle of regional network of centres of sporting excellence and academies for particular sports.

  Last July, in "Sport: Raising the Game", the first year report, we provided a detailed update which showed that significant progress had been made on the 38 action points set out in the original sports policy statement. This included the publication of the prospectus inviting bids to establish the British academy of sport.

  Since July, further progress has been made. The Sports Council's £1 million challenge fund, to encourage schools-sports club links, has been launched; secondary schools have been invited to apply for the sportsmark and sportsmark gold awards, which recognise those schools that have particularly good policies for sport; teachers have been invited to attend free courses to help them gain national governing body of sport awards; and, on 14 November, the Sports Council launched its world class performance programme to provide support to our most talented athletes competing up to olympic and world championship level.

  Hampstead Garden Suburb
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to decide upon the proposal to list further houses in Hampstead Garden Suburb. [3970]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce her decision shortly.

  Child Care Workers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance she has issued to the voluntary sector in respect of(a) training arrangements and (b) checks on the suitability of personnel working with children. [4361]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage makes grants totalling nearly £12 million annually to organisations which support a healthy, cost-effective voluntary sector and promote volunteering. A number of these organisations are funded to provide a range of services to other voluntary organisations, including training.
  645
  Departments may issue guidance to voluntary organisations working in areas relevant to Departmental interests. For instance in 1993 the Home Office, in consultation with the Department of Health, the then Department for Education and the Welsh Office published "Safe from Harm: A Code of Practice for Safeguarding the Welfare of Children in Voluntary Organisations in England and Wales". The code offered a guide to good policy and practice in areas such as recruitment, supervision and management, and set out recommendations and statements of principle which voluntary organisations are asked to consider in the light of their own particular circumstances.

  Guidance to voluntary organisations seeking checks on the suitability of personnel working with children was issued in 1994—Home Office Circular 42/94, Department of Health Local Authority Circular (94)22, Welsh Office Circular 64/94—"Protection of Children: Disclosure of Criminal Background to Voluntary Sector Organisations" which set out the criteria for obtaining criminal record checks for use by voluntary organisations which were members of the voluntary organisations consultancy service.

  Copies of both the code of practice and the circular are available in the Library of the House.

  Proposals for new arrangements for access to criminal record checks are in the Police Bill, currently before Parliament.

  Elite Athletes
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on scholarship funding for élite athletes. [4693]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are committed, as part of their overarching strategy for sport, to seeing our leading sportsmen and sportswomen compete successfully in the olympics and other international events. The launch of the world class performance programme, this month, will provide support across the United Kingdom to our most talented athletes competing up to olympic and world championship level.

  Up to £35 million a year will be available through the programme. Around half of this money will go to governing bodies for technical support services, such as coaching, altitude and warm weather training; the other half will go to individual athletes to cover normal living costs, personal training and travelling costs, allocated on the basis of need. Average awards to individual athletes are expected to be around £16,000 to £17,000, but the size of the individual awards will depend on personal circumstances. In return for lottery awards the sports concerned and the athletes who benefit, will be required to make a commitment to excellence in training and competition which will be closely monitored.

  The world class performance programme is the first of only four separate revenue grant programmes. The three further programmes will be designed to attract and stage major international events in the UK, to provide community coaching and leadership schemes, and to identify better and develop the talent in the country's schools and sports clubs.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the ways in which her Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if she will make a statement. [4528]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department undertakes environmental auditing primarily through environmental appraisal of policies and monitoring performance of green housekeeping matters.

  In respect of environmental appraisal of policies, as my Department operates mainly through a range of non-departmental bodies, they are dealt with by customised guidance. An example is "Option Appraisal of Expenditure Decisions: A Guide for the DNH and its NDPB' s", published in March 1996. Within the key heritage and tourism sectors, planning policy guidance no. 15: "Planning and the Historic Environment", and Planning Policy Guidance no. 21 are relevant.

  In November 1995 in partnership with the English tourist board, the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission, my Department published "Sustainable Rural Tourism: Opportunities for Local Action". This gives practical advice on how to ensure rural tourism is in harmony with the environment.

  As far as green housekeeping is concerned we have published a strategy for our buildings and have targets to reduce energy consumption. There are also several waste minimisation policies to include recycling of paper, glass, plastic cups and cans. We are to purchase a range of greener stationery items.

  British Museum
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the present funding of the British museum to support the staffing levels necessary to fulfil its statutory obligations. [4579]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are still considering the British museum's case for funding. Among many factors to be taken into account will be the recently published report by Mr. Andrew Edwards, which was commissioned by the British museum and commented in some detail on staffing levels at the museum. Grant-in-aid allocations will be announced immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.

  European Union
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of her Department's time and resources are spent dealing with administrative and policy matters connected with British membership of the European Union. [4958]

  Mr. Sproat
  Detailed records are not kept, which would allow such a percentage to be calculated. However, most sections of the Department are involved in some way with European Union business.
  647
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the cost in the last 12 months of sending ministers and officials to meetings in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe in connection with his Department's handling of EU business. [4948]

  Mr. Sproat
  The cost of attendance by Department of National Heritage Ministers and officials during the period 1 November 1995–31 October 1996 at European Union meetings was £48,516.16. This includes travel costs which may be subsequently refunded by the European Commission.

  British Steel Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to promote educational and tourist interest in the British steel industry. [4842]

  Mr. Sproat
  Britain has a unique industrial heritage which is of interest to both domestic and overseas visitors. Funding is made available through the English tourist board and the regional tourist boards for the development and promotion of tourism within England. Through their activities the tourist boards help stimulate interest in a wide range of activities and types of development all over the country, including many industry-based attractions, and the ETB designated 1993 as Industrial Heritage Year.

  Museums and Heritage Centres
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the museums or heritage centres covering the history and national heritage of(a) the rail industry, (b) the coal industry, (c) the car industry and (d) the steel industry. [4841]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Museum and Galleries Commission's DOMUS database identifies the following museums as being wholly or partly devoted to the history of the rail, coach, car or steel industries:

  Railways

  Birmingham Railway Museum

  Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway

  Buckinghamshire Railway Centre

  Cheddleton Railway Centre

  Crail Museum

  Darlington Railway Museum

  Dean Forest Railway Society Museum

  Didcot Railway Centre

  Downpartrick Steam Railway

  East Anglian Railway Museum

  Embsay Steam Railway

  Festiniog Railway Museum

  Foxfield Steam Railway

  Foyle Valley Railway

  Great Western Railway Museum: Thamesdown Museums

  Service

  Irchester Narrow Gauge Railway Museum

  Isle of Wight Steam Railway

  Kidderminster Railway Museum

  Leighton Buzzard Railway Museum

  Midland Railway Centre

  Narrow Gauge Railway Museum

  648

  Newton Abbot Town and Great Western Railway Museum

  The National Railway Museum

  North Norfolk Railway

  North Yorkshire Moors Railway

  Railway Museum, Raven glass

  Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

  Railway Village Museum

  Railworld

  Rutland Railway Museum

  Somerset and Dorset Railway Trust Museum

  Southport Railway Centre

  Stephenson Railway Museum, Tyne and Wear Museums

  Tanfield Railway

  Timothy Hackworth Victorian and Railway Museum

  Winchcombe Railway Museum

  Coal

  Big Pit Mining Museum

  Cyfarthfa Castle Museum and Art Gallery

  Lancashire Mining Museum

  National Coal Mining Museum for England

  Scottish Mining Museum

  Motor Industry and Cars

  Atwell-Wilson Motor Museum

  Automobilia Transport Museum

  Autoworld at the Patrick Collection

  Betws-Y-Coed Motor Museum

  Birmingham Museum of Science and Industry

  Brooklands Museum

  Bugatti Trust

  C. M. Booth Collection of Historic Vehicles

  Dalbeattie Museum Trust Ltd.

  Doune Collection

  Grampian Transport Museum

  Haynes Motor Museum

  Heritage Motor Centre

  Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust

  Jersey Motor Museum

  Lakeland Motor Museum

  Manx Motor Museum

  Museum of British Road Transport

  National Motor Museum

  Newburn Hall Motor Museum

  Totnes Motor Museum

  Steel

  Abbeydale Industrial Hamlet

  Cyfarthfa Castle Museum

  Millom Folk Museum

  Kelharn Island Museum.

  Next year, Science Museum, London, will be opening the "Challenge of Materials Gallery" including exhibits connected with the steel industry.

  There is no definitive listing of heritage centres available held centrally.

  Amsterdam (Wreck)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions her Department has had with the Dutch authorities about the protection of the wreck of the Amsterdam. [4707]
  649
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]The Dutch Government are the owners of the wreck of the Amsterdam and, therefore, have prime responsibility for decisions about its future. However, the Amsterdam is a designated site under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, for which my Department has responsibility. My Department and the Dutch Government, therefore, have discussions as appropriate about the Amsterdam and its protection.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) her Department and (ii) agencies accountable to her Department. [5080]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected twice yearly, in April and October. A joint review of the position by the Treasury and the Department is triggered if these commitments in total exceed 15 per cent. of the Department's discretionary expenditure. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is anticipated to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published n the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the level of public funding for the arts per head of population(a) in the south-west region, and (b) in the rest of Britain. [3179]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]Central Government funding for the arts in Britain, provided through the three arts councils, the Crafts Council and the Government's pairing scheme, amounts to £234 million in 1996–97. Additionally, local authorities spend a similar amount on the arts each year. From these sources the estimate of current level of public funding per capita on the arts in the south-west region is approximately £5.86, compared with an overall average £8.24 for England, Scotland and Wales. In addition, it is anticipated that the arts' share of lottery awards in England, Scotland and Wales will be in the region of £300 million this year, or £5.29 a head. There are also other sources of arts funding generated through Government expenditure: either directly, such as through the BBC—an estimated £300 per annum—or indirectly, such as through European spending programmes. Each of these elements of funding benefits the south-west alongside other areas of Britain.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on plans for regional celebrations of the millennium. [2842]
  650
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]There will be a series of national events in 1998 and 1999 associated with the millennium exhibition. The Millennium Commission has not yet decided what funding it may give to other events. In addition to events supported by the commission, there will be a range of local events, organised and funded by local authorities, local businesses, and local people.

TREASURY

  Agency Co-operation
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 61, if he will make available a list of the projects in hand on closer working between the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency. [3195]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested will shortly be placed in the House Library.

  Utilities Windfall Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effective annual rate of tax on output prices of a utilities windfall tax which is fully passed on to consumers and which raises (i) £3 billion, (2) £5 billion and (3) £10 billion annually from privatised utilities in(a) the water sector, (b) the electricity sector,
  (c) the gas sector, (d) the telecommunications sector, (e) a, b and c and (f) b and c. [3223]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the effect of a utilities windfall tax on output prices is not available and cannot readily be estimated because of the wide range of assumptions that would be involved.

  Suicides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of suicides among under-30s, broken down by gender, in England for each year since 1985. [3833]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many suicides in males and females under 30, took place each year since 1985.
  The figures for England are given in the attached table.

  Suicides1 in the under-30s, 1985–1995

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1985

  770

  184

  1986

  803

  225

  1987

  864

  252

  1988

  990

  227

  1989

  948

  242

  1990

  1,089

  233

  1991

  991

  213

  1992

  1,007

  232

  651

  Suicides1 in the under-30s, 1985–1995

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1993

  939

  224

  1994

  985

  200

  1995

  899

  213

  1 International classification of diseases, 9th revision, codes E950–E959, E980–E989 excl. E988.8.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the impact on employee share ownership plans of the proposal by the accounting standards board to implement its urgent issues task force proposal in respect of employee share schemes; [3899]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the accounting standards board about reporting employee share ownership schemes in profit and loss accounts. [3908]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The take-up of employee share ownership plans will be determined by a wide range of factors and it is not possible to make a precise estimate of the impact on take-up of individual factors. The Treasury has not discussed the UITF proposals with the ASB. However, I understand that the UITF has received a number of representations of concern about the inclusion of save as you earn employee share schemes within the scope of its proposals covering employee share schemes generally.

  Maternal Deaths
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 401, (1) how many of the women whose deaths

  Deaths in England and Wales due to complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium, 1991 to 1993

  Underlying cause of death

  Other mentions

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1991

  1992

  1993

  All countries

  45

  45

  36

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  United Kingdom

  34

  29

  31

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  Republic of Ireland

  —

  1

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  New Commonwealth and Pakistan

  7

  7

  5

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  Other countries

  4

  8

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Unstated countries

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  Unemployment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) percentage and (b) numerical difference in unemployment rates between the United Kingdom and (i) Germany and (ii) France in each of the past 24 months. [4360]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on unemployment in the United Kingdom, Germany and France.
  The information you requested is given in the attached table. This is based on the International Labour Office (ILO) measure of unemployment which provides a like for like basis for international
  652
  in 1991 to 1993 were directly due to maternity were born in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) the new Commonwealth and Pakistan, (d) other countries and (e) unstated countries, as recorded on the death registration; [4491]

  (2) how many of the women whose deaths in 1991 to 1993 were indirectly due to maternity were born in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) the new Commonwealth and Pakistan, (d) other countries and (e) unstated countries, as recorded on the death registration. [4490]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Audrey Wise, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the number deaths in England and Wales to women whose death was directly or indirectly due to maternity for the years 1991–1993.

  The figures requested for direct deaths are shown in the attached table. They cover deaths due to complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium (International Classification of Diseases code 630-76) and are derived from death registrations. The numbers provided differ from those which can be obtained from the Report on the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom 1991–1993. This Enquiry uses information from several different sources. Before 1993, deaths data was only available by underlying cause of death.
  Indirect deaths are deaths resulting from previous existing disease, or disease that developed during pregnancy and which was not due to direct obstetric causes, but which was aggravated by the physiologic effects of pregnancy. These will not necessarily be identified from the death certificate. Therefore they cannot be included in the table.
  comparisons. The ILO measure of unemployment is a count of people without a job who were available to start work in the two weeks following their Labour Force Survey interview and who had either looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview or were waiting to start a job they already obtained.
  Annual average numbers of ILO unemployed in member countries are published by Eurostat in their monthly Unemployment Bulletin, available in the House of Commons Library.

  Seasonally adjusted ILO unemployment September 1994 to September 1996

  Unemployment rate per cent.

  Percentage point difference UK compared with

  UK

  France

  Germany

  France

  Germany

  September 1994

  9.4

  12.2

  8.3

  -2.8

  1.1

  October

  9.2

  12.1

  8.2

  -2.9

  1.0

  November

  9.1

  12.0

  8.2

  -2.9

  0.9

  December

  9.0

  11.9

  8.1

  -2.9

  0.9

  January 1995

  8.9

  11.8

  8.1

  -2.9

  0.8

  February

  8.8

  11.7

  8.1

  -2.9

  0.7

  653

  Seasonally adjusted ILO unemployment September 1994 to September 1996

  Unemployment rate per cent.

  Percentage point difference UK compared with

  UK

  France

  Germany

  France

  Germany

  March

  8.9

  11.6

  8.1

  -2.7

  0.8

  April

  8.8

  11.5

  8.1

  -2.7

  0.7

  May

  8.8

  11.5

  8.1

  -2.7

  0.7

  June

  8.8

  11.4

  8.2

  -2.6

  0.6

  July

  8.8

  11.4

  8.2

  -2.9

  0.5

  August

  8.7

  11.6

  8.2

  -2.9

  0.5

  September

  8.7

  11.6

  8.3

  -2.9

  0.4

  October

  8.7

  11.7

  8.4

  -3.0

  0.3

  November

  8.6

  11.9

  8.5

  -3.3

  0.1

  December

  8.4

  12.0

  8.6

  -3.6

  -0.2

  January 1996

  8.3

  12.0

  8.7

  -3.7

  -0.4

  February

  8.4

  12.1

  8.9

  -3.7

  -0.5

  March

  8.4

  12.1

  9.0

  -3.7

  -0.6

  April

  8.4

  12.1

  8.9

  -3.7

  -0.5

  May

  8.3

  12.2

  8.9

  -3.9

  -0.6

  June

  8.3

  12.3

  8.9

  -4.0

  -0.6

  July

  8.2

  12.3

  8.9

  -4.1

  -0.7

  August

  8.2

  12.4

  8.9

  -4.2

  -0.7

  September

  8.1

  12.5

  9.0

  -4.4

  -0.9

  Source:

  Eurostat (the statistical Office of the European Community, or SOEC).

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4534]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  An environmental assessment using the Building Research Establishment "toolkit" has been carried out at the offices occupied by HM Treasury at Allington Towers in Victoria with a view to accreditation under ISO 14001. Extending the assessment to the main building in Parliament street—Government offices, Great George street—is not cost-effective, given the proposed redevelopment and the short time we expect to remain in the building in its current configuration. We are paying particular attention to the drive for energy efficiency to be fully recognised in the proposed redevelopment where an "excellent" rating under the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method system is required.

  External promotion of environmental auditing is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and the Environment.

  Coinage (Metal Content)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have occurred in the metal content of United Kingdom coinage in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [4817]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  From September 1992 onwards, all 1 p and 2p coins dated 1992 were made of copper-plated steel instead of bronze.

  Transport, Agriculture and Fishing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes in policy his Department has 654
  made during the last 12 months in respect of (a) transport, (b) agriculture and (c) the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement. [5137]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Policy responsibility on transport lies with the Secretary of State for Transport. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for policies on agriculture and fisheries.

  Tax Overpayments
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount spent by his Department on advertising and publicity relating to the opportunities for people to reclaim overpayments in tax; and what proportion of this is specifically targeted at pensioners. [4734]

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1991 the Inland Revenue has had six national publicity initiatives encouraging savers, especially pensioners, who are paying too much tax on their savings income to claim it back. Approximately £12.9 million has been spent during this period on advertising and publicity.

  The campaigns have told savers who are entitled to tax back how to claim, and non-taxpayers to tell their bank and building society not to take tax off in the future.

  Oral Cancer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors have delayed the availability of information regarding the incidence of oral cancer since 1991 as referred to in his answer of 15 October,Official Report, column 837-38. [2725]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]The process of cancer registration in England and Wales is carried out by 11 regional cancer registries, over which the Office for National Statistics has no statutory or managerial control. The process of registration is often very complex and often delayed pending the completion of treatment. ONS can only produce national results once the information is available from all registries. Several have introduced new computer systems and ONS is developing its processes which should help to enable overall figures to be produced more quickly.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list figures for the number and percentage of the(a) male,(b) female and (c) total work force who have experienced at least one spell of unemployment since (i) autumn 1990 and (ii) spring 1992, and if he will provide figures by region; [2818]

  (2) if he will list the number and percentage of the work force in each of the main occupational categories who have experienced at least one spell of unemployment since (a) autumn 1990 and (b) spring 1992. [2819]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  655
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Hain, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions 2818 and 2819 on spells of claimant unemployment.
  The available data relate to Great Britain and are shown in the attached tables. National figures are expressed as a percentage of the working age population—regional denominators are not available. Equivalent figures do not exist on the number of people who have ever been in the workforce.
  Occupational information is only available from January 1995 and therefore does not cover the period requested.

  Number of people in Great Britain who have experienced at least one spell of claimant unemployment since 1 September 1990 and 12 September 1996, by sex and region

  Thousands

  Region

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Greater London

  1,175.8

  665.9

  1,841.7

  Rest of South East

  1,202.6

  638.4

  1,841.0

  East Anglia

  246.0

  135.4

  381.4

  South West

  601.5

  338.1

  939.6

  West Midlands

  703.9

  385.7

  1,089.6

  East Midlands

  499.7

  273.4

  773.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  679.8

  368.8

  1,048.6

  North West

  897.6

  482.3

  1,379.9

  North

  439.5

  227.5

  667.0

  Wales

  372.7

  196.7

  569.4

  Scotland

  702.5

  405.0

  1,107.5

  Great Britain

  7,512.8

  4,117.2

  11,638.9

  Percentage of the working age population in Great Britain who have experienced at least one spell of claimant unemployment since 1990 to 1996, by sex

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Great Britain

  37

  22

  30

  Number of people in Great Britain who have experienced at least one spell of claimant unemployment since 1 April 1992 and 12 September 1996, by sex and region

  thousands

  Region

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Greater London

  1,037.9

  559.0

  1,596.9

  Rest of South East

  1,050.0

  530.7

  1,580.7

  East Anglia

  215.9

  112.9

  328.7

  South West

  525.9

  279.0

  804.9

  West Midlands

  617.9

  316.7

  934.6

  East Midlands

  438.8

  225.5

  664.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  595.1

  300.7

  895.8

  North West

  779,4

  388.6

  1,168.0

  North

  389.3

  183.0

  572.3

  Wales

  322.3

  160.9

  483.2

  Scotland

  617.1

  327.6

  944.7

  Great Britain

  6,589.5

  3,384.5

  9,974.0

  656

  Percentage of the working age population in Great Britain who have experienced at least one spell of claimant unemployment since 1992 to 1996, by sex

  Males

  Females

  Total

  Great Britain

  34

  19

  27

  Earnings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the number of people under the age of 25 years who earn less than(a) £2.50, (b) —3.00, (c)£3.50, (d) £4.00 and (e) £4.50 per hour; and if he will make a statement; [3084]

  (2) if he will list the number of people, by gender, who earn less than (a) £2.50, (b) £3.00, (c) £3.50, (d) £4.00 and (e) £4.50 per hour; and if he will make a statement. [3085]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 November 1996]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions on earnings distributions by hour and gender in Great Britain.
  The latest information, from the Labour Force Survey, is shown in the table below.

  Labour force survey, spring 1996—Great Britain

  Number of employees earning less than:

  All aged under 25 years

  All males

  All females

  £2.50

  439,000

  354,000

  549,000

  £3.00

  847,000

  663,000

  1,074,000

  £3.50

  1,306,000

  1,095,000

  2,135,000

  £4.00

  1,739,000

  1,688,000

  3,275,000

  £4.50

  2,176,000

  2,410,000

  435,000

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates of the expenditure on external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [4065]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 November 1996]I refer the hon. Member to the letter that I have today sent in reply to the identical question that he tabled at the end of the 1995–96 Session. I have placed a copy of my letter in the Members' Library.

  Income Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) investment and (b) earned income in (i) 1979–80 and (ii) 1995–96 for each income decile group. [4471]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Investment income and earned income in 1979 and 1994–95 for each income decile group

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  6th

  7th

  8th

  9th

  Top

  1979

  Earned income

  350

  700

  1,650

  3,100

  4,340

  5,200

  6,210

  7,390

  8,090

  10,830

  Investment income

  70

  50

  80

  110

  110

  130

  150

  190

  260

  590

  1994–95

  Earned income

  1,060

  1,840

  3,070

  5,640

  9,160

  13,620

  17,810

  21,540

  26,480

  44,250

  Investment income

  160

  170

  210

  320

  440

  570

  740

  860

  1,240

  3,600

  Average per household (£ per year, rounded to nearest £10).

  Drug-resistant Infections (Mortality)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the mortality rates for(a) multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis, (b) methycillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus and (c) vancomycin-resistant enterococci. [4664]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 19 November 1996:]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on mortality rates for multi-drug resistant TB, MRSA, and vancomycin resistant enterococci.
  Multi-drug resistant TB, and deaths due to MRSA or vancomycin resistant enterococci do not have distinct codes within the revision of the International Classification of Diseases used for encoding death registration data at the Office for National Statistics, and therefore there are no centrally held statistics on deaths from these causes.

WALES

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4535]
  658
  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Dawn Primarolo, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the investment income and the earned income in 1979–80 and 1995–96 for each income decile group.
  The figures requested are shown in the attached table. The figures are derived from the analysis of the effects of taxes and benefits on household income which is based on the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). No figures are available for 1979–80 as the FES was on a calender year basis at that time. The latest information available is for the fiscal year 1994–95. The figures show the mean incomes at current prices for decile groups of households ranked by equivalised disposable income. The figures are not strictly comparable over time because of changes in classification of income and because of changes in the FES.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Welsh Office aims to reduce the impact of its own activities on the environment and to improve the management of its own resources. Energy surveying and auditing is a well established feature of the Department's green housekeeping strategy. All Welsh Office properties have been surveyed and the resulting recommendations implemented. Improvements include draughtproofing and thermal insulation; modifications to air conditioning and heating controls; new energy efficient lighting and automatic lighting control systems.

  The Welsh Office has also examined a wide range of its other domestic activity and resulting annual action plans have included measures to reduce environmental effects in the key areas of water conservation; waste management; greener vehicles; ozone-depleting substances; efficient paper use and through raising staff awareness.

  As with other Departments, the Welsh Office ensures that its policies and programmes take proper account of environmental concerns in accordance with the 1990 Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy" published in 1994. My right hon. Friend is the Department's green Minister and the Welsh Office is contributing to the booklet of case studies which green Ministers intend to publish in the new year showing good examples of environmental appraisal.

  The Department published a booklet in September 1994 entitled "Selling to the Welsh Office - A Green Guide for suppliers of Goods and Services to the Welsh Office"

  659
  which is sent with all invitations to tender. Potential suppliers are asked what action they are taking to obtain BS7750.

  The Welsh Office actively encourages environmental management and auditing more widely. It promotes the EC eco-management and audit scheme—EMAS—and the availability of grant aid for small companies under the SCEEMAS scheme. In March, my right hon. Friend launched the business and the environment campaign. The campaign aims to raise awareness of environmental issues and of the commercial advantages of good environmental management including the opportunities for financial savings; promote the increased take-up of environmental services; and encourage firms to undertake best practice in environmental management. As part of the campaign, the Welsh Office is working closely with Arena Network, a non-profit making organisation set up to raise business awareness and to provide advice to companies on environmental issues.

  Arena now has around 300 Welsh member companies and, with Welsh Office support, is developing a portfolio of training activities and project work with local business groups. The Welsh Office is also collaborating with Arena, the environmental technology support unit, the environmental technology best practice programme and other organisations on the provision of environmental best practice seminars and workshops for business.

  The Welsh Office also promotes improved efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing by supporting the River Dee waste minimisation project which involves 14 companies auditing their use of energy, water and materials and identifying ways of minimising waste generation. The project was launched in May 1995 and has already identified areas for substantial savings.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the current number of women who are head teachers in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sectors; and if he will make a statement. [4936]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There were 769 female head teachers in primary schools and 26 in secondary schools at January 1996 according to the results of the schools census.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4996]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office already has accruals accounting systems in place and is trialling the production of resource accounts at present. The Department, in common with others, is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the year 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the Department and all other Departments will be in respect of 1999–2000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what have been the legal costs met from public purse in respect of claims for compensation for people whose convictions were obtained with the help of evidence from the west midlands serious crimes squad and which were subsequently quashed in the Court of Appeal(a) in total and (b) for each case. [4999]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4979]

  Mr. Streeter
  My officials are working closely with the Treasury towards the introduction of resource accounting. Systems to provide the information necessary for resource accounting are being procured through the private finance initiative. We plan to award the contract in August 1997. Resource accounts will then be produced and audited for 1998–99. Subject to our, and the National Audit Office's, satisfaction the first published account will be for the financial year 1999–2000.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4536]

  Mr. Streeter
  My Department's areas of policy responsibility do not have major environmental impact. Environmental efficiency initiatives therefore concentrate on our impact as a consumer. The Department continues to improve energy efficiency. Both the Department and the Court Service have signed the declaration of corporate commitment to energy efficiency. There is an ongoing programme to maintain, and where appropriate upgrade, the historic buildings on our estate. The design of new court buildings takes full account of environmental concerns, particularly by requiring designs to obtain a "very good" marking under the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method. Energy audits and environmental assessments have been commissioned for over 70 of our largest court buildings. The procurement of goods and services takes all reasonable steps to maximise the use of recycled and renewable resources.

  The Department is now looking to develop initiatives in other areas of green housekeeping, particularly through a pilot waste audit as a first step to setting waste reduction targets by the end of this year, and investigating extending our sensitive waste collection contracts to increase recycling.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will respond to the recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott concerning inquiry procedures. [5827]

  Mr. Streeter
  In February this year the Lord Chancellor invited public comment on Sir Richard Scott's recommendations on public inquiry procedures. The Lord Chancellor was grateful for the 33 responses received, which were referred to the Council on Tribunals—the independent advisory body set up in 1958 following the Franks report on administrative tribunals and inquiries—by a reference in the following terms:"To consider and advise on the procedural issues that arise in the conduct of public inquiries set up by Ministers to investigate particular matters of public concern, having regard to the recommendations made in Sir Richard Scott's report, and to the views on those recommendations that have since been expressed."
  The council has now submitted its advice on the issues raised in respect of inquiry procedures in the Scott report and in the consultation. The Lord Chancellor was most grateful to the Council on Tribunals for this authoritative advice, which will be of considerable value when setting up inquiries. The advice is expressed in broad terms which enables general application, and therefore refers only briefly to other proceedings which might affect the procedural aspects of such inquiries, such as for example, coroners' inquests or, in Scotland, fatal accident inquiries.
  Copies of the council's advice have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Additional copies will be available from my Department on request. The council's advice and the Lord Chancellor's statement today constitute the Government's response to Sir Richard Scott's recommendations about inquiry procedures.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Pistols
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents have occurred since 1976 where pistols licensed only for target shooting have been used illegally. [4455]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Chief Constable has now advised me that the information needed to answer this question is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Higher Education
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage change in spending per student in higher education between 1989–90 and 1995–96 in Northern Ireland. [4637]

  Mr. Ancram
  Spending per full-time equivalent student at Northern Ireland universities, based on constant prices and excluding student support, decreased by 18 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1994–95.

  Spending per initial teacher training student at Northern Ireland colleges of education, based on constant prices, increased by 1.8 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1994–95.

  Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland remained in full-time education in each of the last five years. [4634]
  662
  Mr. Ancram
  The percentage of 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland remaining in full-time education in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1991: 69 per cent.

  1992: 75 per cent.

  1993: 79 per cent.

  1994: 78 per cent.

  1995: 76 per cent.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the percentage of post-16-year-olds in full-time education in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [5024]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information, which is available only for post-16-year-olds of working age—men 16 to 64 and women 16 to 59—is as follows:

  post-16-year-olds in full-time education (Per cent.)

  spring 1987

  6.5

  Spring 1988

  6.4

  Spring 1989

  7.1

  Spring 1990

  7.0

  Spring 1991

  7.6

  Spring 1992

  7.6

  Spring 1993

  7.7

  Spring 1994

  9.0

  Spring 1995

  9.2

  Spring 1996

  8.9

  Source:

  Northern Ireland Labour Force Survey, spring 1987-spring 1996.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing: and if he will make a statement. [4529]

  Mr. Ancram
  All Northern Ireland Departments have produced green housekeeping action plans and the industrial research and technology unit of the Department of Economic Development has applied for accreditation BS 7750.

  (a) The Department of Economic Development provides financial assistance to industry and commerce in Northern Ireland for environmental auditing and environmental management leading to the adoption of standards such as BS 7750 or ISO 14001 or participation in the EC eco-management and audit scheme EMAS.

  (b) The Department also promotes the benefits of environmental auditing and consequential action through the publication of case study booklets and liaison with industry groups.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage change there has been in Northern Ireland's manufacturing output between 1975 and 1995. [4633]
  663
  Mr. Ancram
  Over the period 1975 to 1995 manufacturing output in Northern Ireland has increased by 28.3 per cent.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the Northern Ireland work force has no vocational qualifications. [4639]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not possible to identify a definitive list of qualifications which are purely vocational as many—for example, higher and first degrees—come in both vocational and academic form. At winter 1995–96, the latest date for which figures are available, approximately 24 per cent. of the Northern Ireland work force had no formal qualifications of any kind.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of people work in Northern Ireland are in part-time employment; and of these, what percentage are(a) women, (b) men and (c) aged between 18 and 25 years. [5026]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 22 per cent. of people working in Northern Ireland are in part-time employment. Of these, 85 per cent. are women, 15 per cent. are men and 14 per cent. are aged between 18 and 25 years.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have no qualifications; and of these, how many are aged between 18 and 25 years. [5022]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information obtained from the spring 1996 labour force survey shows that there are approximately 299,000 people of working age in Northern Ireland with no formal qualifications. Of these almost 29,000 are between 18 and 25 years of age.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 18 to 25-year-old(a) men and (b) women in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for (i) more than six months and (ii) more than one year. [5028]

  Mr. Ancram
  The latest available information relates to 10 October 1996 and is as follows:

  Claimants aged 18-24

  Men

  Women

  Unemployed for six months or more

  6,677

  2,158

  Unemployed for one year or more

  4,261

  1,285

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the population of Northern Ireland who are without any qualifications are unemployed. [5023]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information obtained from the spring 1996 labour force survey shows that approximately 10 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population of working age who have no qualifications are unemployed—International Labour Organisation definition.
  664
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 18 to 25-year-olds in Northern Ireland are(a) men and (b) women; and how many in, and what percentage of, each group are unemployed. [5029]

  Mr. Ancram
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  (i) Number of 18 to 24-year-olds (1995 mid-year estimates)

  91,223

  83,998

  (ii) Number of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed on 10 October 1996

  13,792

  6,615

  (iii) (ii) as a percentage of (i)

  15.1 per cent.

  7.9 per cent.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4989]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office continue to progress their plans for the implementation of the changes necessary to support the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting. The Departments are in the course of introducing systems which will enable resource accounts to be published and laid before Parliament for the year 1999–2000.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums were spent on the preparatory departments of voluntary and other grammar schools in the most recent year of which figures are available; and for what purposes such money was provided. [4917]

  Mr. Ancram
  The most recent year for which figures are available is the 1995–96 financial year and the table details the sums spent:

  £

  Voluntary grammar schools

  1,316,162

  Controlled grammar schools

  172,060

  Under the local management of schools formula funding arrangements, financial contributions to preparatory departments are restricted to 40 per cent. of the teaching costs. All other costs are met by parental contribution.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what activities of voluntary grammar schools are funded by the Department of Education through its funding formulae that are not funded by education and library boards in their funding formulae. [4918]
  665
  Mr. Ancram
  The funding arrangements for voluntary grammar schools allow for all expenditure relating to maintenance and equipment to be delegated to schools whereas education and library boards handle some of the costs centrally for controlled and maintained schools. The voluntary grammar school arrangements also allow for the payment of VAT and some other costs such as insurance which do not arise in controlled and maintained schools.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed and how much money is spent by the Department of Education in administering(a) higher education and (b) further education. [4919]

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

  Pupils
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there are at(a) controlled and (b) maintained schools, at (i) primary and (ii) secondary level (1) currently, (2) in five and (3) in 10 years' time. [4920]

  Mr. Ancram
  Details of the enrolments for(a) controlled and (b) maintained schools at (i) primary and (ii) secondary level are as follows:

  Enrolments 1995–96

  Controlled

  Maintained

  Primary

  89,674

  92,769

  Secondary

  55,289

  49,199

  Note:

  Voluntary grammar schools are excluded.

  School population projections are not available by school management type.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4991]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office will be introducing its resource accounting system on 1 April 1998. The Department, in common with others, is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the year 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the Department and all other departments will be in respect of 1999–2000.

  Government Opportunities Report
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the 1996 Government opportunities special report will be published. [5773]

  Mr. Freeman
  The 1996 Government opportunities special report is being published today. The report shows that opening up government activities to competition and private sector involvement under the competing for 666
  quality programme has led to savings to the taxpayer of over £700 million each year. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5089]

  Mr. Willetts
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]The Government response to the Treasury Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed on the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is anticipated to arise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Civil Service (Nationality Restrictions)
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what were the Government's objectives in introducing nationality restrictions on employment in the civil service in June 1996; [5248]

  (2) if the Government will scrap the nationality bar and restore the rights of Irish and Commonwealth citizens in applying for civil service posts; [5249]

  (3) what legal provisions govern the rights of Irish and Commonwealth citizens to apply for posts in the UK civil service. [5250]

  Mr. Freeman
  The changes announced in my written answer to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 1 March 1996,Official Report, column 771, took effect on 1 June 1996 and I have no plans to reverse them.

  The legal provisions governing the rights of Irish and Commonwealth citizens to apply for posts in the UK civil service are as follows. The Aliens' Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 prohibits the appointment of any alien.
  "to any office or place in the Civil Service of the State".
  Because of Great Britain's historic connections with Ireland and the Commonwealth, the definition of "alien" did not include British protected persons or the Irish, even when the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1948. Civil service posts were accordingly open to Commonwealth nationals and citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Having regard to the conditions at the time of their enactment, the concept of "alien" in the 1919 Act included those who are now nationals of European Economic Area member states. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, an "alien" is
  "a person who is neither a Community citizen nor a British protected person nor a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".

  The June 1996 changes were made under the Minister's powers in the Civil Service Order in Council in order to protect the UK's right, which every other EEA member state has, to be able to reserve its core posts for its own nationals.

SCOTLAND

  Government Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the share for Scotland of the United Kingdom's general Government borrowing requirement for each year from 1979–80 to 1994–95 expressed in 1996–97 prices. [1365]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  Approximate estimates of the general Government borrowing requirement for Scotland in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are published in the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" annual report. Figures for the complete period back to 1979–80 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Firearms
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many offences involving the discharge of a firearm took place in each year in Scotland since 1966; [4351]

  (2) how many offences involving the carrying of a firearm took place in each year in Scotland since 1966. [4352]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detailed statistics on offences involving firearms in Scotland have been collected since 1978. The following table provides the available information:

  Offences involving firearms, Scotland, 1978–95

  Number of offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used

  Number of offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been fired

  1978

  492

  388

  1979

  682

  564

  1980

  1,093

  939

  1981

  1,314

  1,150

  1982

  1,283

  1,058

  1983

  1,336

  1,081

  1984

  1,353

  1,110

  1985

  1,675

  1,352

  1986

  1,525

  1,189

  1987

  1,429

  1,084

  1988

  1,159

  843

  1989

  151,479

  1,001

  1990

  1,495

  1,072

  1991

  1,921

  1,191

  1992

  1,959

  1,170

  1993

  1,773

  1,057

  1994

  1,788

  1,052

  1995

  1,715

  1,219

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many handgun licences have been registered in each year in Scotland since 1966; [4353]

  (2) how many handgun licences are currently registered in Scotland. [4354]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of firearms certificates on issue allowing the holder to possess a handgun is not routinely collected by the Scottish Office. Individual certificates are 668
  administered by police forces. Although annual statistical returns are made, there is no routine collection of the number of firearms certificates which allow the holder to possess a handgun. A special exercise was, however, conducted recently which showed that, at the beginning of 1996, approximately 3,230 firearms certificates current in Scotland allowed the holder to possess a handgun.

  Further information on this matter is available at annexe A, table 7, of the Government's submission to Lord Cullen's inquiry into the shootings at Dunblane primary school, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Fisheries Assistance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received since 1 July 1994 for financial assistance under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance from(a) Orkney and (b) Shetland; how many have been approved; and what is their grant value. [4847]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1 July 1994, the Scottish Office has received 18 applications from Orkney, of which 13 were awarded grant aid totalling £1.173 million, and 37 applications from Shetland, of which 13 were awarded a total of £0.987 million.

  Four applications from Orkney and eight from Shetland are currently being considered for grant in the next round of awards.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress(a) his and (b) the Lord Advocate's Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and, in each case, in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4997]

  Mr. James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office commissioned a new accounting system on 1 April 1996 capable of handling accruals accounting. Good progress is being made on introducing accounting for fixed assets, and on attaching expenditure to objectives, as required by schedule 5 to the proposed accounts, and the Scottish Office will be introducing its resource accounting system during 1997–98.

  The Lord Advocate's Department, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, will be introducing its resource accounting system in April 1998.

  Both Departments in common with others, are preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the year 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929 the first published resource accounts for the Departments and all other Departments will be in respect of 1999–2000.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 October,Official Report, column 1142, when he will supply the information requested. [5658]
  669
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I wrote to the hon. Member on Tuesday 19 November 1996.

  European Structural Fund
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much European structural fund assistance has recently been awarded to the Dumfries and Galloway objective 5b area; and if he will make a statement. [5717]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce that on 14 November, I approved a further £5 million of European funding to 54 projects in the Dumfries and Galloway 5b area.

  In total, some £25 million of the available funds have now been committed to projects in the area, which are targeted at promoting economic development. This will be matched by funding from local project sponsors and will deliver over £50 million worth of investment.

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends formally to issue the guidance that he is required to give to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency under section 31 of the Environment Act 1995. [5718]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A draft of the guidance which I am required under section 31 of the Environment Act 1995 to give to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on its objectives, including the contribution it is to make towards the achievement of sustainable development, has been laid before the House for the required period of 40 sitting days. This guidance is being issued to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency today.

  I am also formally issuing to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency a management statement which summarises Ministers' aims and objectives for the agency, its duties, powers and responsibilities, and its relationship with Ministers, Government Departments and other bodies.

  An explanatory document which restates the principles of sustainable development, provides non statutory guidance on particular functions and offers a commentary on the agency's duty to take account of likely costs and benefits is also being provided to the agency.

  Copies of these documents are being placed in the Library.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much money the Forestry Commission(a) received from the sale of land and (b) spent on acquiring land in each financial year since 1980–81; and how much it is forecast to (i) receive and (ii) spend on the sale and acquisition of land in the current financial year; [2893]

  (2) how many hectares of land were (a) bought and (b) sold by the Forestry Commission in each financial year since 1980–81; and how many are forecast to be (i) bought and (ii) sold for each region in Scotland and county in England and Wales in the current financial year. [2894]
  670
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 November 1996]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 21 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Questions about Forestry Commission acquisitions and disposals.
  I enclose at Annex A a list of disposal receipts for the sale of all types of Forestry Commission land and properties since 1981. including the forecast for 1996–97.
  I enclose at Annex B a list of the total monies spent on acquiring land and other interests from 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1996, together with the forecast for 1996–97. We only hold information on the total amount of money spent on the acquisition of land and other interests for the financial years 1986–87 onwards.
  I enclose at Annex C a list of the area of land acquired by the Forestry Commission each year since 1980–81. Annex D gives a similar list of the Commission's disposals.
  The Commission plans to sell 14,000 hectares of forest land in Britain in the current financial year. The proportion of this that will be sold in each region in Scotland and county in England and Wales will depend on the state of the market, particularly the demand for forest land in different parts of Britain.
  Acquisitions of land are to a large measure opportunistic, depending on the market, and again a forecast for each region or county is not possible.

  Annex A: Sales of Forestry Commission properties (including woodland areas) by year: £ million

  Year ended 31 March

  Total receipts (£million)

  1981

  4.5

  1982

  6.9

  1983

  14.6

  1984

  23.6

  1985

  22.1

  1986

  17.0

  1987

  14.7

  1988

  13.1

  1989

  12.4

  1990

  13.0

  1991

  12.0

  1992

  14.5

  1993

  9.9

  1994

  17.4

  1995

  14.6

  1996

  120.0

  1Forecast

  Annex B: Forestry Commission acquisitions of land and other interests by year: £

  Year ended 31 March

  £

  1987

  1,392,890

  1988

  1,101,895

  1989

  898,225

  1990

  161,001

  1991

  1,616,390

  1992

  1,123,541

  1993

  494,033

  1994

  493,901

  1995

  210,001

  1996

  111,371

  1997

  1200,000

  1 Forecast.

  671

  Annex C: Forestry Commission acquisitions of land by year: hectares

  Year ended 31 March

  Hectares

  1981

  2,031

  1982

  5,064

  1983

  4,432

  1984

  2,870

  1985

  902

  1986

  1,189

  1987

  3,697

  1988

  1,718

  1989

  2,312

  1990

  505

  1991

  2,970

  1992

  1,920

  1993

  333

  1994

  379

  1995

  486

  1996

  29

  Annex D: Sales of Forestry Commission properties (including woodland areas) by year: hectares

  Year ended 31 March

  All land (hectares)

  Forestry land (hectares)

  1981

  2,240

  688

  1982

  10,423

  2,347

  1983

  12,108

  6,632

  1984

  44,570

  16,507

  1985

  28,857

  16.072

  1986

  16,573

  8,314

  1987

  10, 956

  6,186

  1988

  8,929

  6,387

  1989

  7,675

  4,328

  1990

  7,851

  5,559

  1991

  7,428

  4,770

  1992

  6,911

  6,263

  1993

  10,589

  6,827

  1994

  14,950

  14,419

  1995

  10,808

  10,014

  1996

  9.088

  8,217

  Beaufort's Dyke (Munitions Dumping)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland when Ministers received the initial report of the second survey by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen on the munitions and other materials dumped in the vicinity of Beaufort's Dyke; for what reasons the proposed date of publication of late September has not been adhered to; when the report will be published; what arrangements he has made for (i) publishing the report and (ii) meeting with interested hon. Members to discuss its content and follow up; and if he will make a statement. [4437]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend has yet to receive the report of the second survey of Beaufort's Dyke by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen. Analysis of the large volumes of data collected during the survey is continuing. It is expected that the report will be published before the end of November and copies will be sent to interested hon. Members on the date of publication. This adheres to the timetable envisaged.

  My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment has already agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the report once it is published.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5078]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: The Government response to the Treasury Select Committee report on the private finance initiative agreed the importance of collecting and monitoring information on future spending commitments arising from contracts under the private finance initiative. Such information is now being collected. The response stated that aggregate projections of the level of expenditure that is anticipated to rise from signed contracts under the initiative would be published in the 1997–98 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Kilwinning Plant Closure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between his Department and(a) Robert Wilson and Sons Ltd. and (b) Hillsdown Ambient Foods Group Ltd. relating to the closure of their Kilwinning plant. [5045]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: Following the announcement by Hillsdown Holdings of its proposal to close its subsidiary Robert Wilson and Sons at Kilwinning, my officials contacted Robert Wilson and Sons to discuss the implications of this decision and the scope for providing assistance towards a project to retain production at Kilwinning. Officials from Enterprise Ayrshire were also closely in touch with local management over this period. However, discussions with the company and its parent company quickly revealed that there was no prospect of the closure decision being reversed. Enterprise Ayrshire has since concentrated its efforts on making available to those affected by the announcement its full range of counselling and training services.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next proposes to visit the Robert Wilsons and Sons Ltd. factory in Kilwinning. [5047]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit this company.

  Factory Closures (North Ayrshire)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional measures he intends to introduce to mitigate the impact of the closure of factories during the last 12 months within the north Ayrshire area. [5049]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce additional measures, since our existing policies are working successfully. These policies place responsibility for economic regeneration primarily with the local enterprise companies, in this case Enterprise Ayrshire. The measures necessary to address the economic impact of factory closures are among those considered closely by Scottish Enterprise when allocating enterprise company budgets. Enterprise Ayrshire and its partners are currently involved in a wide range of projects designed to stimulate the

  673
  economy of North Ayrshire and improve the competitiveness of its companies. In addition, Irvine travel-to-work area, covering most of North Ayrshire, continues to benefit from development area status.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  Mr. Clifton Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will continue to extend financial support to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, with special reference to its work in China; and if he will make a statement. [5376]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We recognise that the International Planned Parenthood Federation does valuable work throughout the world to promote reproductive health and provide effective assistance to family planning associations. We shall continue to provide financial support to IPPF from the overseas development programme, subject to the availability of resources and remaining satisfied with the value for money from our investments.

  The China Family Planning Association is one of the many affiliates with which IPPF works and we have been keen to know more about the difference that IPPF and CFPA have been able to make to reproductive choice in China. The Overseas Development Administration therefore recently commissioned a review of the role of IPPF in China and its work with the CFPA. A copy of the consultants' report has been placed in the Library.

  We regard this examination, led on ODA's behalf by a highly respected and authoritative expert in the population field, as an informed, balanced and realistic assessment. It concludes that IPPF has been able to play an effective and valuable role in influencing CFPA in the development of the kind of activities and role that we would expect of a non-governmental organisation. However, we should recognise that there is still clearly a long way to go.

  We accept the review's conclusion that the influence of IPPF has been a force for positive change, and that the continued involvement of IPPF in China will be beneficial in helping CFPA further. These conclusions support our long-held view that it is better that organisations such as IPPF should be engaged and working to influence from within, and is the course that we believe most likely to produce the outcomes that we all seek. We shall expect IPPF to continue its efforts in this regard and be able to better demonstrate the difference it makes. We will maintain a close interest in its future work in China.

  We do not envisage changing the general principle of the present funding arrangements under which our annual core grant is provided to support the work of IPPF throughout the world, and is not usually designated for use in particular countries. Exceptions to this principle will concern only those countries where we have bilateral programmes in reproductive health, which does not include China.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Agency Letters
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions(a) non-departmental public bodies and (b) executive agencies responsible to his Department, have provided answers by letter, copied to the Library but not published in the Official Report in each of the last two years. [3157]

  Mr. Lang
  Records of the number of such answers are not readily available.

  When appropriate, Ministers ask non-departmental public bodies to reply directly by letter to Members and these requests are recorded in the answer given to Members which is published in the Official Report. There are currently no arrangements either to copy the letters to the Library of the House or to publish them in the Official Report.

  However, when Members ask questions relating to the day to day operations of my Department's executive agencies, the Minister will ask the chief executive to respond and in all instances copies of the letters will be published in the Official Report underneath the Minister's answer.

  Dounreay Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the statements by Mr. Gay Mitchell, President in Office for the Council of Ministers at the Council question time in the European Parliament on 13 November in respect of an environmental audit of Dounreay. [5003]

  Mr. Page
  The President in Office of the Council of Ministers appears to share my view about the overriding importance of the health and safety of workers and the general public. Because safety is paramount Dounreay is subject to rigorous independent regulation by Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency: consequently, there is no need for the Commission to undertake an environmental audit, and it has no powers to do so.

  Coal Mining Industry
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask the chairman of the British Coal Corporation to reply to the letters of 15 August and 9 October from the hon. Member for Normanton. [4787]

  Mr. Page
  I understand that the chairman of British Coal replied to the hon. Member yesterday.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries are the main exporters of coal to the United Kingdom; and how much each exported to the United Kingdom in the most recent year for which statistics are available. [5183]
  675
  Mr. Page
  Imports of coal into the United Kingdom in 1995 were from the following countries:

  Thousand tonnes

  United States of America

  4,858

  Australia

  3,641

  Colombia

  2,687

  Canada

  1,364

  Republic of South Africa

  1,313

  Poland

  1,274

  European Union1

  283

  Russia

  160

  Vietnam

  101

  People's Republic of China

  77

  Norway

  2

  Other countries

  136

  Total

  15,896

  Note:

  1 Includes extra EU coal routed through the Netherlands.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise figures from the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1996.

  Industrial Tribunals (Race Relations Experts)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy in respect of industrial tribunals to ensure that at least one member with special knowledge or experience of race relations in the employment field should sit on a tribunal in a case of alleged race discrimination; and on what grounds. [5362]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The selection of members of individual tribunals is a matter for the presidents of the industrial tribunals and their regional chairmen. However in accordance with the declaration of intent given by Lord Jacques in the House of Lords on 15 October 1976,Official Report, columns 725–26, during the passage of the Race Relations Bill the Presidents have made administrative arrangements so that wherever possible a member who has special knowledge or experience of race relations in the employment field will sit on tribunals hearing cases where racial discrimination is alleged by the applicant from the outset.

  Liquidators
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are in place to ensure there is transparency concerning liquidators' fees and expenses. [5457]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In any liquidation of an insolvent company the creditors acting through a liquidation committee or in general meeting may determine the level of remuneration to be paid to the liquidator. In order to be able to make an informed judgment concerning a liquidator's remuneration creditors need information as to the conduct and progress of the proceedings and insolvency practitioners therefore have an obligation to ensure that creditors are provided with such information. In this regard I was pleased to note the issue of statement of insolvency practice No. 9 by the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency which dealt with this issue and urged on the profession the maximum transparency in and about the setting of fees. That guidance has been adopted by the recognised professional bodies and is therefore now a standard against which future professional conduct can be measured.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the fees and expenses of Deloitte and Touche in the English liquidation of BCCI to date. [5456]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The totals of the UK liquidator's remuneration and expenses in the period to 15 January 1996, the date to which the liquidators last annual report was made up, were respectively US$203.6 million and US$6 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the current estimates in terms of timing and percentage amounts of dividend payments for BCCI creditors; what is the current estimate of the aggregate total of dividends to BCCI creditors which will be paid; and by when they are expected to have been paid. [5451]

  Mr. Taylor
  The liquidators plan to pay a dividend of 24.5 per cent. on 10 December 1996. They hope to pay a further substantial dividend in 1997.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of expenditure authorised by him on request from the liquidators of BCCI before the election of the creditors committee. [5297]

  Mr. Taylor
  In a winding up by the court there is initially no liquidation committee; section 141(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that the functions of the committee are vested in the Secretary of State. These functions relate principally to the granting of sanction to the liquidators to compromise debts, to bring or defend legal proceedings on behalf of the company and to carry on its business so far as may be necessary for the beneficial winding up of the company's affairs.

  In the period prior to the formal establishment of the liquidation committee—that is, between 14 January, the date of the winding-up order made against BCCI (SA), and June 1993—sanction to commence legal proceedings was given in 1,388 cases, including 933 cases in which proceedings were to be issued against credit card debtors. In addition to those sanctions in respect of legal proceedings, numerous compromises of debts due to the company were also sanctioned.

  Where the liquidators invited the Secretary of State to grant such sanctions, the matters had previously been referred to and approved by the informal creditors committee which existed at that time unless the amounts involved were lower than the de minimis level set by the informal creditors committee. The extent of the expenditure involved in the bringing of the sanctioned legal proceedings could only be calculated at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the procedure for the proper regulation and monitoring of costs in the English liquidation of BCCI. [5455]

  Mr. Taylor
  These are matters which the liquidation committee appointed by the creditors consider on a regular basis. Where any person is aggrieved by any act or decision of the liquidator they may apply to the court.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the liquidators of BCCI. [5296]
  677
  Mr. Taylor
  My officials last met the UK joint liquidators of BCCI (SA) on 6 September 1996.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the costs of the English BCCI liquidation to date. [5454]

  Mr. Taylor
  Payments out of the UK liquidation in the period to 15 January 1996, the date to which the liquidators last annual report was made up, totalled US $491.5 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the worldwide assets of the BCCI companies, excluding those countries which have ring-fenced their assets; what proportion of the assets is available for distribution to creditors; and what factors have led to the remaining assets being unavailable for distribution. [5450]

  (2) what is the aggregate amount for which proofs of debt have been received worldwide, excluding duplicate proofs of debt and proof of debts submitted in countries which have ring-fenced; and what proportion of the amount is disputed; [5449]

  (3) what are the global costs of Deloitte and Touche's fees in respect of the BCCI liquidation to date; [5453]

  (4) what are the total worldwide liabilities of the BCCI companies, excluding those countries which have ring-fenced their assets; [5448]

  (5) what are the global costs of the BCCI liquidation to date. [5452]

  Mr. Taylor
  These are matters for the liquidators in the various jurisdictions.

  Textiles
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which countries are proposing to amend the list of textiles and clothing products currently not integrated into the normal GATT 1994 rules. [5472]

  Mr. Nelson
  Stage 2 of the agreed four-stage phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement requires that on 1 January 1998, all members of the World Trade Organisation which maintain restrictions on textile and clothing imports should reintegrate into the rules of GATT 1994 products accounting for not less than 17 per cent. of each member's imports in 1990.

  Multi-fibre Agreement
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the organisations he has consulted on the proposed stage 2 phase out of the multi-fibre agreement; [5446]

  (2) how many responses he has received to the consultation on the proposed stage 2 of the phase-out of the multi-fibre agreement; and of these how many were in favour. [5471]

  Mr. Nelson
  In preparation for assessing the Commission's proposals about how the EU should implement stage 2 of the phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement on 1 January 1998, my Department consulted the following organisations:678

  Association of Independent Stores Ltd.

  British Apparel and Textiles Confederation2

  British Importers Confederation1

  British Polyolefin Textiles Association2

  British Retail Consortium1

  Burton Group plc

  Confederation of British Industry

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Dewhirst plc

  Institute of Directors

  International Textiles and Clothing Bureau1

  Littlewoods plc

  Local Action on Textiles and Clothing

  Marks and Spencer plc

  National Consumer Council

  Orbis Services

  Oxfam

  Scottish Cashmere Association2

  Sears plc1

  Trades Union Congress

  World Development Movement1

  None of these organisations questioned the obligation to implement stage 2. As to whether stage 2 should include liberalisation of any products under quota, those marked1 in the list were in favour and those marked2 were opposed. The remainder expressed no view.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4993]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The DTI is on track to introduce resource accounting and budgeting in accordance with the timescales set out in the Government White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money," Cm 2929. Resource accounting systems will be introduced during the year beginning 1 April 1997 and the first set of resource accounts are planned for publication for the financial year beginning 1 April 1999.

  The first survey on a resource basis is planned to be undertaken in the year 2000.

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the next phase of British Aerospace's contract to supply Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. [5830]

  Mr. Lang
  I have authorised the issue of licences to British Aerospace for the export of 16 Hawk aircraft, and associated equipment, to Indonesia. This export represents the second consignment of Hawk aircraft in respect of the contract signed in 1993. Authorisation of the first consignment was announced in my answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1081 to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst).

  Consumer Credit Deregulation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on consumer credit deregulation. [5719]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am pleased to be able to report progress with deregulation in this area. The Government take the view that consumer credit law provides valuable and necessary protection. However, some aspects of the law can be changed to reduce the burden of regulation on business without detriment to the interests of consumers.

  Last year we consulted on five proposals. Careful consideration of the replies we received has informed our decisions.

  We have decided that we should revoke the existing regulations on quotations. Few consumers appear to ask for written quotations and the compliance cost to business is disproportionate to the benefit.

  We shall reduce the burden on holders of standards consumer credit licences by limiting the circumstances in which they have to notify the Director General of Fair Trading of changes among their office holders or controllers.

  We shall restore the value of consumer protection by making changes to the monetary amounts and limits in the Consumer Credit Act.

  However, in the light of the response to the consultation, we shall not change the early settlement rebate regulations.

  We are to undertake a further short consultation on our proposal to deregulate lending and hiring to unincorporated businesses. We wish to ascertain more clearly the deregulatory benefits and any consumer costs which may be expected if the borrower or hirer makes a deregulated credit or hire agreement either "wholly", or "wholly or predominantly" for business purposes.

  We expect to put draft legislative proposals before Parliament during the next few months.

  Finally, we shall in the next few months bring forward further deregulation proposals in the consumer credit sector.

  EU Internal Market
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions were taken at the EU Ministerial Council on the internal market on 25 October; and what matters were voted upon. [5716]

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade represented the UK at the Internal Market Council In Luxembourg on 25 October.

  The Council adopted a resolution on the simplification and rationalisation of the Community's customs regulations and procedures. The Council also adopted a Council decision on negotiations with Norway on customs co-operation—Spain opposed.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information is collated centrally on(a) the long-term revenue commitments and (b) any other
  680
  commitments arising as a result of private finance initiative projects agreed by (i) his Department and (ii) agencies accountable to his Department. [5076]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: My Department maintains a central record of all potential long-term revenue commitments arising from planned PFI projects in DTI and its agencies. However, no projects have yet been finally agreed—that is, contracts signed. No other commitments are envisaged, but if they were to emerge, a central record would be kept.

  Kilwinning Plant Closure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions(a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies have had with Hillsdown Ambient Foods Group Ltd. in relation to the relocation of production facilities from their Robert Wilson and Sons Ltd. factor in Kilwinning to North Walsham; and what financial help has been offered to the company to assist in the relocation. [5056]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 20 November 1996]: It is not policy to disclose details of discussions of this kind which are commercial in confidence.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Students
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time students have entered the further education sector (i) nationally and (ii) in the west midlands in each year since 1992; and what was each figure as a percentage change on the previous year. [4900]

  Mr. Paice
  Table 1 shows the numbers of full-time and part-time further education students in each November from 1992 to 1995. The figures for 1995 are not on the same basis as those for earlier years, as explained in the footnotes to the table.

  Table 2 shows the percentage changes in student numbers over the previous year, taking account as far as possible of the definitional differences between 1994 and 1995.

  The November 1995 student number figures for England are provisional; estimates for west midlands are not yet available.

  Table 1: Number of students (thousands)

  England

  West Midlands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  November

  1992

  592

  1,263

  1,855

  37

  72

  109

  1993

  646

  1,283

  1,929

  43

  73

  116

  1994

  677

  1,362

  2,039

  48

  82

  130

  1995

  730

  1,558

  2,288

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Figures are on the following bases: 1992 to 1994: Students on FE courses in FE and HE institutions (including sixth-form colleges). Split between full and part-time based on the position in November. 1995: All students in FE sector colleges (other than specialist designated institutions). Split between full and part-time based on attendance over the academic year as a whole.

  1Provisional.
  681

  Table 2: Percentage change from the previous year

  England

  West Midlands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  November

  1992

  7

  -6

  -2

  6

  -8

  -3

  1993

  9

  2

  4

  16

  1

  6

  1994

  5

  6

  6

  10

  13

  12

  19951

  9

  8

  8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The percentage changes in 1995 take account as far as possible of the definitional differences from 1994 noted above.

  1 Provisional.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the average salary of(a) a full-time and (b) a part-time lecturer in (i) the further and (ii) the higher education sector in 1979; [4964]

  (2) what was the average salary of (a) a full-time and (b) a part-time lecturer in the higher education sector in each year since 1992; and what was the percentage change on the previous year; [4969]

  (3) what was the average salary of (a) a full-time and (b) a part-time lecturer in the further education sector in each year since 1992; and what was the percentage change on the previous year. [4970]

  Mr. Paice
  Comprehensive information on the salaries of part-time further and higher education lecturers is not available. Information for full-time lecturers is shown in the table, although, as explained in the footnotes, the figures are not on exactly the same basis for all years.

  All of the figures are derived from the "New Earnings Survey", based on a random 1 per cent. sample of employees, and so are subject to sampling variation. Precise significance should not therefore be attached to small year to year changes in the estimated averages.

  Moreover year on year changes in the estimated averages are not necessarily a direct reflection of changes in pay rates, but would also be affected by changes over time in the composition of the lecturer populations.

  Average gross weekly pay1 of full-time lecturers in:

  £

  FE colleges and colleges of HE Percentage change from previous year

  £

  Universities and polytechnics Percentage change from previous year

  April

  19792,3

  103

  149

  19923

  424

  +7

  504

  +8

  1993

  453

  3+7

  526

  +4

  1994

  448

  -1

  540

  +3

  1995

  449

  0

  556

  +3

  1996

  452

  +1

  551

  -1

  1All figures are derived from the "New Earnings Survey", based on a 1 per cent. random sample of employees. They relate to the average gross weekly pay, including overtime and additions, of full-time employees whose pay was not affected by absence. The timing of the NES data collection may mean however that the figures do not always take account of backdated pay awards.

  2 The figures for 1979 are on a different basis from those for later years: they relate to males only; polytechnic lecturers are included with lecturers in FE colleges and colleges of HE (rather than with university lecturers).

  682

  3Lecturers in FE colleges and colleges of HE exclude lecturers in sixth form colleges in 1979 and 1992, but include them in subsequent years. This difference in coverage may have affected the estimated percentage change in 1993 for this group.

  Disturbed Children
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines she issues in respect of(a) expulsions from schools, (b) the need to take into account mitigating circumstances and (c) the need to provide counselling to disturbed children where appropriate; and if she will make a statement. [5435]

  Mr. Forth
  Guidance was issued by the Department in May 1994 to heads, governing bodies and local education authorities on the proper use of exclusion. This sets out what factors should be taken into account when considering exclusion. Further guidance on exclusions will need to be issued in due course, in the light of legislation currently before Parliament.

  Guidance was also issued in May 1994 jointly with the Department of Health to LEAs and schools on good practice in the education of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. This reflected the variety of programmes and approaches which may help such children. Counselling may be a valuable approach in some cases.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of school exclusions in(a) England and Wales and (b) London in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1990–91 and (iii) 1995–96; and what proportion of the school roll these figures represent. [5278]

  Mr. Forth
  No data on exclusions from school were collected nationally before 1990–91. Between April 1990 and April 1991, 2,910 pupils were reported to have been permanently excluded from schools in England; this represented 0.04 per cent. of the total school population.

  The Department will be collecting comprehensive figures for permanent exclusions in the school year 1995–96 as part of the annual schools census in January. These figures will be available later in 1997.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information she has collated on the number of permanent exclusions from school and on the characteristics of the pupils excluded, in the most recent year for which data are available. [5721]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on permanent exclusions from LEA maintained and grant-maintained schools is now collected as part of the annual schools census. Data collected this year on exclusions in the 1994–95 school year are summarised in the following tables:

  DfEE exclusions census: school year 1994–95 A. Permanent exclusions 1994–951 by type of school2

  Excluded pupils

  Number

  As percentage of school population

  Primary

  LEA

  1,331

  0.03

  GM

  34

  0.03

  683

  DfEE exclusions census: school year 1994–95 A. Permanent exclusions 1994–95 1 by type of school2

  Excluded pupils

  Number

  As Percentage of school population

  Secondary

  LEA

  7,605

  0.31

  GM

  1,592

  0.29

  Special

  522

  0.54

  All schools

  11,084

  0.15

  1 Data grossed-up from returns from 99.3 per cent. of LEA maintained and grant-maintained schools and non maintained special schools.

  2Primary and secondary school data include middle schools as deemed.

  B. Permanent exclusions 1994–95 1 2 by gender

  Excluded pupils

  Number

  As percentage of school population

  Primary

  Boys

  1,209

  0.05

  Girls

  92

  —

  Secondary

  Boys

  7,191

  0.48

  Girls

  1,663

  0.11

  Special

  Boys

  449

  0.69

  Girls

  44

  0.13

  1 Data as reported—i.e. omitting exclusions where relevant information missing from returns.

  2Primary and secondary school data include middle schools as deemed.

  C. Permanent exclusions 1994–95 1 2 by school

  Number of schools

  Number of pupils excluded

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  0

  17,315

  1,060

  950

  1–2

  1,110

  1,133

  241

  3–4

  22

  606

  39

  5–6

  2

  357

  9

  7–8

  0

  168

  3

  9–10

  0

  82

  0

  11–15

  0

  69

  0

  16+

  0

  22

  0

  1 Data as reported—i.e. omitting exclusions where relevant information missing from returns.

  2 Primary and secondary school data include middle school as deemed.

  D. Permanent exclusions 1994–951 by age2, ethnicity3 and special educational needs

  Number excluded

  Percentage of excluded pupils

  Percentage of school population

  Pupils aged

  4

  29

  0.3

  8.2

  5

  88

  0.8

  8.6

  6

  118

  1.l

  8.7

  7

  153

  1.4

  8.4

  8

  228

  2.1

  8.2

  9

  317

  3.0

  8.1

  10

  390

  3.7

  7.8

  684

  D. Permanent exclusions 1994–951 by age2, ethnicity,3 and special educational needs

  Number excluded

  Percentage of excluded pupils

  percentage of school population

  11

  661

  6.2

  7.7

  12

  1,191

  11.2

  7.6

  13

  2,083

  19.6

  7.7

  14

  3,040

  28.6

  7.8

  15

  2,112

  19.9

  7.4

  16

  203

  1.9

  2.2

  17

  18

  0.2

  1.5

  18

  6

  0.1

  0.2

  White

  8,785

  83.8

  89.8

  Black caribbean

  769

  7.3

  1.1

  Black African

  148

  1.4

  0.6

  Black Other

  182

  1.7

  0.8

  Indian

  98

  0.9

  2.7

  Pakistani

  208

  2.0

  2.1

  Bangladeshi

  46

  2.4

  0.8

  Chinese

  11

  0.1

  0.4

  Other Ethnic Group

  241

  2.3

  With SEN Statements

  1,764

  17.6

  2.8

  Without SEN statements

  8,257

  82.4

  97.2

  1Data as reported—i.e. omitting exclusive where relevant information missing from returns.

  2Age as at 31 August 1994.

  3Ethnic groups as percentage of school population—data covers five to 15-year-olds derived from 1991 national census.

  Former Pupil (Ridings School)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she proposes to take to provide counselling and education for the child whose name has been supplied to her, formerly of Ridings school. [5436]

  Mr. Forth
  None. These are matters for Calderdale local education authority.

  GCSE
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for 1996 the percentage of 15-year-old pupils in total and by gender of the maintained sector of each local education authority (1) entered for GCSE in(a) English language, (b) mathematics, (c) science, (d) English language and mathematics together and (e) English language and mathematics and science together and (2) achieving (i) at least grade G in each, and (ii) at least grade C in each, and in each case their average point score. [3642]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information for 1996 is not yet available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the percentage of 15-year-old pupils of the maintained sector of each local education authority entered for GCSE in(a) English language, (b) mathematics, (c) science,(d) English language and mathematics together, and(e) English language and mathematics and science in total and by gender in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1995; and what were the percentage point changes in each case between 1992 and 1995; [3643]
  685
  (2) if she will list for (a) 1992 and (b) 1995 the percentage of 15-year-old pupils in total and by gender of the maintained sector of each local education authority (1) entered for GCSE in (i) science, and (ii) English language and mathematics and science together, and (2) achieving (A) at least grade G in each, (B) at least grade C in each, and in each case their average point score. [3641]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is set out in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress her Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year she expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4984]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  DfEE will be introducing its resource accounting system from 1 April 1997. The Department, in common with others, is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the Department and all other Departments will be in respect of 1999–2000.

  Free School Transport
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what powers she has to intervene in respect of the provision of free school transport. [5150]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has limited powers under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996. She could intervene only if she were satisfied that a local education authority had failed to fulfil a statutory duty or had acted unreasonably, in the very strict sense in which the courts have interpreted that term, and that her intervention would be expedient.

  Clinical Academics
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide the necessary funding to ensure that clinical academics maintain a pay parity with NHS doctors of equivalent grade. [5292]

  Mr. Forth
  It is for universities and colleges to set pay levels for academics and other staff.

  Women
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to measure and evaluate the effect of her Department's policies on women. [5491]

  Mrs. Gillan
  In July of this year, the model guidance on policy appraisal for equal treatment was revised and circulated at Cabinet level for Departments to adapt to their own circumstances. A copy was placed in the Library. This guidance requires officials to identify policy issues which might impact differently on women and men, and other groups, to assess whether this is justified in 686
  policy terms, and to adjust the policy if it is not. Advice based on that model has been issued to all senior officials in the Department accompanied by a supportive personal message from the permanent secretary.

  The recent Government report, "One Year On" outlines action taken by Government to benefit women since the world conference on women, and also includes baseline statistics against which future progress can be measured.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many appeals there have been to the CSA in(a) the west midlands and (b) England in the last year; and of these how many led to a change in the maintenance demanded from parents in (i) the west midlands and (ii) England; [4372]

  (2) how long is the average delay between a successful appeal to the CSA and the correction in the maintenance payments in (a) the west midlands and (b) England; [4373]

  (3) how many cases the CSA dealt with over the last year in (a) the west midlands and (b) England. [4371]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, dated 20 November 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's handling of appeals, and the associated question regarding the Agency's caseload.
  The latest period for which full-time information is available is financial year 1995/96. The details requested are not available as specified, ie West Midlands and England. The figures set out in the table attached are for the Agency as a whole, and for Dudley Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC), which has responsibility for cases in the West Midlands (and other areas).
  Included are the numbers of appeals received and cleared in 1995/96. Clearances are made up of cases withdrawn, cases outside the jurisdiction of the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS), and those submitted to ITS; they also include cases from the previous year which were not cleared until 1995/96. You should note that appeals can be lodged for a number of reasons, and a successful appeal will not always result in a change in the maintenance assessment.
  ITS provide information on decisions only on an Agency basis, and it is therefore not possible to give a breakdown of those cases upheld or overturned for Dudley.
  With regard to the question on the average delay between successful appeal to the CSA and the correction in the maintenance payments, we do not routinely collect the information in the form requested.
  However, we have recently taken a business decision to re-assess cases returned by ITS in a Central Appeals Unit (CAU), rather than in the CSACs. and this has been in operation since September. This ensures closer, central control of the process. A recent sample of cases processed under this arrangement showed that once the decision of the ITS reaches the CAU, it currently takes an average of 14 working days for them to gather relevant information and to carry out a re-assessment. The case is then passed to the relevant CSAC for implementation of the revised assessment.
  I hope this is helpful.
  687

  Total for agency 1995–

  Total for Dudley 1995–

  Number of appeals received

  7,121

  1,190

  Number of appeals cleared

  8,117

  1,270

  Number of appeals submitted to ITS1

  6,948

  1,075

  Number of appeals where CSO's2 decision upheld

  1,236

  n/a

  Number of appeals where CSO's2 decision overturned

  4,399

  n/a

  Number of cases taken on by CSA

  386,052

  63,268

  1ITS = Independent Tribunal Service.

  2CSO = Child Support Officer.

  n/a = not available.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases set out in his answer of 7 November 1995,Official Report, column 435, are represented by the headings (a) resulting from pre-CSA assessment paid direct to parent with care, (b) resulting from pre-CSA assessment paid through the agency collection service, (c) resulting from CSA assessments paid direct to parent with care and (d) resulting from CSA assessments paid through agency collection service for each month in the financial year April 1994 to March 1995. [4778]

  Mr. Mitchell
  There is no business need to maintain data in this format. The information requested is not available.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many staff are currently employed by the Benefits Agency on a casual basis; [4517]

  (2) how many staff were asked to leave the Benefits Agency's employment who had been employed for less than two years in the last year. [4518]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 20 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary questions asking how many staff are currently employed by the Benefits Agency (BA) on a casual basis; and how many staff were asked to leave the BA employment who had been employed for less than two years in the last year.
  As at the 31 October 1996 the Benefits Agency employed 4,596 casual staff out of a total staff in post figure of 84,241, this includes part time staff.
  The following staff with less than 2 years service have left the Benefits Agency within the last 12 months. Details of the reasons for members of staff leaving is not available.

  Number

  Permanent

  730

  Fixed term appointment

  712

  Casual

  4,809

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Publicity
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security What is the total amount currently spent by his Department on advertising and Publicity in promoting greater awareness of the availability of benefits; and what proportion of the budget is specifically targeted at(a) pensioners and (b) eligible pensioners who are not currently claiming the full amount of benefits. [4735]

  Mr. Burt
  The allocation for the current financial year for publicity and advertising is:

  Headquarters; £3,855,000

  Benefits agency: £5,009,000

  War pensions agency; £20,000

  The headquarters allocation is for the promotion of awareness of in-work benefits such as family credit and disability working allowance.

  The Benefits Agency figure covers the cost of the BA leaflet programme, posters audio cassettes, etcetera, giving information on all the social security benefits administered by the BA.

  The War Pensions Agency looks for opportunities to increase awareness by the free display of its leaflets and posters in places such as doctors' surgeries, war museums, post offices, hospital waiting rooms, etcetera. This targets not only potential new claimants but those who may be eligible to claim increased pension and allowances.

  The Department ensures that people are in a position to make informed choices on whether to claim benefit. It provides information which is comprehensive, accurate, accessible and easily understood which enables people to establish their eligibility. The Benefits Agency, for example, makes available all information on the social security benefits it administers through outlets including all BA offices, post offices and intermediaries such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Age Concern. Ultimately, individuals may decide for various reasons not to claim.

  It is not possible to identify separately promotional expenditure specifically for pensioners.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4992]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department's programme to introduce resource accounting and budgeting is both complex and massive. Its agencies are upgrading some financial systems and developing new ones to account for programme expenditure and income, and their associated administrative costs; the corporate centre is developing a system to consolidate these and the accounting outputs of its other business units with performance output data to produce departmental resource accounts. Steady progress is being sustained and the Department aims to achieve the milestones set out in Cm 2929, commencing with the preparation of internal resource accounts for 1998–99,
  689
  publication of resource accounts for 1999–2000 and culminating in the introduction of full resource planning, budgeting and accounting by 2001–02.

  Carers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent the support given by carers will be counted as a service for which national earnings could be calculated under the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2745. [5092]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Regulation 4(2) of SI 1996 No. 2745 provides that, where a claimant performs a service for another person and that person makes no payment of earnings or pays less than that paid for a comparable employment in the area, the adjudicating authority shall treat the claimant as possessing such earnings as is reasonable for that employment. However, the claimant will not be treated as possessing earnings where the other person's means are insufficient for him to pay or to pay more for the service, or if the claimant is engaged by a charitable or voluntary organisation or is a volunteer, if the adjudicating authority is satisfied in any of those cases that it is reasonable for him to provide his services free of charge.

  Benefit Regulations
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he intends to give his Department's offices in respect of the calculation of a work cycle under the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2745). [5093]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Guidance on the calculation of a work cycle under the regulations will be included in the information on the new rules being issued currently by the Benefits Agency to its offices. In addition, the chief adjudication officer will be issuing guidance to adjudication officers about the changes. This will also include guidance on the calculation of a work cycle.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the Social Security (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 and Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2744). [5094]

  Mr. Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has received one representation. The chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee wrote following the committee's meeting in October at which it was decided that the regulations could be made without a formal reference to the committee.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions he has made to help claimants who will lose their entitlement under the new rules of the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2745). [5099]

  Mr. Evans
  The regulations do not include transitional protection measures for claimants who will lose their entitlement under the new rules.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many invalid allowance claimants currently have allowable travel costs; [5095]

  (2) how many current recipients of invalid care allowance will be affected by the changes in the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2745) that costs of union and professional association membership will no longer by disregarded; [5096]

  (3) how many current recipients of invalid care allowance presently have substitute care costs disregarded; and what is the total annual cost of this care. [5097]

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

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will be affected by the loss of entitlement to invalid care allowance in the first weeks of claim as a result of the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2745). [5098]

  Mr. Burt
  There are insufficient data on which to base reliable estimates. However, we anticipate that the number affected in this way will be small.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalid care allowance claimants there are and what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of the Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2744) and Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 on this figure. [5100]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As at 18 November there were approximately 350,000 recipients of invalid care allowance. There are insufficient data on which to base reliable estimates of the effect of the introduction of the regulations. However, we anticipate that the numbers affected by the regulations referred to will be small.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ascertain how many people will benefit from the Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2744) and Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2745); how many people will no longer be able to claim; and if he will make a statement. [5101]

  Mr. Evans
  Data are not available to estimate accurately how many people will gain or lose from the introduction of the regulations and the costs of obtaining such information would be disproportionate. No one will be prevented from claiming as a result of the regulations.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the costs of implementing the Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2744) and Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2745); and what net savings he estimates will accrue from the introduction of these measures. [5102]
  691
  Mr. Evans
  The cost of implementing the regulations is expected to be negligible. There are insufficient data on which to base reliable revenue estimates. However, we expect the revenue effects to be broadly cost neutral.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many current recipients of invalid care allowance have earnings; and what are the average earnings of current recipients of invalid care allowance before deductions and disregarded payment. [5103]

  Mr. Burt
  As at 18 November 1996, some 26,500 invalid care allowance recipients had earnings. Information about average amounts of earnings is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of appellants who did not attend social security appeal tribunal hearings gave advance notice that they would not be present in the last available year. [5151]

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

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 328, when the Council on Tribunals was assured that his Department would make appellants aware of the consequences of not opting for an oral hearing; and if that communication was included in the correspondence with the Council on Tribunals placed in the Library. [5259]

  Mr. Evans
  Discussions with the Council on Tribunals are conducted on a confidential basis. However, in the case of the letter sent to the council formally consulting on the regulations, their reply, and a further letter from the Department, have been placed in the Library to assist understanding of the purpose and effect of these regulations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 4 November,Official Report, column 386, and of 14 November, Official Report, column 328, for what reasons the appeal form approved on 27 September was not available to appellants on 21 October when the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 came into force; when he was informed that it would not be available on that date; and for what reason a copy of it was not placed in the Library on 4 November in response to the request by the hon. Member for Newport, West. [5265]

  Mr. Evans
  The printing and production of the revised leaflet was more difficult than normal, and did take longer, because of the physical structure of the leaflet and fold-out form. Arrangements were in place for the continued use of the existing form until the new version could be distributed and appellants would not be disadvantaged during the changeover period. As I said in my letter of 14 November to members of the Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, a copy of which has been placed in the Library I regret that the answer at column 386 of 4 November was incorrect. On that day, the form placed in the Library was the April
  692
  1996 version. The revised version was not available from the printers until late on 18 November and has been placed in the Library. During the course of the debate in the Sixth Standing Committee, I became aware that the correct form was not available and the incorrect form had been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 328, what proportion of the total number of tribunal chairmen and members the 100 copies of the Green Paper and summary sent to the independent tribunal service represented; [5257]

  (2) if he will extend the closing date for responses to the consultation paper "Improving decision making and appeals in Social Security", so that all chairmen and members of tribunals can be invited to respond. [5258]

  Mr. Evans
  There are some 6,000 chairmen and members within the independent tribunal service. The ITS is an independent body and distribution of the consultation paper "Improving decision making and appeals in Social Security" within the service is a matter for the president. At the president's request, copies of the consultation paper were sent direct to all regional and full-time chairmen. Additional copies were also sent to the president at his request. The consultation period ran from 23 July to 18 October and the Government have no plans to extend the closing date for comments. Responses were received both from the president—reflecting replies he had received from tribunal members—and, separately. from a number of chairmen and members. Independent analysis of the responses is now under way.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchcliffe) of 13 November,Official Report, columns 270–71, by whom the responses to the consultation paper "Improving decision making and appeals in Social Security" are being independently analysed. [5256]

  Mr. Evans
  The independent analysis of the responses to the consultation document "Improving decision making and appeals in Social Security" is being undertaken by Dr. Roy Sainsbury of the social policy research unit at York university.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has received from the independent tribunal service regarding the arrangements for tribunal members to receive the documents relating to appeals in advance of the hearing where an oral hearing is not requested. [5260]

  Mr. Evans
  This is a matter for the president of the independent tribunal service whom I understand has written to the hon. Member to explain the arrangements he has put in place.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will have collated the information on the effect of the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 on the number of appeals to each type of tribunal affected by them and the numbers of oral hearings resulting from those appeals. [5266]
  693
  Mr. Evans
  An evaluation of the impact of the changes will be carried out over the first year of operation. However, we expect to have some interim results after about six months.

  Telephones
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of social security claimants do not have a telephone in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales and (c) north Wales. [5263]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The available information is in the table.

  In receipt of benefits

  Not in receipt of benefits

  All individuals

  Number of benefit units with no telephone (millions)

  Great Britain

  2.2

  0.5

  2.7

  Wales

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  Percentages

  Great Britain

  11 per cent.

  5 per cent.

  9 per cent.

  Wales

  15 per cent.

  6 per cent.

  12 per cent.

  Source:

  Information for Great Britain and Wales is available from the family resources survey; the sample size is insufficient to provide figures for north Wales.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers rounded to nearest hundred thousand.

  2. Estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 329, for what reasons the temporary nature of asylum seekers' immigration status is relevant to the rate of income support payable to them; and what would be the cost of making them entitled to the full rate of income support. [5264]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Asylum seekers are not entitled to income support under the normal rules, but those who claim asylum when they first arrive in the United Kingdom may claim income support under the urgent cases rules. Payments under these rules continue until the Home Office decide on the asylum application. If the asylum seeker is successful and granted refugee status benefit can be paid at the same rate as is paid to United Kingdom nationals. The Government believe that it is right to make a distinction between those whose status is settled and whose right to stay in the United Kingdom is established and those where it is not yet clear that the asylum claim is well founded. Only 4 per cent. of asylum applications are successful.

  The cost of making asylum seekers entitled to the full rate of income support and jobseeker's allowance would be approximately £10 million a year.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on asbestos-related diseases; and what is his response. [5828]
  694
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his response to the recommendations in the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [5829]

  Mr. Lilley
  We have considered very carefully the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on the qualifying conditions for the award of disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, Cm 3240, and will implement the extension they have recommended in full. This will make it easier for coal miners who are disabled by these diseases to qualify for benefit, and simpler to administer the scheme.

  We have also received and considered very carefully the report of the council's review of asbestos-related diseases, which is being laid before Parliament and published today, Cm 3467. The council recommends a number of welcome improvements to the rules for those suffering from these diseases. These will help claimants and their advisers to identify more easily whether they might qualify. In particular, they aim to get benefit to mesothelioma sufferers more quickly. We will also implement these recommendations in full.

  I am grateful to the council for the expert and detailed scrutiny it has given to these important issues, and for the practical way in which its recommended improvements are presented. Taken together, around 8,000 industrially disabled people are expected to gain from these changes.

  I will be consulting the council on draft regulations to give effect to all these changes. The regulations will be laid to come into force from April 1997. We expect that a large number of people who have previously failed to qualify for benefit will wish to claim again from this date under the changed criteria. Considerable preparation is required to ensure their cases are speedily and effectively considered, without disrupting the Benefits Agency's service to its other customers. Details of the new arrangements will be well publicised before implementation.

DEFENCE

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4985]

  Mr. Soames
  In keeping with the time scales set out in Cm 2929, my Department has launched Project Capital to integrate commercial-style accounting. output costing and management planning into a single financial regime.

  In May of this year an accounting systems integration contract was awarded, following competition, to develop and build a core solution to meet all primary accounting, financial and planning requirements of MOD organisations; to implement new systems throughout the Department; and to provide new skills training to finance and planning staff.

  The accounting systems integrator has completed a series of surveys to plan the roll-out of new systems. Early design work and setting detailed accounting policies are

  695
  being conducted in parallel, and studies into information technology infrastructure and procedures for stock valuation are under way. Work on the registration and valuation of fixed assets, supported by commercial valuers, is proceeding.

  Some 800 staff have so far attended awareness training courses and the in-house facility for training candidates for the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants qualification has been expanded substantially.

  The first year for which resource accounts are expected to be published and laid before Parliament is 1999–2000.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on leakage from containers of pesticide during the Gulf war; [5187]

  (2) what level of protective clothing was issued to staff applying insecticides in the Gulf war; and in what languages written instructions relating to pesticides appeared. [5188]

  Mr. Soames
  These are matters that form part of the comprehensive investigation into the use of organophoshate pesticides during the Gulf war which I announced last month,Official Report 15 October, columns 678. I will report further when this work is complete.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been undertaken by his Department into the dangers of pesticides to veterans in the Gulf war. [5261]

  Mr. Soames
  No formal research has been undertaken by my Department into the possible effects of exposure to pesticides on the health of Gulf war veterans. We have, however, urgently examined the medical records of those who have attended the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme and are inviting those who display certain symptoms to return for further assessment. We shall shortly announce details of the further research we will be commissioning into the health problems of Gulf war veterans.

  Defence Estate
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will present an annual report to Parliament on the environmental status of the Defence estate in the United Kingdom and overseas territories. [5071]

  Mr. Soames
  The annual statement on the defence estimates includes within the section on the management of defence a report on the defence estate and environmental issues.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the decision was taken by his Department to transfer air traffic control responsibilities from West Drayton to Swanwick. [5105]

  Mr. Soames
  The decision to move the military en route task from West Drayton to Swanwick to continue the integrated nature of en route air traffic control services was taken in 1991. When it became apparent that extra space would be available at Swanwick, the option of also 696
  moving the military area air navigation task to Swanwick was explored and a decision in principle was taken in October 1994. This decision was, and remains, subject to final confirmation of the costs.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the capacity of the West Drayton air traffic control centre to deal with increased military air traffic. [5107]

  Mr. Soames
  Based on the current prediction that military air traffic movements will remain broadly constant, the facilities currently available at West Drayton would be capable of supporting military area air navigation services without significant equipment replacement up to 2005.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has made, in the event of his Department deciding not to relocate the air traffic control system from West Drayton to Swanwick. [5109]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department continues to support the proposals to transfer both the military en route and the military area air navigation task from West Drayton to Swanwick. Were this to be judged impracticable or uneconomic, other options would be considered, but at this stage we remain optimistic that the proposals can be enacted.

  RAF Scampton and RAF Swindeby
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his proposals for(a) RAF Scampton and (b)i RAF Swinderby. [5138]

  Mr. Soames
  Subject to the agreement of a planning brief for RAF Scampton, it is our intention to dispose of the site, although the married quarters are to be retained. RAF Swinderby has already been sold.

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former members of the armed forces have pensions which are frozen until they reach the age of 55 years. [5184]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 March 1996, there were 84,486 former members of the armed forces in receipt of an early retirement service pension, which does not attract annual pension increases until age 55.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will delay the tabling of statutory instruments under section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1996 for further consultation with interested parties and provide a six-month period for such consultation. [5332]

  Mr. Soames
  No. The statutory instruments to be tabled under section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1996 provide for military local service engagements and thus allow the formation of the Military Provost Guard Service. This has been the subject of full consultation with interested parties.

  Ex-military Bases (Accommodation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on consulting local authorities in areas where ex-military bases have been closed, and the former service housing is to be sold to seek to ensure that jobs, education facilities and health services will exist for people who will move into such accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [5394]

  Mr. Soames
  Where a site has been declared surplus to Defence requirements, it is the policy of my Department to work closely with the local authorities concerned, normally through the local plan process or by the production of a development brief. Matters such as jobs, schools and health services are for the local authority, but are considered as part of the local plan process and, if appropriate, as part of a development brief. In some cases, service families who previously occupied accommodation associated with a site will have made use of the local facilities, such as schools.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his proposals for the future of RAF Finningley; and what is the proposed timetable for carrying out these plans. [4560]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Finningley is to be sold. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed to a request from the Home Secretary to use part of the site as a prison, and this has resulted in a slight delay to the original timetable. The expressions of interest campaign has, however, been completed, and my Department will shortly be inviting shortlisted candidates to submit formal bids. We hope to be in a position to commence negotiations with a preferred bidder in early 1997.

  Beef
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that the beef served to members of the armed forces in each defence establishment and station is from the United Kingdom. [5011]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement of food for the armed forces is contracted to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. My Department does not specify the source of origin from which NAAFI should obtain beef—or any other meat—but expects it to seek the best market price for the product. Based on current volumes and prevailing prices, a switch to British beef would cost an additional £1 million per financial year.

  Military Assistance (Rwanda and Zaire)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military assistance given by the UK to Rwanda and Zaire between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995; and what was the cost of such assistance. [5148]

  Mr. Soames
  No military assistance was provided to Zaire or Rwanda in that period. A member of the Royal Army Medical Corps has, however, provided assistance in 1995 to the independent international commission of 698
  inquiry set up at the request of the Government of Rwanda to investigate events surrounding deaths of an unknown number of persons at the Kibeho refugee camp.

  Troops in Bosnia (Telephone Calls)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many free telephone calls per week are allowed for British troops serving in Bosnia; when the number of free calls was last altered; what form the alteration took; and if he will make a statement. [5406]

  Mr. Soames
  Most troops serving in Bosnia are not entitled to make free private telephone calls, but have access to payphones to make telephone calls home. A welfare telephone allowance—WTA—currently £22 per month, is paid to troops as a contribution towards the cost of these calls. There is no restriction on the number or duration of calls made.

  The very small number of troops who do not have access to welfare payphones may use the military communications system for a free weekly call home. These personnel do not receive the WTA.

  This system has been in place since troops were deployed to Bosnia in December 1995 as part of IFOR.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards implementing the planned reduction in low flying in the borders tactical training area; when the full reduction will be achieved; what plans there are for monitoring the progress of the reduction in volume; and if he will make a statement. [5370]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence announced on 6 August that operational low flying will be distributed between the three tactical training areas in proportion to their areas when averaged over a year. Action to achieve this aim was set in hand immediately, and the redistribution will be achieved by the end of July 1997. Thereafter, activity will be monitored by calendar year.

  Army Recruitment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current year's recruitment targets for each Army regiment. [4423]

  Mr. Soames
  Pursuant to my answer of 15 November,Official Report, columns 375–76, I regret that, due to a typographical error, the figures for recruiting targets for officers and soldiers of the AAC and RAChD were wrongly given. These should have read 24 officers and 160 soldiers in the AAC and 10 officers and 0 soldiers in the RAChD respectively. There are no apprentice targets for these arms. The full table is as follows:

  Arm/Service

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Apprentices

  H Cav/RAC

  69

  800

  —

  RA

  88

  1,400

  —

  RE

  62

  960

  234

  R Signals

  49

  1,040

  200

  Infantry

  234

  —

  —

  Household Division

  —

  800

  —

  Scottish Division

  —

  800

  —

  699

  Arm/Service

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Apprentices

  Queen's Division

  —

  800

  —

  King's Division

  —

  800

  —

  Prince of Wales Division

  —

  1,020

  —

  Light Division

  —

  580

  —

  Royal Irish (GS)

  —

  140

  —

  Parachute Regiment

  —

  460

  —

  AAC

  24

  160

  —

  RAChD

  10

  0

  —

  RLC

  82

  2,400

  186

  RAMC

  54

  200

  —

  REME

  36

  640

  450

  AGC

  53

  760

  —

  RAVC

  2

  32

  —

  SASC

  10

  0

  —

  RADC

  10

  40

  —

  INT CORPS

  9

  100

  —

  APTC

  10

  0

  —

  QARANC

  20

  120

  —

  CA Mus

  10

  120

  —

  Total

  802

  14,172

  1,070

  Combined total=15,242

  1 Officer entry only through late entry commission and SNCOs/WOs transferred from other arms and services.

HEALTH

  Edgware General Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current cost of the coronary care unit at Edgware general hospital; and what is the estimated cost of the coronary care unit at Northwick Park hospital. [3907]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what medical conditions the elderly will be occupying immediate needs beds at Edgware general hospital following the transition from an accident and emergency to a casualty department; [4679]

  (2) how many immediate needs beds will be maintained at Edgware general hospital in connection with the revised casualty unit. [4681]

  Mr. Malone
  Following its decision on 25 September, Barnet health authority is currently developing proposals for immediate needs beds in discussion with the North Thames regional office of the National Health Service Executive.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary care cases have been dealt with by Edgware general hospital in each month. [4683]

  Mr. Malone
  Information of the type requested is not available centrally.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has in respect of the redundant medical equipment at Edgware general hospital when existing services are transferred to Barnet, Northwick Park or the Royal Free hospitals; and what is the value of this equipment. [4684]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the Wellhouse NHS trust. My hon. Friend may wish to write to the chairman, Mr. David Phillips, to request this information.
  700
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to sign contracts with the doctors associated with the new casualty department at Edgware general hospital; and how many contracts will be signed. [4687]

  Mr. Malone
  Following its decision on 25 September, Barnet Health authority is currently developing proposals for the casualty service at Edgware.

  Hospital Admissions (Barnet)
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital admissions in the last 12 months there were in the borough of Barnet; and of these, how many were(a) minor and (b) acute. [4678]

  Mr. Horam
  The information collected centrally is on a national health service trust basis. Figures for the two trusts for Barnet health authority for 1995–96, the latest year for which data are available, are shown in the following table:

  Number of inpatient and day case admissions in Wellhouse NHS trust and Barnet Healthcare NHS trust, 1995–96

  Trust

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Wellhouse

  Total activity of

  37,617

  11,563

  trusts

  which acute

  24,736

  11,558

  Barnet

  Total activity of

  3,267

  0

  Healthcare

  which acute

  552

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health KP72 returns. Admissions are recorded by speciality types, i.e. acute specialties, maternity, geriatric, mental illness and learning disabilities.

  Minor Accident Treatment
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the difference between his Department's and local health authorities' definition of a minor accident treatment service unit. [4682.]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no national definition. It is for health authorities to plan what services are needed for the treatment of people suffering minor injuries.

  National Demonstrator Site
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his correspondence with the hon. Member for Hendon, North, what is his Department's definition of a national demonstrator site. [4680]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no standard definition for a national demonstrator site.

  Acute Care
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how(a) his Department and (b) Barnet health authority define emergency in the context of acute needs provision. [4685]

  Mr. Horam
  Clinical practice varies throughout the national health service. Different health authorities and hospitals use the term "emergency" in different ways.
  701
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what differences there are between his Department's and local health authorities' definitions of acute beds and immediate needs bends. [4686]

  Mr. Horam
  The definition of acute beds for central data collection purposes includes beds in children's and adult general wards, excluding geriatric wards; beds for the younger physically disabled; neonatal cots that are not in maternity wards; and beds in wards for terminally ill/palliative care patients. Central data on immediate needs beds is not collected. The information in central returns provides a useful guide to bed availability; it does not reflect precise clinical practice.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 402, what is Barnet health authority's definition of acute care. [4688]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Barnet health authority.

  Dentists, Sunderland
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the ratio of(a) general dental practitioners and (b) community dental practitioners to children aged (i) under four years, (ii) four to 10 years and (iii) 11 to 19 years in the Sunderland health authority area. [4419]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is contained in the table:

  General dental service and community dental service: number of children in the population per general dental practitioner1 2 3 and community dental4 practitioners in Sunderland health authority

  Age group

  Number of children per general dental practitioners1 2 3 at 30 June 1996

  Number of children per community dental practitioners4 (whole time equivalents) at 30 September 1995

  Under 4

  172

  2,564

  Age 4-10

  327

  4,883

  Age 11-19

  392

  5,853

  1The number of dentists (principals) on the health authority list and their assistants and vocational trainees. Sunderland health authority does not employ any salaried dentists.

  2Some dentists have a contract with more than one health authority. All dentists practising in Sunderland are included.

  3Excludes hospital dentists.

  4Figures for community dentists are whole time equivalents and represents the number of staff allocated by: Sunderland Health Commission, Priority Healthcare Wearside NHS trust and City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust.

  The population figures are at 30 June 1995. Patients are not restricted to receiving dental treatment in the health authority in which they live.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of persons currently in local authority-run residential care homes, (b) the average cost per person per week of residential care in local authority homes and (c) the average cost per person per week of residential care in independent sector homes for each local authority social services department in England. [4280]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on numbers of residents in local authority run staffed residential care homes at 31 March 1995 can be found in "Residential 702
  Accommodation: Detailed statistics on residential care homes and local authority supported residents England 1995", copies of which are available in the Library. It is planned to publish figures for 31 March 1996 in the week commencing 25 November. The latest information on the weekly costs of residential care in local authority and independent staffed homes for older people, for 1994–95, can be found in Table Ul of "Key Indicators of local authority social services 1996"; copies of which are also available in the Library.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to consult(a) user groups and (b) voluntary organisations in respect of proposed legislation on long-term care. [5146]

  Mr. Burns
  Draft legislation to establish a partnership scheme will be issued for consultation in the new year. In the meantime officials are consulting informally with major client group interests as well as the insurance industry and local authority representatives.

  Antibiotic-resistant Infections
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have reported outbreaks of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus in(a) the Yorkshire region and (b) the United Kingdom in the last six months. [4786]

  Mr. Horam
  The Public Health Laboratory Service maintains aggregate data on methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus as part of its national surveillance of communicable disease and infection, compiled from requests submitted by hospitals for the typing of isolates. In the six months, up to and including October 1996, 185 hospitals in England and Wales were identified as having an incident in which MRSA was implicated; 11 of these hospitals were in the old Yorkshire regional health authority. These figures represent the number of patients affected by MRSA not the number infected—about 80 per cent. of people who acquire MRSA carry it harmlessly and do not suffer infection. An incident is three or more patients with the same strain in a month from the same hospital.

  Questions relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Treatment Statistics (Sheffield)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients have been treated in Sheffield in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [4898]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of finished consultant episodes and out-patient attendances for the last three years for each hospital and community unit in Sheffield is given in the tables:
  703

  Finished Consultant Episodes Ordinary admissions and day cases (including well babies)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Central Sheffield university hospitals

  67,907

  68,713

  71,232

  Charles Clifford dental hospital

  2,106

  1,629

  —

  Northern general hospital

  56,026

  58,314

  61,126

  Sheffield children's hospital

  12,488

  13,245

  12,804

  Sheffield community health

  —

  3,897

  4,649

  Sheffield community services unit

  291

  —

  —

  Sheffield mental health unit

  2,753

  —

  —

  Weston Park hospital

  7,070

  8,286

  9,700

  Total

  148,641

  154,084

  159,511

  Out-patient attendances

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Central Sheffield university hospitals

  277,316

  295,309

  395,856

  Charles Clifford dental hospital

  59,598

  62,,492

  —

  Northern general hospital

  162,042

  165,811

  173,480

  Sheffield children's hospital

  51,120

  59,756

  58,450

  Sheffield community health

  —

  11,975

  18,718

  Sheffield community services unit

  0

  —

  —

  Sheffield mental health unit

  12,824

  —

  —

  Weston Park hospital

  41,512

  37,410

  32,108

  Total

  604,412

  632,753

  678,610

  1Figures are provided for the trusts and directly managed units as existed each year. Charles Clifford Dental Hospital merged with Central Sheffield University Hospital NHS trust in 1995–96. Sheffield community services unit and Sheffield mental health unit merged in 1994–95 to form Sheffield Community Health NHS trust.

  2Figures are collected on a provider basis and do not represent finished consultant episodes and outpatient attendances for Sheffield residents.

  3Further information by specialty for England, regional office areas and trusts is published in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England" and "Outpatients and ward attenders, England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest information for 1995–96 will be placed in the Library by the end of November.

  European Union
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost in the last 12 months of sending Ministers and officials to meetings in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe in connection with his Department's handling of EU business. [4946]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department does not account separately for running costs expenditure on travel, subsistence and other overseas expenses connected with European Union business.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of his Department's time and resources are spent dealing with administrative and policy matters connected with British membership of the European Union. [4956]

  Mr. Malone
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mixed-sex Wards (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals in West Yorkshire which have mixed sex wards. [4788]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact chairmen of the trusts in West Yorkshire for details.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue advice that fluoridated toothpaste and fluoride supplements should not be used in fluoridated areas. [5002]

  Mr. Malone
  Advice is available in the Dental Practitioners' Formulary, the British National Formulary and information provided by the manufacturers of fluoride supplements, that systemic fluoride supplements should not be taken where water contains more than 0.7mg fluoride per litre. Fluoride toothpaste regarded as a cosmetic falls within the scope of the Cosmetic Product Safety Regulations 1989, as amended. In these pastes the fluoridating compound is restricted to 0.15 per cent. All fluoride toothpastes must be labelled as containing the substance. Copies of the DPF and BNF are available in the Library.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission studies to determine the current average fluoride content of bone in each age group for(a) long-fluoridated and (b) unfluoridared areas of Britain. [5001]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has no plans to commission such studies.

  NHS Network
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS executives are participating in the NHS network. [5185]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no departmental responsibility for the national health service network.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4981]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health is currently enhancing its accounting system to meet the requirements of resource accounting by 1 April 1997. The Department, in common with others, is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the 2000 survey. As set out in the White Paper "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money: The Government's Proposals-Resource Accounting and Budgeting in Government," the first published resource accounts for the Department and other departments will be in respect of 1999–2000. Copies of the White Paper, Cm 2929, are available in the Library.

  Farmers (Suicide)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the findings of the research commissioned from the Warneford hospital, Oxford, into suicides among farmers; and if he will make a statement. [4909]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department of Health has commissioned Professor Keith Hawton, University of Oxford, to undertake a study on suicides in high risk
  705
  occupational groups, including an investigation of suicides among farmers. The study is in its final stages, and a report is expected in early 1997.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will list the ways in which the National Audit Office has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4509]

  Sir Terence Higgins
  The National Audit Office is committed to a policy of concern for environmental issues. Energy management practices in the National Audit Office headquarters building have resulted in better performance than is typical according to the Building Research Establishment's published data for the type of building, and the office is committed to reducing the use of energy in line with Government targets. The National Audit Office uses environmentally preferred products where possible, recycles waste, and works with its suppliers to achieve environmental objectives.

  As part of its statutory reporting to Parliament, the National Audit Office has published a number of reports addressing a range of environmental issues, including anti-pollution measures, conservation programmes, and the impact of transport on the environment. A list of 17 such reports over the last five years has been placed in the Library. For example, the report by the Comptroller and Audit General entitled, "Buildings and Environment", published in 1994, examined how the Department of the Environment had set energy conservation requirements through the building regulations, and had promoted energy efficiency measures and awareness of their importance to households, building managers and the construction industry. The National Audit Office is also contributing to development work on Environmental Auditing for the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of Council directive 95/29/EEC to safeguard the welfare of live farm animals exported from the United Kingdom. [3732]

  Mrs. Browning
  The directive provides for the first time a framework within which we can seek to ensure that all member states fulfil their responsibility to enforce agreed Community-wide rules on animal welfare in transit.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the dates during 1995 and 1996 when his officials at Dover have requested advice under the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994 due to their concern that a vessel was about 706
  to sail in weather and sea conditions when unnecessary suffering or injury might have been caused to the livestock on board; [5397]

  (2) if he will list the dates during 1995–96 on which a notice has been served by his staff under the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994 on ships leaving any United Kingdom port prohibiting them from sailing due to adverse weather and the risk of unnecessary suffering or injury to livestock on board; [5395]

  (3) on what dates advice has been given to field staff as cited in his instruction "Advice to Field Staff, Carriage of Livestock in Rough Weather, October 1996"; [5399]

  (4) on how many occasions during 1995–96 a written or verbal instruction has been issued that the decision to sail in adverse weather with livestock on board must rest solely with the master of the vessel; [5398]

  (5) if he will list the dates during 1995–96 on which a notice has been served by his staff under the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994 during a prospective channel crossing on any vehicle preventing it from boarding a vessel due to rough weather and the risk of unnecessary suffering or injury; [5396]

  (6) what advice was given when Ministry inspectors at Dover telephoned the State Veterinary Service livestock transport adviser or the veterinary adviser, animal health and welfare section at Tolworth on 6 November about a prospective sailing by the M.V. Cap Afrique. [5400]

  Mrs. Browning
  Communication between the Ministry's staff at Dover and headquarters is frequent, and often by telephone and unrecorded. Discussions on the weather have the aim of assisting the staff at Dover to form a view. No notices have been served on ships or vehicles to prevent transport on grounds of rough weather. Guidance to staff on this matter is clearly set out in a document entitled. "Advice to Field Staff, Carriage of Livestock by Sea in Rough Weather". A copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Feeding Stuffs (Contamination)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent of contamination of feeding stuffs; and if he will make a statement. [3733]

  Mrs. Browning
  Surveillance effort is concentrated on food for direct consumption, supported by periodic analyses of feeding stuffs whether for veterinary or pesticide residues or a range of contaminants controlled by the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1995.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress being made towards the implementation of the selective cull of cattle in accordance with the Florence agreement. [3734]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government announced on 19 September that they would not proceed for the present with the selective cull of cattle in relation to BSE.
  707
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the farming unions to discuss the throughput of animals to slaughter under the current cull scheme; and if he will make a statement. [3736]

  Mr. Hogg
  I meet the National Farmers Union regularly to discuss BSE issues, including the operation of the over-30-months scheme.

  Veal Calves
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has to end the transport of live veal calves to the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [3735]

  Mrs. Browning
  None. However, provisions on directive 95/29 on animal welfare in transit are properly implemented and enforced throughout the Community.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the operations of the Agricultural Wages Board; and if he will make a statement. [3737]

  Mr. Boswell
  After consultation following the last formal review of the operation of the Agricultural Wages Board in 1993, the Government decided broadly to retain the existing arrangements, but these are kept under review.

  BSE
  Mrs Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that the Government's BSE controls are rigorously enforced in the slaughterhouses. [3739]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have made substantial additional resources available to the Meat Hygiene Service, which is responsible for enforcing the specified bovine material controls in slaughterhouses, to enable it to achieve our objective of full compliance with controls on SBM.

  The State Veterinary Service also carries out regular unannounced surveillance visits to all plants handling SBM. This surveillance is now showing a consistently high level of compliance in slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union on matters relating to BSE in the last month. [3740]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have received a number of representations from the NFU both at meetings and in writing over this period.

  European Fishery Rules
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department spent on enforcement of European fisheries rules in the last available year. [3741]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1995–96 the Ministry spent some £11 million on monitoring and enforcement of the common fisheries policy on land, at sea and by aerial surveillance.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with EC Commissioner Bonino regarding fish quotas for 1997. [3742]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have not yet had any discussions with Mrs. Bonino regarding fish quotas for 1997.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet(a) Commissioner Bonino and (b) other European Union Ministers to discuss the effectiveness of the common fisheries policy. [3747]

  Mr. Baldry
  I next expect to meet Mrs. Bonino and other European Union Ministers to discuss the common fisheries policy on 22 November.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions were held on matters relating to the common fisheries policy and proposals for its modification when he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union. [3702]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), on 16 October 1996,Official Report, columns 938–40.

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Union support each of the member states of the European Union has received in respect of their fishing industries in each of the last three years. [3748]

  Mr. Baldry
  Planned EU expenditure under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance for the last three years as indicated in member states' sectoral plans for 1994–99 is set out in the table. Details of amounts actually received are not readily available.

  (Mecu)

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Austria

  0

  0.40

  0.40

  Belgium

  4.14

  4.14

  4.14

  Denmark

  23.31

  23.31

  23.32

  Finland

  0

  4.94

  5.33

  France

  36.84

  37.29

  37.72

  Germany

  19.42

  24.42

  25.42

  Greece

  21.67

  21.67

  21.67

  Ireland

  3.00

  6.20

  8.00

  Italy

  61.16

  61.16

  61.16

  Luxembourg

  0.21

  0.34

  0.34

  Netherlands

  9.14

  9.14

  9.21

  Portugal

  25.59

  26.81

  30.89

  Spain

  154.13

  165.28

  175.92

  Sweden

  0

  8.36

  8.60

  UK

  16.18

  20.60

  25.05

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food what support he plans to provide to those beef farmers(a) in Staffordshire and (b) elsewhere striving to use non-extensive production methods. [3743]

  Mr. Boswell
  Beef farmers in Staffordshire and elsewhere may claim support under the livestock schemes run by the Ministry provided that they meet the rules of
  709
  those schemes, including those relating to stocking density. We have no plans to provide additional support specifically to non-extensive producers.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on projected farm incomes in less favoured areas in the United Kingdom in 1997. [3744]

  Mr. Boswell
  Following the autumn review of the economic prospects of hill and upland farms, the hill livestock compensatory allowance payment levels for 1997 will be announced on 26 November. Tables showing income levels for cattle and sheep farms in the less favoured areas in the United Kingdom will be deposited in the House Library on that date, these will include forecasts for 1996–97.

  Sheep Products Ban
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken in respect of the German ban on sheep products from Britain. [3745]

  Mrs. Browning
  Germany has proposed a ban on the use, in feedstuffs or cosmetics, of brain, spinal cord and eyes from sheep and goats over 12 months of age from France or the United Kingdom.

  The Commission has put to the Standing Veterinary Committee a proposal for EU-wide controls and this is under discussion. The UK Government support the Commission in pressing for EU-wide measures and we take an active part in discussions with our European partners. Our objective remains to seek an early agreement on a European basis on this issue.

  Livestock Industry Support
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of his Department's expenditure in 1997 in support of the livestock industry. [3746]

  Mrs. Browning
  Estimated expenditure, including EU-funded expenditure, in 1997–97 in support of the livestock industry is £2,499 million. Of this £445 million is expected to occur in January-March 1997. An announcement of estimated expenditure in 1997–98 will be made shortly. These figures include expenditure relating to intervention buying, export refunds, private storage aid, premium schemes and BSE measures but not hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department is making with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting; and in respect of which financial year he expects to publish the first set of resource accounts. [4986]
  710
  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be introducing its resource accounting system during 1997–98. The Department, in common with others, is preparing to implement resource budgeting in time to form the basis for the 2000 survey. As set out in Cm 2929, the first published resource accounts for the Department and all other Departments will be in respect of 1999–2000.

  Sheep and Goats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996 to implement fully the requirement of Council directive 92/102/EC that there must be in force a national system enabling the holding of birth to be identified in respect of sheep and goats being moved within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [5402]

  Mrs. Browning
  There are no immediate plans to amend The Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996, but this will be kept under review.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer on 5 November,Official Report, column 488, on quarantine regulations, if his review will extend to the provisions for the importation of dogs and cats from other states in the EU; and if he will make a statement. [5403]

  Mrs. Browning
  The review will extend to the provisions for the importation of pet dogs and cats from other states in the EU.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of veterinary medicinal products authorised for marketing in the United Kingdom. [5410]

  Mrs. Browning
  As recommended by the Agriculture Select Committee, officials of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are preparing a list of veterinary medicinal products authorised in the United Kingdom. It is intended that the list will be published early in 1997.

  Suicides
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has recently been commissioned by his Department into suicides among farmers; if that research has been published; what its principal conclusions are; what response he has made to the findings; and if he will make a statement. [4908]

  Mr. Burns
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health has commissioned Professor Keith Hawton, University of Oxford, to undertake a study on suicides in high risk occupational groups, including an investigation of suicides among farmers. The study is in its final stages, and a report is expected in early 1997.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Union: Economic Stability Pact
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, well before the European Council to be held in Dublin on 13th and 14th December, they will take steps to prevent any participation by the United Kingdom in the so-called economic stability pact as proposed by the European Commission.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Commission's proposals for a stability pact, which involves fines for member states with excessive deficits as envisaged in the Maastricht Treaty, would apply to member states participating in EMU. Thanks to the opt-out which the Prime Minister negotiated, the United Kingdom will only join the single currency if there is a separate decision to do so by Government and Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that an examination of the Commission's proposals discloses a degree of ambiguity in its wording? In particular a definition of participatory member states came to the attention of the Standing Committee in another place dealing with these matters. As a consequence, a Motion, number 27, was put down on the Order Paper in another place which is due to be discussed. It was supported by 200 Members in another place and withholds approval until the matter has been before the whole House. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that although we sit in a different place and have a different function he is a member of Her Majesty's Government and is responsible for the conduct of business in both places? Will the noble Lord say whether or not the matter at least can be brought before Parliament rather than being rushed through as it has been and as is indicated in this volume of documents which have cascaded over us in the past fortnight?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that it would be for me, in your Lordships' House, to comment on what my right honourable and honourable friends and the business managers in another place should do in response to a Motion on this morning's Order Paper. I understand that a committee of this House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has already had a hearing on the subject and has taken evidence.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, in view of the welcome statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he is prepared to block EU business if it is in Britain's interest to do so, will my noble friend on the Front Bench say whether we are prepared to block the stability pact in order to solve the problem of quota hopping by our EU partners?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said on a number of occasions, the objectives of the stability pact are wholly admirable. They are the objectives of anyone trying to run a sensible economy whether in or outside the EMU. I do not see how we can veto something which points in the right direction, whether in or out of the EMU.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has got round almost to answering the first Question. Will he now confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees and favours the idea of a stability pact for the obvious reason that it is to the benefit and in the best interests of the UK whether we are in or out? At the same time will he confirm that under Article 104c—I hope that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington does not mind my quoting an article occasionally—any decision as regards fines would have to be taken by a unanimous vote of the Council?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is some disagreement still so far as concerns fines. I believe that the Germans would still like the fines, and so on, to be automatic. However, our position is that the decision should be taken in the Council after considering the matter in the round. It is worth saying that we only reach a fines procedure if, first, we agree to join the EMU and are therefore in; and, secondly, if we actually run excessive deficits. I hope that that answers the second part of the question.
I believe that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has always made clear that a stability pact is a sensible way to proceed. There is little or no point in having convergence criteria, if one does not have some discipline in order to keep those who join having obeyed the convergence criteria within the limits of the convergence.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, does the House agree that it is of the utmost importance that we participate to the fullest extent in the preparation of the stability pact? Is it not a fact that if the pact comes about it will be one of the most important agreements for the well-being and future of the European Community?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Whether we decide to go into the EMU or to stay out, if EMU comes about it is absolutely sensible that it is stable. One of the ways to keep it stable is to have some form of stability pact that, for example, prevents those member states who are in the EMU running up excessive budget deficits.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for having taken the matter forward and having confirmed that the Government are in favour in principle of the stability pact. He mentioned earlier that some form of discipline would be needed to ensure that a stability pact was obeyed. What forms of discipline do the Government have in mind?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord borrows the papers from his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He will then see what is in mind.
I appreciate that the Labour Party is constantly looking to me for advice on this matter. For the past two-and-a-half years when I have discussed EMU from this Dispatch Box, it has argued with me and sneered at me in various ways. In each case it has come round, first, to approving the opt-out; and, secondly, to approving the taking of the decision at the right time in the interests of Britain. It has now come round to a referendum. I am not surprised that the noble Lord seeks advice.
The stability pact envisages that any country which has, or moves into, excessive deficits will be asked to explain how it will prevent such deficits or how it will sort the matter out. The provision goes further. It provides that if countries do not sort the position out but move into deficits, in the final analysis they can be fined. There are a number of other issues. However, I commend the paper to the noble Lord.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister referred earlier to alternative forms of discipline which the Government favoured. Will he tell us what they are?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that I referred to alternative forms of discipline in the way that the noble Lord suggests. I said that the fines system is there. There is some disagreement as to whether it should be automatic or agreed by the Council of Ministers. However, apart from that, the position of the fine as the longstop is up for discussion. It remains to be seen how the member states decide to agree on that issue.
However, what is without doubt true—I hope that the noble Lord agrees with me—is that if the countries join the EMU, having met the convergence criteria, there have to be some arrangements to ensure that they do not then promptly go against the very criteria which brought them into the EMU.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as my noble friend agreed, this is one of the most important steps that the EU will take and, as he said, there are great differences between the Germans, the French and ourselves on the process of the stability pact. Would it not therefore be much more sensible, even if another place will not hold a debate in government time, for this House, which is full of very clever people, to hold a similar debate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not asking me for assent or dissent in relation to the last part of his question. I do not believe that the differences are great. As I explained quite clearly, there is no difference in the principle that we should have a stability pact to ensure, as the name suggests, the stability of any EMU that comes into being. That must be in the interest of everyone, in or out, approving or disapproving.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that the noble Lord has in fact read the stability pact in draft, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that on his reading of it the United Kingdom, if it decides not to participate in economic and monetary union, will not be subject to any penalties whatsoever under Article 104c of the treaty?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position as I understand it is that there will be a procedure for those who remain out; they will be required to submit convergence programmes. But the next step, to move into the penalties, will not fall on the "outs". The penalties will be there only for the "ins".

Rape: Research
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why there has been a fall in convictions for rape from the reported 450 in 1985 to 425 in 1994 despite a trebling in the number of allegations of rape in the same period.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government recognise and share the concern about the low proportion of successful prosecutions in rape cases. My right honourable friend the Minister of State announced in another place on 12th June that the Government are to conduct their own research in this area.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate that reply. As we all know, special cases make bad law. However, is the Minister aware that the figures indicate very clearly that we are failing to secure justice for both women and men in relation to this difficult issue? Does she agree that the real reason is that it is impossible to achieve justice by slotting cases of rape into normal criminal proceedings? It is a unique crime and requires special rules. Instead of conducting their own investigations, will the Government ask the Law Commission to hold an independent inquiry into the whole issue, with special reference to three problems: the redefinition of the crime of rape; rules of evidence in the court; and legal representation for the alleged victim?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I began by saying that we share the concern of the noble Lord in regard to the

1345
statistics that led him to table this Question. We have no plans to ask the Law Commission to carry out that work. However, we believe that it is a very important prerequisite to any further work to have a piece of research which will examine the figures, update the research from 1985 and ask the very questions that the noble Lord asks. We know that there is a massive fall-out of cases at a number of stages in the process. We need to examine, for example, the role of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in the process, the role of the initial recording of crime and the ways in which police record a crime or a no-crime. All those questions need to be researched. It is very important that we establish that scientific database before deciding whether further work needs to be done.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, who will conduct the research?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will be the research and statistics department of the Home Office. It will examine cases across five police areas and five Crown Prosecution areas. It intends to examine 500 completed cases and at the same time examine in more depth cases that are already in progress. There will also be some sessions observing cases in court. The research started in September and is expected to take 18 months. It will be a very thorough piece of research and there will be an interim report in nine months.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what the Minister has just told the House is very encouraging. In the light of that, will the Government also study cases where it has been proved beyond peradventure that villainous activity has taken place and there is no doubt whatever as to the rape involved? Would not such an examination be able to assist the Government in formulating legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, where cases are proven beyond peradventure, I expect the courts to arrive at a conviction. Where they do not, it is a matter for the courts. There is a great fall-out: some 5,000 cases are presently being recorded, and only 9 per cent. of those end in conviction. We are examining ways to find out why, at various stages in the process, a number of cases fall out.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister think that there is a change in the pattern of rape? There have been some very horrific cases involving very elderly and very young people.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that will be one of the questions posed by the researchers. We are examining the pattern of rape and the nature of the cases that are reported. That aspect will be subsumed in the research.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether there are now special provisions for people who come to report
1346
allegations of rape? It is a most upsetting time for them. Will she say whether that is taken into account and whether special help is given to people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I hope my noble friend knows, the police have done a great deal. We have given guidance to the police as to the treatment of victims of any offence but particularly rape. They have gone to great lengths to make it easier for people to record such crimes.
The figures are interesting: 5,000 cases are being reported now, as against some 1,000 cases five years ago. So people are coming forward to report such incidents. The conundrum is: why are those cases falling out of the system as they go through the process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Government's concern as she expressed it and the research that she described are both very welcome? However, is it not the case that during the passage of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act the Government resisted amendments that could have helped the situation in advance of a full-scale investigation relating to the video-recording of evidence both before and during trials for rape? Will the Government think again about whether they should proceed with reforms which are self-evidently worth while, even before the research is concluded?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a general principle of our legal system that evidence should be provided in court. The Government decided that in the case of children, for example, their special needs warranted a departure from that principle. However, we should be very cautious about extending the principle further.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister ask the inquiry being conducted by the Government to take account of the fundamental fact that the nature of rape is unique, and the need for special provision? Will it also examine the possibility of at least half the judges being women? Sex equality and justice on this issue is profoundly important.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the first point, we shall take that into account. It will be part of the research. As to what action to take, that will follow the research when we have seen the results.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is it possible that an increasing number of the allegations are ill-founded?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the result of the inquiries may well be that some of the allegations are not founded. Two new areas have been introduced into the issue of rape: there is male rape, which is a new feature in rape cases; and there is rape within marriage. We know that in a very large majority of cases rape is committed between people who know each other—for example, date rape. Evidence is very difficult to secure. All those aspects will be investigated during the course of the research.

Fireworks: Aerial Shells
3.19 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees Lord Merlyn-Rees asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why no action has been taken, despite warnings from the Leeds Home Safety Council and others, to ban aerial shells which have recently caused two fatalities and serious injury, and what action they now plan to take.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, concern about some types of firework, including aerial shells, which are on uncontrolled sale to the general public was one of the considerations which led my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs to decide to undertake a comprehensive review of the controls on fireworks. As part of this review, he issued a public consultation document at the end of July. The closing date for comments was last month and my honourable friend is now giving them careful consideration.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is it not the case that undeniable evidence of danger from the so-called fireworks was identified and reported to the Government by a wide variety of organisations, including the West Yorkshire coroner and the Leeds Home Safety Council? Is it not also the case that controls were not implemented because of European Union and DTI procedures, as well as, of course, consultative processes? In the event, death and serious injury have followed. This House should not be able to duck that fact. It is all very well to have consultative processes, but death and destruction will come again next year. I understand that it is likely to be 1998 before anything is done. Could not the DTI step in and forbid the sale of these instruments of death straight away, in advance of the result of consultative processes? Could it not do something now, or next November the same thing will happen?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, regrettably this year there have been two tragic deaths, including that of a headmaster, where one of the aerial shells struck the person involved. The noble Lord is correct that there have been indications from both the coroner in Leeds and the Leeds Home Safety Council. They expressed their views to the department. The aerial shells are very powerful fireworks but they have a place in organised public displays. One of the issues is whether they should be changed from one category to another, which would take them off sale to the general public. There are difficult definition problems as to who are the "general public" in this context.
As I sought to indicate to the noble Lord, my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs is looking at the matter. A simple change from one category to another might be a way forward. However,
1348
it may be that a rather more drastic reassessment is necessary. He is not in any mood to delay the matter any longer than is necessary.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that much of the trouble followed the relaxation of import controls on fireworks from the Far East? Will he assure us that there will be an examination of the question? It is clear that fireworks made in the Far East are causing many of the problems, the deaths and injuries.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I wish to reassure the noble Lord that he is correct that no import licence is now required. However, to consider that the controls were an effective technique is an exaggerated view of their efficacy. Perhaps I may assure him that there is nothing now authorised by the Health and Safety Explosives Inspectorate in the United Kingdom which would previously have been refused a licence. If it is not authorised, then it is an offence to sell such a firework.

World Food Summit
3.22 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the result and value of the recent World Food Summit in Rome.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the summit produced an international consensus on the action needed to reduce and eventually eradicate hunger throughout the world.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer which was a little short on detail. Does he agree that a major cause of the failure of food production in the developing world to keep up with the population increase is the extent of subsidised food exports from the north to the south which undercut and put farmers out of business in the south? Many of them leave the land and end up in already over-populated and impoverished cities of the south.
Will the noble Lord ask the Government to recommend the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference next month in Singapore rapidly to phase out or subsidise food exports from the north to the south? Will the Government also allow affected countries in the developing south to operate protective tariffs in order to encourage their own food production?
Finally, can the Minister explain the Ruggero initiative on tariffs which was mentioned by his noble friend Lady Chalker at the conference in Rome?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I could be here for quite a long time with that list of questions. The first point is that we are making all efforts to get free trade throughout the world; that will remove the subsidies on food products from the north to the south. However, with free trade it is difficult to say, "we must also allow other countries to have tariffs". The two are not possible together.

1349
The most important point is to consider the aid given and use it, as the ODA does exceedingly well. I know that it has support from all round the House. We should implement the plan of action and encourage everyone else to do so, that plan being to overcome poverty and hunger. We believe that that is best done by promoting sustainable development in those countries. Food is one of the most important parts of sustainable development.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the average size of delegation at the conference? We have heard worrying rumours of delegations of over 1,200 people.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am not aware of any allegation of a delegation of over 1,200 people. I have seen mentioned the figure of 100 from one or two countries but we have not received a final list of those attending. It is important to note that we deliberately kept the UK delegation small. We had six officials from the UK plus two NGOs and support from our missions in Rome.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend says that he advocates free trade in agricultural products. How does he square that with the fact that Customs and Excise is trying to impose a duty of £2,000 per tonne on the new spreadable butter instead of a duty of £700 per tonne on Anchor butter? Has that anything to do with free trade?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, individual instances are not terribly helpful. We are talking about what we are trying to do through the World Trade Organisation and GATT to free up trade all round the world, not a single instance such as the noble Earl mentioned.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Fidel Castro stated at the conference that reducing the number of people short of food from 800 million to 400 million was not ambitious enough?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am aware that that is what President Castro said.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, why do our European Union partners not share the Government's view that food aid destabilises local food prices? Do they have no regard for the consequences?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, while we are, of course, members of the EU and make our point clear in all the appropriate fora, we cannot answer for the EU. I wish to reiterate that we believe the funds are best utilised in promoting sustainable development, which is a way of reducing poverty and suffering on an on-going basis.
Lord Judd: My Lords, on reflection, will the Minister agree that for an issue of such immense significance for the poorest people of the world, his answers have been extraordinarily generalised? Will he tell the House what specific discussions are taking place between development Ministers in the European Union and
1350
agriculture Ministers on how subsidies for food production in the European Union will be phased out to stop unfair competition with the third world?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as the conference finished last weekend, I do not have details of what discussions have continued since then. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government confirm that an action plan was agreed extending for the next 20 years to eradicate hunger in the world? Do the Government think that 20 years is a long time for hungry people to wait to be fed?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, this was a target. The target is for reducing hunger. It is sensible to have realistic targets. One of the problems with the 1974 congress was that the targets were totally unachievable. What this summit has tried to do is to come up with achievable targets. It is terribly important that we should have targets which are realistic and can be achieved.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that our aid is sufficiently targeted to small farmers, who need credit and advice, perhaps through agricultural extension workers? Where these schemes are applied well they are often extremely successful.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am sorry, but I could not quite catch the question. May I ask the noble Lord to repeat it?
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Lord feel that the correct proportion of our aid is going to aid agriculture at the front line in developing countries?
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords, we are doing everything we can to put it there and we believe that that is the right place for it to be.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend's original reply was described as "short on detail", apparently as a criticism. Does he agree that replies are expected to be brief at Question Time and that he has set a very good example to all other Members of your Lordships' House, including those who put Questions?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his comments.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by certain British nationals in Hong Kong. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Home Energy Rating Surveys Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for home energy rating surveys. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ezra.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Service: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord McNally and the Earl Russell be appointed members of the Select Committee in the places of the Lord Harris of Greenwich and the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Scottish Select Committee on the Bill:

L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

E. Dundonald,

L. Goold,

L. Gray of Contin,

L. Jauncey of Tullichettle (Chairman),

E. Kintore,

L. Macaulay of Bragar,

E. Mar and Kellie,

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

L. Sewel,

V. Thurso;

That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the committee shall be printed and, if the committee thinks fit, delivered out;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Police Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Clause 46,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 2 to 17,

1352

Schedule 3,

Clauses 18 to 43,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 44 and 45,

Clauses 47 to 61,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 62 to 86,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 87 to 94,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 95 to 97,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 98 to 122,

Schedules 9 and 10.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Minister on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clause 13,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 14 to 23,

Schedule 4,

Clause 24,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 25 to 27,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 28 and 29.—(The Earl of Courtown.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): 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.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Financial assistance from the National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("architectural.") insert ("engineering,").
The noble Lord said: I must apologise for tabling this group of amendments but, as older Members of the Committee will know, I have raised this matter from time to time, at least since the copyright Bill in 1988. I had thought that I had clawed my way at least partly up the north face of the Eiger when a year or two ago amendments such as mine were accepted on the British Waterways Bill. I should say at this point that I speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10 and 11. Amendments Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 are virtually the same; Amendment No. 3 is slightly different and I shall come to it later.
As I said, I thought that I had achieved something when the British Waterways legislation accepted my approach to this matter, and I was even more heartened when last year in the Environment Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, accepted Amendment No. 1. I assumed that that ended the long saga and that I should not be required to return to it again. The phraseology used in the Environment Act 1995 asks the Environment Agency:
"to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest".
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, accepted in February last year the word "engineering" and surprisingly it is left out of this National Heritage Bill, which merely mentions having regard to matters:
"which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest, including [this, that and the other]".
The question that arises in my mind is why engineering was brought into the Environment Act but was left out in this Bill. I should have thought that exactly the same considerations that applied in the Environment Act would apply in the National Heritage Bill. It all hinges on the attitude that people have to engineering and especially to the word "engineering", which seems to be very difficult to get into Acts of Parliament either in this House or the other place.
I refer very briefly to what the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said last year when dealing with the Environment Bill. He said that the noble Lord—that is me—
"spoke about these amendments in respect of engineering structures so eloquently at Committee stage that both I and my noble friend Lord Lindsay agreed to consider the issue further".—[Official Report, 2/3/95; col. 1663]
He then tabled amendments to the Bill (which are now included in the Act) of which he said that:
"objects of engineering interest are treated in the same way as those of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
He went on to say:
"We were persuaded at Committee stage that the issues raised by the noble Lord were valid concerns and therefore we propose that the word 'engineering' should be included in Clause 7".
What was good enough for Clause 7 of the Environment Act in March 1995 should at least be good enough for the National Heritage Bill in 1996. I know that a year is a long time in politics but it does not mean that changes of such a vast nature should take place in
1354
that time. A happy conclusion was reached, and obviously I was pleased about it. Therefore, I tabled these amendments and informed the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that I intended to do so. I gave an explanation of why I was pursuing this rather tedious task—tedious to others, that is. I received a reply in a very courteous and lengthy letter, which unfortunately I did not find terribly satisfactory, though I am not trying to be churlish.
In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund were to look at things of,
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest".
That is correct. He was quoting from the Bill. He went on to say that that was sufficient to encompass objects of interest in respect of the history of engineering. The next part is the part that caught my fancy:
"Given that the list of adjectives specified in the provision is already rather long, I would be reluctant to add another one when there is no substantive need to do so".
I should have thought that adding another word to the Bill, even in four different places, does not lengthen the Bill unduly. It does not make an immense Bill. It is only one word longer, but four times. That is not a powerful argument and I imagine that the man who dredged that one up was at his wit's end. The Minister went on to say that the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, which I mentioned earlier, were not relevant as a precedent,
"since those provisions, unlike the current Bill, made no reference to scientific interest".
Incidentally, the Environment Act made no reference to an aesthetic interest either. The Minister dealt with that by merely adding the word "aesthetic" to the definition in the Bill; he could easily have added scientific in exactly the same way and we would all have been happy.
What we are dealing with is a substantial misunderstanding of science and engineering. Engineering is not science. Engineering uses science in order to make things. We had a debate a week or so ago in which my noble friend Lord Diamond went on at some length about the value of the classics, especially Latin, as an educational matter. I know very little Latin and even less Greek. I am sure that Whitehall knows all about it. But I remind the Minister of this.
The word "science" derives from a Latin word meaning "knowledge". It does not mean anything other than that. It means knowledge, and science is a body of knowledge. The word "engineering" derives from a quite different Latin word meaning "ingenious". The difference is that the scientist is involved in the pursuit of knowledge which others then use for some purpose. In the case of the engineer or the architect, that purpose is to make things. They are not interested in knowledge by itself; they apply knowledge to make things. The things an engineer makes in this case are bridges, roads, buildings and so forth. That misunderstanding is rife in Whitehall and should be rectified. I hope that that paragraph of my speech is distributed throughout Whitehall for the information of civil servants who are unaware of these matters.
What is at the back of this amendment to add a single word two or three times into the Bill? It is a simple matter of identifying engineering as a professional discipline of no less status or importance than architecture. "Architectural interest" is used in the Bill as though there were certain architectural qualities which were distinct from the other qualities—historic, aesthetic and so forth. It is assumed that the engineering qualities are subsumed in those other qualities and that, although there are architectural qualities which are distinct, there are no engineering qualities which are distinct. That is wholly wrong and shows a complete misunderstanding of what engineering is about.
I could give the Committee many examples but I am sure that they would not be welcome. I want the Committee to compare two well-known buildings which are quite close to each other. The first is St. Paul's Cathedral and the other is Tower Bridge. St. Paul's Cathedral is noted for its historical connections. It is noted for its aesthetic values and it is especially noted for its architectural qualities—though I have some doubts about that. The dome is not really a dome at all; it is a false dome. It looks like a dome but it is not a dome. But I shall not go into that. The architectural qualities of St. Paul's Cathedral are lauded everywhere.
Let me now turn to Tower Bridge. Nobody in this Chamber or elsewhere could claim that Tower Bridge has any aesthetic qualities whatever. It is a monstrosity. Every man of sensitivity realises that that is so. The only people who do not think it is a monstrosity are those who do not look at it. It is also architecturally unsound, for this reason. If we look at the quasi-Gothic towers at each side of the lifting spans, it might be imagined, if one were naive and young and not up to the mark on these matters, that they were solid structures supporting the bridge. They are not. They are mere cladding. They are supported on brackets off the main steel structure of the bridge. The reason that we quite properly nurture and preserve Tower Bridge is not for its quasi-architectural qualities, should we be misled into believing that it had any; it is because it is a bascule-bridge. We preserve it because of its engineering characteristics. That is what makes it important; not the fake cladding around it.
I can give the Committee another example. Let us consider St. Pancras Station, which we are likely to debate later today in another Bill. There are two parts to the station. First, there is the front, which is a marvellous Victorian Gothic structure by Gilbert Scott; secondly, there is the train shed, which is a wonderful engineering structure by William Burrell. We would keep the hotel, as it has been and may be again one day, for its architectural qualities and we would keep the train shed for its engineering qualities—not the architectural qualities, because it does not have any. Those are the distinctions I am trying to make. I could take other examples; for instance, the canals.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Howie of Troon: No, I shall continue. We have been concerned with this since 1988; we can spare
1356
another five minutes, another 10 minutes if I am provoked. Do not provoke me. We preserve canals all over the place and there is no architecture in them; they are engineering from beginning to end. And so the list continues.
Amendment No. 1 is designed to obtain parity of status and esteem between architectural and engineering qualities stated in the Bill rather than being left to be covered by other parts of the Bill.
Let me turn briefly to Amendment No. 3. The amendment seeks to add "or structures" to "buildings" on page 2, line 4 of the Bill. The Institution of Structural Engineers is a body of people who actually know about such things. They describe their profession as designing and making buildings, bridges, frameworks and other structures. They distinguish between buildings, bridges and other structures. They see a structure as something in itself. It is quite right to do so. Buildings are really a subset of structures rather than the other way about, as people sometimes seem to think.
I wish to turn to the Bill. I find one point curious. There may be a reason for it and I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to explain what the reason is, if there is one. In the schedule, "buildings" and "structures" are differentiated. They are separated out in the schedule but not in the main part of the Bill. I am merely saying that if "buildings" and "structures" are distinguished, as they ought to be, in the schedule, they should be distinguished also in the main part of the Bill.
I regret having to detain the Committee at some length on this matter. However, after our adventures on the Environment Bill which settled a point which caused me and my professional colleagues of good deal of bother over the years, I do not think the Government will step back instead of stepping forward. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. The Government are faced with a problem of logic. We are talking about a National Heritage Bill. Heritage is that which is inherited—something from the past. In new Section 3(1) the Government have seen fit to list,
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest".
Surely it is not necessary to have that list of characteristics when the subsection contains the word "historic". Surely "historic" is all that is needed. As soon as one starts producing a list, as the Government have done here, things are almost inevitably left out. It is very unfortunate that "engineering" has been left out in this case because it suggests that the Government, or whoever has drafted the Bill, are thinking in terms of the superficial appearance of things rather than the reality of the ingenuous mechanisms and structures that are behind the façade, as my noble friend has so succinctly demonstrated.
That takes care of the Government's position regarding Amendment No. 1. As I see it, they can either accept my noble friend's amendment or take out the other different characteristics apart from "historic" listed in the subsection. However, it does not resolve the

1357
Government's problem with regard to Amendment No. 3. As my noble friend pointed out, there is a problem in that in one part of the Bill "structures" are included while in another part of the Bill they are not included. Following the contributions from this side of the Committee I hope that the Government will take steps to resolve the problems which we have pointed out. In particular, I hope that this short debate will give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate that they have some regard for engineering structures, the engineering profession and the contribution engineers have made to the heritage we currently enjoy.
Viscount Caldecote: I would not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in his views on the looks of Tower Bridge, but I would like to make two points on the amendment. First, there is a distinction between the preservation and the interest of engineering things and scientific things. Perhaps I may give the Committee one example. The Iron Bridge Museum, about which many Members of the Committee will know, has a splendid example of an engineering structure in its bridge and also, in the other parts of the museum, of the engineering developments of the Industrial Revolution. It is a fine example of preserving items of engineering interest. On the other hand, the electron microscope has made an enormous difference in the scientific world. If there is a place where the original electron microscope is preserved—I hope there is—that is a great scientific project whose preservation should be celebrated. There should be some way of funding such a preservation. Those two things are entirely different, although in the Bill as drafted we say that we shall preserve things of scientific interest but not of engineering interest.
Secondly, next year is the Year of Engineering Success and we shall celebrate the great importance of engineering, its success and its contribution to our society today. If we are to celebrate the present and the future contribution of engineering to our society, should we not also equally preserve the engineering achievements of the past? To do one without the other seems most illogical. The argument that one cannot put one more word into a Bill of this kind in order to make it a better Bill is not a strong argument at all. I very much hope that my noble friend will accept the noble Lord's amendment to include the word "engineering".
Lord Inglewood: If there was ever any doubt that your Lordships' House was not interested in and concerned about engineering, this debate has put paid to it. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, explained fully that his intention in proposing this group of amendments is to ensure that engineering is treated as an aspect of the heritage in its own right and not simply as an adjunct to history, archaeology, architecture or science. The noble Lord has of course played a distinguished role in the world of engineering and I fully understand his reasons for raising this issue. Indeed, he is a very well-known champion of the profession. I hope that I can give him an assurance that the Bill as drafted will fully meet his concerns. We shall consider very carefully the points that have been raised in the debate because the last thing we want to do is to have a Bill on the statute book that does not properly cover engineering matters.
1358
The Bill inserts into the National Heritage Act 1980 a new provision to define the scope of the funding powers of the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Under the terms of that provision the trustees' powers will be exercisable in the case of things of any kind which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest. The legal advice we have been given is quite clear that the provision as it stands—and in particular the reference to things of historic, aesthetic, architectural or scientific interest—is quite sufficient to encompass objects of interest in relation to engineering and its history. The noble Lord referred to the Government's acceptance of his proposal that relevant provisions of the Environment Act 1995 should refer specifically to the concept of engineering interest. I do not believe that is directly relevant to this Bill. The list in new Section 3(1) of the Bill is already wider than the definitions in the Environment Act and I am quite clear that the list fully encompasses anything which can be said to be part of our heritage.
Given that the list of heritage "interests", if I may call them that, specified in the Bill is rather long, I am reluctant to add another one when there is no substantive need to do so. If the Bill were to include a specific reference to engineering—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—then an equally valid case could be made on behalf of a whole range of other specialisms; for example, medical, bibliographical, horticultural and so on.
The problem is then that if the list is extended in that way it is not that it simply becomes inherently unwieldy, but the fact that something omitted may in turn become the source of misunderstanding and concern. Neither do we favour the insertion of the word "structures", as proposed in Amendment No. 2. The projects for which the trustees will be empowered to give financial assistance include, among other things—and I emphasise that—the construction or conversion of buildings and the carrying out of other works. Moreover, the provision makes it clear that the projects specified are not themselves an exclusive list.
Again, we are fully satisfied that a project involving the repair of an engineering structure would be eligible for assistance. We are concerned that if this amendment is added to the Bill—and we consider it to be unnecessary—it could then trigger a whole cascade of amendments to add to what is already clearly an illustrative list.
In saying that I am not overlooking the current Section 3 of the National Heritage Act, which includes the phrase, "land, building or structure". But the new Section 3 inserted by the Bill formulates the National Heritage Memorial Fund's powers in an entirely different way and does not require the retention of that phrase.
In the context of this debate it may be helpful to Members of the Committee to draw attention to the existing power of the Secretary of State to list buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The terms of this provision enable engineering structures, for example, Tower Bridge, to be listed albeit that I know

1359
the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has made it quite clear that he believes it to be a monstrosity. Nevertheless, in terms of the subject that we are debating that makes the case for me.
One thing that I would like to emphasise is that I hope that no noble Lord will believe that anything I have said in response to the helpful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, indicates that the Government or the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees underestimate the importance of our engineering heritage. After all, a number of lottery awards have already been offered for projects relating to engineering history, including one with which the noble Lord has himself been much involved. I can give an absolutely clear assurance that the trustees will continue to have power under the terms of the Bill to assist such projects.
I hope that the remarks that I have addressed to the Committee convince the noble Lord to agree with me that his amendments are unnecessary in the context of this particular Bill and that his proper concerns are met four-square. Perhaps, in a slightly perverse way, they may turn out to be unhelpful. I am reluctant to move in the direction that the noble Lord has suggested, but I can give an undertaking that we shall look very carefully at what has been said this afternoon with a view to double-checking our interpretation of the words in order to make quite sure that we are satisfied that the very important points that the noble Lord made are properly covered. Against that background I very much hope that he will not want to press his amendment this afternoon.
4 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I am very glad to hear what the Minister has said because it sounds as though the Government are listening and are respectful of our position. Perhaps I may pose him a problem. I was going to use the example of Tower Bridge, but perhaps that has been flogged to death already this afternoon. Perhaps I may put forward an alternative scenario; namely, a windmill in East Anglia. There are two ways of looking at an old windmill: one is that it is a beautiful, aesthetic structure although when they were built they were not considered to be so. But many people think of them in that way now. It might be felt that one of these windmills should be preserved for that reason.
There is another dimension and that is the engineering within the windmill, including the ingenious mechanisms contained in their manufacture, which is so important to our heritage. We could have a situation where the internal mechanics were stripped out of a heritage facility and just the façade left. That would be a great concern. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, given the current wording of the Bill, that is the sort of risk that those of us who know about these ingenious engineering aspects of our heritage will be concerned about. The Minister may be able to give me some reassurance and I would welcome that, but I wonder whether he can.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I am no engineer which, I fear, is painfully obvious. But I am a lawyer and I hope that
1360
it may be in order to reiterate my earlier remarks that we would like to look very carefully at what has been said. One thing that I am clear about is that, in terms of the substance of the matter we are concerned with, there is no difference between any of the speakers. Perhaps I may write to those who have contributed to the debate. We shall look at it all again with a view to bringing forward any refinements if they seem necessary to us at a further stage of the proceedings on this Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: I felt that I was possibly doomed when the Minister said that my contribution had been helpful. That is a word I have heard before. Indeed, I could have recited the Minister's speech because I have heard it six or seven times previously in the past eight or so years. We could have exchanged Hansard across the Floor of the House and saved a great deal of time.
I accept that, as the Minister says, what I want can be done under the Bill as it stands because it has been done in the past. He drew attention to a project with which I have been concerned; namely, the preservation of the oldest surviving railway bridge in the world over the River Irvine on the Kilmarnock to Troon railway, which was built in 1812. The trust of which I was chairman has restored that bridge. It was opened a fortnight ago. It is a marvellous construction. Perhaps I may say that we were greatly helped by the heritage fund, which gave us about half of the £1 million we required to restore the bridge. Therefore, we know that these things can be done under the existing legislation, but that is not really my point. That bridge was repaired because it was an historic monument of some sort. There was a railway bridge which was an engineering monument and not an historic one. That is my point.
Perhaps I may express my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who is a very distinguished engineer whom I have known for many years. I found his contribution extremely helpful although he seems to have a blind spot as regards Tower Bridge, but that is another matter. Clause 1 of the Bill refers to things which are of
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest".
We find that there is only one profession involved there which is distinguished as having special qualities and that is architecture. I have no animus against architecture at all: in fact this evening I am going to the award ceremony which is being held at the RIBA. I have not had to pay so I am going.
The point I am trying to make is this: what are the specific architectural qualities which are different from these other factors? That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. What are the specific qualities which are architectural and which relate to one specific profession and are so significant that they have to be included in the Bill whereas there appear to be no distinct qualities of an engineering nature which are worthy of inclusion? I believe that there are such factors. I agree that there are architectural qualities, but there are also engineering ones which are different.

1361
I have no doubt that the Minister will go off and think about it and then write me a letter which I could probably draft myself at this moment. I would like to come to see him to discuss this issue with his colleagues. The noble Lord seems to be engrossed in conversation at the moment and quite rightly, of course, because there is something extremely important going on there. I would like to come and see the Minister and discuss—
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend was not talking at all; I was talking to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. My noble friend the Minister said that he will take back the whole question. I was wondering whether the noble Lord was dissatisfied with what he said.
Lord Howie of Troon: Nothing on earth would make me dissatisfied with anything that the noble Baroness might say, as she knows from our many years' acquaintance across the Floor of your Lordships' House. Although I thought that a most unhelpful intervention, perhaps I should leave that to one side.
I am talking about the difference between architecture and engineering. I hope that the Minister will agree to see me to discuss the matter over a cup of tea or, even better, over a Lagavulin.
I turn now to Amendment No. 3, which seeks to add the words "or structures". I see that the Minister is at it again and I find it very distracting. However, the question that arises is why "buildings" and "structures" are quite properly referred to separately in the schedule to the Bill but are not separated on page 2 of the Bill which refers merely to "buildings". There must be some reason for stating "building or structure" in one part of the Bill but only "buildings" in another. There may be a good reason for that, but I should like to hear what it is. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that important matter. In the meantime, however, and giving the noble Lord the assurance that I shall return to the matter at a later stage—and no doubt until the Millennium—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 27, at end insert ("including financial assistance to prevent the imposition of admission charges at the British Museum and other national museums and galleries").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is to allow lottery funds, through the NHMF, to be used for financial assistance to prevent the imposition of admission charges at the British Museum and our other museums and galleries when they get into financial difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has asked me to say that he is prevented from attending your Lordships' Committee today and that he sends his apologies. I know that the noble Lord feels as strongly as I do about the difficult situation facing our museums and galleries following the recent financial cuts. The British Museum, for example, is faced with cuts in its grant amounting to 24 per cent. in real terms by the
1362
year 2000. The trustees are having to consider several options—none of them very desirable, such as the introduction of a £5 admission charge, cutting the workforce by a third or closing the museum for one day a week.
I feel that I have been through all this before. I remember in 1970 when there was the great controversy about admission charges that I played some part in the debates in your Lordships' House and outside. The Government had great difficulty in getting the measure through due to public opinion. However, they did so eventually, by the end of 1973. Charges were introduced for a very short period because in 1974, when the new Labour Government, of whom I was a member, came into office, my noble friend Lord Jenkins introduced a Bill to repeal the original Act. That was one of the first acts of the new Labour Government. I am glad to see my noble friend in his place today. Then, in the 1980s, the new Conservative Government reversed that—rather cunningly, I think—by allowing the trustees themselves to make the decision. The beauty of that, from the Government's point of view, was that they need take absolutely no responsibility at all, although the trustees were often driven to bring in admission charges if they got into financial difficulties because of the cuts.
The British Museum has always resisted an admission charge, as have the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery—and rightly so. However, other museums which have introduced charges have seen a sharp reduction in their number of visitors, sometimes amounting to as much as 50 per cent., and it is difficult to win many of them back. Is that any wonder? Even with children being admitted at half price, a family of two parents and two children would have to pay £15 on top of their fares and the cost of a meal. That is an expensive outing which is surely beyond the reach of many people. A high admission charge is also a hindrance for those specialists and others who may want to visit a museum for only a short time to see a special section. An admission charge is also a betrayal of those many people who have made bequests on the understanding that admission would be free.
I realise that the British Museum is to receive a grant of £30 million of lottery money to develop the Great Court following the British Library's move to St. Pancras. That will be an exciting and tremendously important project, judging by the plans and the architects' models that I have seen. However, we shall have the absurd situation of the museum not having sufficient resources to staff its galleries and research departments adequately.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and I therefore tabled the amendment to enable lottery funds to be used not only for new developments such as the Bill allows but also to enable the British Museum, our greatest museum—indeed, the greatest museum in the world—to remain free at entry as it has always been (except for a brief period during the time of the government of Sir Edward Heath) since its foundation in 1753. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to add a word or two in support of what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has just said. His amendment is desirable. Perhaps I may refer to a previous occasion when the government of the time—or, at any rate, the opposition of the time—accepted what the new Labour Government had proposed. That was in 1974 when, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has just said, charges had recently been introduced but were not altogether welcome.
When I came into office as Minister for the Arts in 1974, it was part of my remit to get rid of museum admission charges. That commitment had appeared in our manifesto. I remember Mr. Harold Wilson saying that it would probably be a fairly long job as fresh legislation would be necessary. However, after a study of the matter, in which I was considerably assisted by my civil servants, I discovered that the introduction of museum charges had never been part of any Act of Parliament. All that the Government had passed in the 1972 Act was a measure which enabled museums to impose charges if they so chose. Therefore, the idea that legislation would be needed if we were to get rid of the charges was untrue.
That was most important because, having only recently been appointed, about a week later I was able to come to the Chamber on 22nd March 1974 to say that only a week later, on 29th March, all the charges would be removed. One might say that that was done administratively because we got the leaders of the museums and galleries together and we all agreed that they did not want to charge and that where they already had charges, they would like to remove them. We agreed on a date a week ahead, 29th March, and all that we then had to do was to come to the House and announce that after 29th March there would be no admission charges. So, within a fortnight of being appointed and five days from the moment of my first measure in the House, I was able to get rid of the charges immediately.
I make that point because admission charges are not popular. However, that does not exclude our great institutions from being able to charge for special exhibitions. It is perfectly possible for the British Museum and other museums to make special charges for special exhibitions. Across the parties it is widely thought to be right that the standard exhibitions at our great institutions should be free of charge. They are part of the heritage of this country and there should be no charge. The short experience of charging last time was that the number of entrants substantially reduced and it failed to provide a useful amount of money. If one imposed charges at a level that resulted in a serious contribution, it had the effect of reducing the number of entrants. It simply did not work.
I fully support what my noble friend has said. We have worked together for a long time. At the time in question my noble friend was spokesman in this House for me as Minister for the Arts in the other place. I believe that our long friendship has arisen from that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will be able
1364
to accept the amendment. It merely illustrates a possibility and refers to a particular use, which I believe to be a valuable use. If he accepts that possibility, he will merely be following a step taken by his predecessor Mr. St. John Stevas, as he was then. Having been the Minister before me who introduced the charges, he had no hesitation in deciding that it was wrong that they should continue. He agreed that they should be removed. I hope that the noble Lord will follow that example.
Lord Renton: I am sure that many noble Lords would regret it if more museums had to charge the public for admission. It becomes especially regrettable if parties of schoolchildren and their teachers have to pay. Either they or the schools might not have the necessary funds. For parties of schoolchildren, visits to museums can bring to life the teaching of history, archaeology, geology, biology and other subjects. Therefore, if museums find it difficult to pay their way without making charges, surely some way must be found to try to keep them open without having to charge for admission.
It appears that at present the National Lottery Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund cannot be used for the purpose of enabling museums to pay their way because of the principle of additionality. That principle prevents those funds being used in addition to government grants, if Government grants can be used. Sometimes government grants can and have been used to help museums to stay open. One must consider whether this Bill will help in any way. I should be grateful for my noble friend's interpretation of it, because I believe that it is only a matter of interpretation.
Under the present law only specific projects can be funded. If we look at the Bill closely, Clause 1(1) amends Section 3 of the National Heritage Act 1980. Under subsection (2) it is provided:
"The Trustees may, for the purpose of …
(b) encouraging the study and understanding of them and the compilation and dissemination of information about them".
The "them" refers to the matters dealt with in subsection (1) which go beyond projects. For example, matters of zoological or botanical interest are included. Reference is made to improving access to them. That looks like admission to the public. Reference is also made to display. That is what goes on in a museum. It also refers to "encouraging enjoyment of them". Museums can provide enjoyment as well as interest. It goes on to provide:
"or for any purpose ancillary to those purposes [the Trustees may] give financial assistance for any project"—
that appears to be a word of limitation—
"which appears to them to be of public benefit".
Alas, the word "project" does not appear to me to include the general cost of running a museum.
Let us look, perhaps a little more hopefully, at what is said over the page. One finds that a new subsection (5) is to give financial assistance,
"by way of grant or loan out of the Fund, and in giving such assistance the Trustees may impose any conditions they think fit".

1365
Those conditions are set out in subsection (6). They include "means of access or display". That looks like admission to the public and what the public are to be shown.
Finally, I refer your Lordships to subsection (7):
"In giving any financial assistance under this section for any project for the preservation or enhancement of anything, or determining the conditions on which such assistance is to be given, the Trustees shall bear in mind the desirability of public access to, or the public display of, the thing in question and of its enjoyment by the public".
All of that looks very helpful, but it is a matter of interpretation in the light of the existing law which prevents additionality. It must be borne in mind that interpretation, stretched as much as anyone dare, is sometimes not enough. If one wishes to alter the previous law, one must amend it specifically. For that reason, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about the effect of the Bill on what is proposed. I shall be interested in whether or not he believes that the amendment is necessary to achieve that purpose. If there is any doubt about it, I hope that the amendment, or something like it, will be accepted.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, gave a clear description of the merits of not charging for admission to the British Museum. Of course, the British Museum is not the only museum that does not charge. The National Gallery does not charge for admission. I believe that this amendment is rather dangerous for galleries. It would allow the Government—in effect the Treasury—to escape from all the assurances that had been given about additionality.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that there was a law which prevented additionality. I do not think that there is. There is simply an undertaking by the Government. One must remember that the Government do not give away lottery money. The distributing bodies give it away.
I am against the amendment because, in effect, it says that if post-settlement the Government cut the money which goes to the British Museum, lottery money will make up the difference. That would not prevent the Treasury from making cuts. I believe that it would encourage it to make cuts, because under the proposed amendment it would know that a museum could go to the Arts Council or the National Heritage Memorial Fund and say that its budget had been cut, that it might have to charge and that in the Bill it was provided that it could get lottery money. It would be very dangerous. I understand the noble Lord's concerns about charging but I do not believe that this amendment in this Bill is the right way to deal with the problem.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I thank my noble friend. If, by a slip of the tongue, I referred to the law of additionality, I was wrong; it is the principle of additionality. But it is a governing principle because it is something which the Government decided upon before giving away any money.
Lord Donoughue: I fear that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, described the reality of the current situation
1366
in this area, which is that cuts are made by the Treasury regardless. If there is any suggestion that money may be obtained from the lottery, that is used as an excuse, but if that money is not available then the cuts are made in any event.
However, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friends Lord Strabolgi and Lord Jenkins. On this side we feel that perhaps the most important current single issue in the area of heritage is the plight of our museums and especially the British Museum, which, as has been said, is the world's greatest of its kind. I am puzzled. I believe that it is bizarre and ludicrous for the British Museum to be forced to make a charge which will exclude many of our citizens, especially our younger citizens, from its treasures. In the case of the British Museum, that will be all for the lack of £6 million per year when on another hand we see that £0.5 billion or more of lottery and other public and private money is ready to be hosed over the toxic wastes of Greenwich yielding little of permanent value.
I know that those are two slightly separate issues, but in the end, it is part of the heritage problem that we have in our society and I find it quite incomprehensible. In responding to the amendment, I should like the Minister to inform us as to whether existing legislation enables support to be given for the purposes suggested by the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I find this a very misconceived and astounding amendment. I am sure that politics come into this more than practical matters in relation to the future of museums. I can think of many reasons, as I am sure can other Members of the Committee, why lottery money should be made available to our national museums for new purchases, enhancement of collections and so on. But why should we wish to subsidise rich American and German tourists who visit the British Museum? I believe that 80 per cent. of visitors to the British Museum come from overseas and a recent survey pointed out that 80 per cent. of those were not only able but willing to pay an admission charge, as, indeed, is charged at the Louvre, the Hermitage, the Kunsthaus in Vienna, the Uffizi in Florence and so on. There are no criticisms there.
And then there is the allegation that attendances have fallen. But I believe that the number of visitors was never counted in the first place. There cannot be a reduction from a number which was unknown in the first place. The way in which counting takes place at the museums still leaves a lot to be desired.
I believe that lottery money should be used for capital projects, and that was the main reason that it was set up. But to pour millions down the drain of an ever gaping hole is no incentive for the trustees to establish any sensible policy. It is easy to make no charge for children and old-age pensioners. Many museums do that. That is not difficult.

1367
I want lottery money to be used to improve what people come to see. If that is done, even more people will wish to pay to see the museums. Let us keep the money for that. So much can be done but to subsidise overseas visitors seems to me to be extremely silly.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I suggest to the noble Lord that he should speak to his noble friend Lord Gowrie, who will tell him that the notion that 80 per cent. of visitors to museums are foreigners is absolute nonsense.
Lord Inglewood: We have had a heartfelt and wide-ranging debate on this amendment. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that, under Clause I of the Bill, the trustees of the NHMF will be able to provide financial assistance for projects aimed at securing, displaying or improving access to heritage items and encouraging enjoyment of them. Thus the Bill allows the NHMF to consider assisting projects which would secure reduced admissions charges, which was the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe, therefore, that the Bill as drafted covers the purposes of the noble Lord's amendment. If the trustees of the NHMF receive an application and consider it appropriate, and if the policy directions permit, they would be able to provide financial assistance in this way.
It will be for the trustees to exercise their discretion as to how they should use their new powers. However, I would envisage that they might wish to give priority to projects which would encourage members of the public who might not easily be able to afford the cost of admission charges—for example the young, the elderly and the unemployed—to visit museums and other similar venues to enjoy them.
Thus I hope your Lordships will see that the noble Lord's amendment therefore adds nothing to the powers of the NHMF beyond what the Government are proposing in the Bill as drafted. However, what it does do is actually to restrict the discretion of the NHMF in undesirable ways. The amendment would give favoured treatment to the national museums and galleries, and I do not believe it is desirable to favour some organisations in this way, as is proposed. The trustees of the NHMF should have the freedom to determine their priorities within the heritage sector as a whole. The amendment would restrict that freedom.
The noble Lord's proposal seeks to address the long-term revenue needs of the national museums and galleries. However, while this is a matter for the trustees of the NHMF, I should be surprised if they would wish to use their powers to commit lottery money towards the long-term revenue costs of the national museums in order to avoid the need for a general admission charge. Any such assistance would principally benefit those visitors, including, as my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu pointed out, the large number of visitors from overseas who are well able to afford admission charges. Those museums and galleries which already charge generally offer free entry to special groups such as the elderly, children and the unemployed. The new powers could enable the trustees of the NHMF to assist museums in offering further concessions. Furthermore,
1368
lottery funding to prevent general admission charges would raise issues about substitution for core funding and affordability. As has been mentioned, it would be difficult to reconcile such a commitment with the Government's statement on additionality.
The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would also raise difficulties for the NHMF in determining how much financial assistance was needed by the various museums in order to help them avoid the introduction of admission charges. On what basis could such decisions be taken? In order to maximise their bids for financial assistance, the institutions would have every incentive publicly to maintain that they intended to introduce charges and it is difficult to see how the NHMF could form a judgment on those bids without exploring in great detail the institutions' finances and the options available to them for controlling expenditure and raising alternative sources of income. Certainly it would be a significant burden on them, I would expect.
The amendment before us refers to the "imposition" of admission charges. I must emphasise—and this was a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Jenkins—that there is no question of the Government imposing this on the British Museum or on the other national museums, and let us be clear, the future of the British Museum is a very important matter and of concern to everybody in this country. The decision on this is entirely a matter for the trustees of each institution, who are in the best position to make that judgment in the light of their own needs and priorities. Of the 12 national museums and galleries sponsored by my department, six have introduced an admission charge. In each case the decision was taken solely by the trustees.
The Government neither encourage nor discourage charging for admission by national museums and galleries. It is up to them, and many galleries in the world do make a charge. In the case of the British Museum, it has recently completed a fundamental expenditure review—the Edwards Report—which has pointed out that the museum must balance its books: an entirely unobjectionable proposition, I would suggest. In order to do that, necessary and prompt action needs to be taken. One—but only one—of the possibilities raised is the introduction of admission charges. It is for the trustees themselves to decide what is to be done to improve the financial condition of the museum.
Given that the Bill as drafted will enable the trustees of the NHMF to provide financial assistance to museums and galleries and other heritage venues for discrete projects which would enable them to reduce admissions charges in specific circumstances, I very much hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment. I am reluctant, for the reasons I have touched on, to accept his proposal because it conflicts with the principle of additionality and because of the other actual and potential practical difficulties which I mentioned.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, I hope that he will forgive me for intervening in a matter that I have just been discussing in another place. I understand perfectly that the Minister's position is

1369
correct; namely, that the decision on charging is entirely a matter for trustees. But does that not sound a little like an unsuccessful groundsman who says that a low score is entirely the responsibility of the batsman?
Lord Inglewood: No, it is not a case of Hobson's choice. Here we have a state of affairs where the British Museum, as analysed in the Edwards report, faces a series of problems. As I understand it, that report poses a series of options which either individually or together may provide the appropriate way forward for the trustees. It is for them to address the issues, looking at the options—and, indeed, any other options that may come to mind—and then to take the matter forward. I do not believe that the noble Earl is correct to say that the trustees are firmly impaled on Morton's fork.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, replies, perhaps he would clarify one matter in his most interesting and, if I may say so, most convincing response to the debate. My understanding of what he said is that he maintains that the Bill makes an exception to the principle of additionality. However, if that is not so, how does my noble friend reconcile what he said about the effect of the Bill with that principle?
Lord Inglewood: The point I was making is that the course of action inherent in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would in our view pose potentially serious problems about the application of the principle of additionality. The point about the principle of additionality is that money from the lottery should not be a substitute for money from the public purse. What we are talking about in the context of the specific projects which may or may not commend themselves to the trustee of the fund is the fact that they would be projects which would not otherwise have been funded by the public purse. Therefore, we are genuinely in a state of affairs where something additional is being made available.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. His answer was most convincing.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Donoughue and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the most valid and, I think, important and discerning points that he made in interpreting the Bill. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, with his great experience of tourism, that it is not just tourists who go to the British Museum. A great many scholars and other people who rely on the expertise and scholarship of the museum do so. It is a very fine service. Anyone who has been to see one of the curators behind the scenes to obtain advice will know that well.
I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining the position. However, the Government are always like this. They say, "This is nothing to do with us; it is a matter for the trustees". They hide behind such statements. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is like the cat
1370
getting the monkey to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. It is never anything to do with them. They do this about everything. The underlying reason why the trustees might have to introduce charges is that the Government have made cuts of 25 per cent., as I said earlier. Why do the Government always treat the British Museum so badly?
I remember many years ago when I first came to this House in the 1950s being taken around the reserve rooms of the museum by the then director and being shown dozens and dozens of Greek and Roman bronzes, beautiful Greek mirror cases, and so on. Many of them were covered with verdigris. The director said, "Isn't it ghastly and tragic. It is because the Government will not give us enough money to employ people to keep them clean". That was the position in the 1950s. Of course, it is slightly better now.
However, now the Government are back at their old tricks of making big cuts. That is the trouble and that is why the trustees may be faced with bringing in charges. It is not a free choice on their part: it is just one of the very, very difficult options with which they are faced. I realise that the amendment is not the right way to improve the situation, for the reasons that the Minister explained. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that they must finance our national museums properly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("or structures").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this amendment. I also give advance notice that I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 when we come to them.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In giving financial assistance to projects under subsection (3) above, due priority and consideration shall be given to works of preservation and repair of existing buildings and objects.").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of my amendment is to get a clearer understanding of the Government's view of how the built heritage will receive lottery funding and how the National Heritage Memorial Fund is going to work alongside other funding bodies to achieve this aim. A great deal of emphasis has so far been placed on lottery funded projects which are new creations. Of course, many are new creations, although they are additions to existing buildings—new wings to galleries and new galleries within existing buildings. But the emphasis has largely been on the new. In the future, the Bill will allow other parts of the heritage that have missed out to benefit also. Perhaps one might say more preservation rather than new creation. My amendment would allow the Committee to consider whether this needs to be spelt out explicitly in the Bill.
Since the inception of the lottery I have always believed that it will only really be successful and acceptable to the public at large if we are able to use lottery funding to help restore our towns and cities—to restore townscapes, streets, crescents, urban parks, historic squares and other buildings, whether they are grand or modest in scale. Until now, some of these have been excluded from lottery funding under the current rules which are proposed to be changed by this Bill. Let us take, for example, a Georgian crescent, owned perhaps by a charity. It only takes one tenant, in one flat in one house, to exercise his right to buy for the application to be excluded because under the law the National Heritage Memorial Fund cannot fund private owners.
The Bill attempts to change that and will allow private owners to benefit, subject to all the necessary conditions that they may need to go through. Those changes are most welcome. But how will they work? As I understand it, at present English Heritage advises the NHMF on the merits of built heritage applications. There is also a successful joint scheme for the funding of churches and cathedrals. One of the more important English Heritage proposed schemes to be funded in future from the NHMF is conservation area partnerships. For the want of a better phrase these are poor towns or villages. By the NHMF helping to fund those schemes, I understand that that will then free up money so that English Heritage can continue to fund grants to local authorities and private owners.
Can my noble friend the Minister explain how in practice these schemes will work? I presume that lottery funding will be additional to English Heritage grants so that there will be no problems of additionality. But how will the funding work? What will be the priorities?
Does it mean that by this somewhat backdoor way of increasing or maintaining moneys available for the funding of private owners by English Heritage the National Heritage Memorial Fund will believe that it has now done its duty to the built heritage and need not consider further applications from some of the larger houses, some of which are in desperate need of funding in the future in order to preserve their collections?
Has the Minister considered whether it may be necessary to issue guidance or directions after the Bill becomes law? Not only might those be necessary, they might be helpful in ensuring that confusion does not occur.
I am sure my noble friend will say that some of the words in my amendment are unnecessary. I do not want to include unnecessary words in the Bill. What I am looking for is the assurance, a clear statement from my noble friend, that all the bodies working together will give due priority and consideration to the funding of our existing built heritage. I beg to move.
Lord Rothschild: In relation to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, perhaps I may comment on one or two points that he raised.
1372
I do not believe that on balance it is fair to say that thus far the National Heritage Memorial Fund's emphasis has been on the new. Selectively, trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund have actively encouraged the creation of some excellent new buildings in order to preserve or enhance items of our heritage which may in themselves become part of the heritage of the future. However, the trustees have always wanted to ensure that, where possible, new uses are found to preserve the stock of existing buildings of merit. Priority has been given to projects that make effective use of existing buildings which deliver additional heritage benefits. To reassure the noble Viscount, perhaps I may recommend our latest annual report in which all the projects involving the repair and preservation of existing buildings and objects are listed.
With regard to town centres, this is already an area that we are actively considering. Noble Lords may be aware that only last month we approved in principle a grant to revitalise the historic centre of Pontefract.
However, as I said during Second Reading of the Bill, once the Act is in force the lottery fund will able to consider all applications on their merits, unconstrained by ownership. Therefore, where a good project in heritage terms provides substantial public benefit but depends on the participation of private owners, that will be eligible for funding. We intend to use our funds for the widest possible public benefit. That will mean that all the areas mentioned—national parks, historic towns and conservation areas—will be priorities. I stress that we do not wish to provide a substitute for funding from government agencies although we have to recognise that the chalk line at times is difficult for us to define.
I have already made clear our views on private owners. We stress that we do not want to duplicate the work that English Heritage has done so well for many years. Our support should surely always depend on clear additional public benefit, usually in the form of increased public access. Therefore, we shall continue to work closely with English Heritage, as indeed with all the other heritage-related agencies. I should like to remind the House that the heritage fund covers much more than the built heritage of England; it covers the myriad aspects of our heritage across all four countries of the United Kingdom.
I should also add that, should the Bill become law, we shall be carrying out a nationwide public consultation exercise not only with our specialist advisers but with a range of voluntary groups and organisations to sound out heritage priorities across the country.
Finally, I should like to repeat what I said during Second Reading of the Bill: that we very much welcome the Bill and the extended canvas that it provides which will enable us to spread the benefits across an even wider range of projects.
Lord Donoughue: I speak broadly in support of the noble Viscount's amendment. Perhaps I may begin by saying how pleased I am, as I am sure we all are, to see the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, present. That is extremely helpful to us. What he said was reassuring.

1373
I wish to pick up one point. It concerns existing private houses. The Bill is an enabling Bill. It enables help to go to those houses. However, we fear that in practice few may be helped—not for bad reasons but for perfectly understandable reasons. There is no extra money. The money cake is still the same. The Bill enables the funding to be spread more widely. Preserving the fabric of our built heritage is expensive. The houses must compete with the many other admirable projects such as gallery extensions, visitor centres, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, referred to that whole area. I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord said about the co-operation between the National Heritage Memorial Fund and English Heritage. It is understandable that the officers of those bodies have a most onerous and difficult task, and that they, too, will have their personal priorities.
However, as a result of all those factors we fear that while the Bill will give private historic houses a new right to be assisted in most years the money will not be available for them. On this side of the Chamber, we would be sad about that. I should like the Minister to reinforce the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, perhaps with a slightly different emphasis, that in practice positive consideration and help will be given to applications for such capital funding.
Baroness Rawlings: I support the noble Viscount's amendment regarding works of preservation. I should like to make sure that Section 3(2)(a), which refers to,
"securing the preservation or enhancement of such things",
includes security, to which I referred at Second Reading. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Trumpington who wrote to me, as she had said she would, stating that preservation could include protection against theft or damage. Security is needed for buildings, parks, town centres and open spaces. It places an astronomical cost on everyone. Crime prevention is much in the forefront of our minds, especially with regard to the very good paper which the Government produced today.
5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: In speaking to the amendment, my noble friend Lord Astor asked about the fund's priorities for the allocation of lottery funds once the Bill becomes law.
We are now talking of the statutory powers that the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees are given by the Bill to enable them to disburse financial assistance if they so wish. What the priorities should be is a matter for them. We have had some extremely helpful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in saying how pleased we are to see him here this afternoon. But, ultimately, it is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fellow trustees to ensure that the lottery resources which are made available to them support projects of demonstrable heritage merit and public benefit. I do not think that anybody in this House does not believe that they will exercise those duties conscientiously, knowledgeably and effectively.
1374
They are obviously very much aware that the fund's funding role must not duplicate or cut across the work of other heritage bodies. With that in mind the National Heritage Memorial Fund has, as I explained at Second Reading and as the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, repeated today, already embarked on constructive discussions with other heritage funding bodies on future priorities in the light of the new powers conferred by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, explained that point in some detail. I do not see that there is any need for me to repeat his remarks.
The respective roles of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and English Heritage will be a key element in the discussions. They already work together in close co-operation and, as the noble Lord acknowledged, the fund seeks advice from English Heritage on lottery applications relating to the built heritage in England. As noble Lords will be aware, last month saw the launch of a joint National Heritage Memorial Fund/English Heritage scheme for church repair grants.
The Government are quite confident that the two bodies will continue to work together to ensure that the overall funding available, whether from the lottery or from English Heritage's own grant schemes, is applied in a way that best serves the needs of the heritage and does not lead to unnecessary duplication of expertise between them.
Perhaps I may focus on a particular point in a rather more general way than the way in which it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The trustees will exercise their discretion according to their assessment of the value of the projects in front of them and the inherent value of the heritage work of the schemes themselves. In determining between one category or another category of application, or between just two individual applications if there are more applicants than there is money available (which will almost certainly be the case) I am quite confident that the decision will be reached on the heritage merits of a proposal rather than any other consideration. That should give comfort to all those who, in whatever form, are responsible for buildings of high heritage value.
My noble friend Lord Astor urged that lottery funds should be made available to help our towns and cities. As I said, I have no doubt at all that he will find the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund responsive to that view. Indeed, the point was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, this afternoon.
Clearly it is important in this context that the fund's role in this respect must be sensibly aligned with the other grant schemes, such as English Heritage conservation area partnership schemes. The detail of how that is done is a matter for the discussions that are under way.
My noble friend asked whether the Secretary of State will issue guidance or directions after the Bill becomes law. The Secretary of State has power under the National Lottery etc. Act to issue policy directions to the distributors. However, at this stage it is clearly too soon to consider when any such direction will be needed in respect of the powers being conferred by the Bill. The

1375
important point is that the National Heritage Memorial Fund should assess and identify funding priorities in consultation with the other relevant bodies and then develop the necessary procedures to give its ideas effect.
In conclusion, I assure the House and my noble friend that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fellow trustees are fully aware of the need to formulate proper, reasonable and thought through strategies for the exercise of their wider powers. As was explained, they are actively engaged in discussions with other bodies to do that. I am quite confident that the outcome will ensure that the overall resources available for the heritage are applied where they are most needed. Moreover, once decisions have been reached, I assure the Committee that noble Lords will be told what is intended.
Viscount Astor: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, for giving the Committee an explanation of the work that he and his trustees will do. I did indeed read his annual report and thought it an impressive document. The fund is doing an extremely good job and has the admiration of all of us. I was glad to hear that it will embark on a public consultation exercise and was particularly reassured by what the noble Lord said about town centres. That is very important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his support and to my noble friend Lady Rawlings.
My noble friend the Minister largely reassured me. However, he restricted much of his answer to the work of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I attempted to draw my noble friend on how the fund will work with English Heritage. After all, English Heritage is a very different beast. It is a body that hands out government money in grants to the heritage; whereas the National Heritage Memorial Fund hands out lottery money in an independent way without breaking any rules of additionality. The question is how one puts together these two bodies which come from totally different backgrounds, one handing out government money, the other handing out lottery money, and how they work together. That is the important question. We look forward to my noble friend, once he has gone further down the road with his policy, returning to the House to say how that will happen.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks and am much reassured. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert (", or
(c) to edit and publish a major work of reference dealing with all or part of the National Heritage.").
The noble Lord said: We are in a peculiar position in relation to this amendment. There is total agreement between the Minister and those whose names are appended to the amendment that they wish to enable the
1376
trustees, should they see fit, to contribute to the maintenance of the work of the editors and publishers of the Victoria County History. The amendment standing in my name and the names of other noble Lords would enable that to be done. It would, incidentally, also meet the case for the Survey of London, which is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
The Government have so far wanted to rest their proposal—that was the point of the amendment tabled but not moved—on an extension of the power already in the Bill to maintain archives. Our contention is that archives and major works of reference like the Victoria County History are quite different and one cannot use one word to cover the other.
I speak with some experience. I started archival work in 1935 in various county offices and have worked—or, when fortunate enough to have research grants, had other people work for me—in a multiplicity of archives both public and private. Archives consist of what is left in terms of written documents on national policy, local policy and the fortunes, up and down, of families. I remember once discovering in a wooden chest in the hall of a family living somewhere in Worcestershire a charter of Richard II which they had somehow just put among their family papers.
Those documents are archives. It is desirable that money should be found, where necessary, to maintain archives. But to compile works of reference like the Victoria County History or the Survey of London is quite a different operation. They are documents which are written on the basis no doubt of the archives, but not identical to them. I understand that some lawyers believe that the word "archive" can be made to cover them. However, there is a character in Lewis Carroll's book who said: "You can always make words mean what you want them to mean". If that is the legal advice that the Minister has received, he should search for better legal advice.
It is essential that the words be right because, after all, the trustees of the fund will have to judge the matter. It is essential that we get the words right and I find the difference almost inexplicable. I do not understand why the Minister has so far insisted on using the word "archive" to mean something that it cannot possibly mean. I beg to move.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I support my noble friend. I underline that we appreciate the Minister's efforts to meet us on the point, but I am afraid I must strengthen what my noble friend said. Although the Victoria County History and the Survey of London use extensive archival material, they are history not archives, analytical history. That is their value. I am afraid that the amendment proposed by the department would not cover those kinds of books. Therefore we must ask the Minister to think again. I suggest that our original amendment has a better side to it.
I wish to say a few words on the financial situation of the Victoria County History and similar local histories. As noble Lords know, the Victoria County History was begun slightly before the turn of the century and was financed largely by the founder of

1377
W. H. Smith and by the readiness of people to pay 10 guineas a copy. However, in many counties only two volumes were produced. That is still the state of affairs in many counties in the country. Between 1966 and now my home county of Somerset has produced six additional volumes of considerable worth. But it did so largely with the assistance of local government. For example, the North Somerset County Council is prepared to regard the Victoria County History as a heritage scheme.
I therefore feel that if we are to fulfil the original aims of the imaginative people who began the Victoria County History, it is crucial that we be allowed to approach the trustees for lottery money. I remind your Lordships that this is the only project in the whole of Europe, apart from a somewhat similar exercise in the Black Forest. It is a worthy effort and it is crucial that we get the wording of the amendment right so that the lawyers do not deny us the money that would help the project.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I support Amendment No. 7 which is in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Pilkington. I also wish to support Amendment No. 8 in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a sometime—if only briefly—historian and Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
I find myself in some difficulty because, like other noble Lords who have spoken, my main concern is to ensure that the great Victoria County Histories are covered. I should like to see the Dictionary of National Biography assured and certainly the Survey of London. I am totally convinced that the Minister agrees with and is sincere in wishing to meet my concern. I can see that the withdrawn amendments, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, might have contained an improvement on the Bill. But like noble Lords who have already spoken, I am not convinced that the wording of the withdrawn amendments meets what we want.
The Victoria County Histories use archives and in a way generate them, but they are not purely archives. Stubbs' charters, which I once read, are probably a published archive; some of the series of the Camden Miscellany are probably archives. The published Foreign Office documents probably are. But the Victoria County Histories include narrative and analysis and a key part of our national heritage. They are to be used as vital works of reference in relation to that heritage.
I believe that the Government's wording, which presumably reflected the best they could do at the time, was not comprehensive enough for that definition. It might be a part, but it is not the whole definition. I believe that the wording of our amendment is better and is necessary to meet what we want.
I wish to float towards the Minister the idea that we might have a classic compromise with a combination of the two. I shall now read out that combination which contains, I believe, virtually every word of the Minister's amendment and our amendment. It might say:
"Page 2, line 43, at end insert (", or
1378
(c) edit and publish archive material and major works of reference dealing with all or part of the National Heritage or to do any ancillary thing.").
That is my first shot at it, but I have a feeling that if we have that wording, it would include whatever the Minister wanted in his proposal and what we wanted in ours. I believe that it would meet our wishes and those of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi in his amendment.
I should like the Minister in his reply to accept that the withdrawn amendments were not quite enough. I congratulate him on the flexibility with which he responded to the situation, technically before it arose. I ask the Minister to consider my suggestions for the Report stage; otherwise, we may have to come back then with our proposals and seek the support of the House. The Minister will have noted that this is a cross-party approach.
I hope that the Minister will see the strength of our arguments, will agree with our intentions and will seek simply to do what we tried to do: that is, to find wording that is copper-bottomed.
Lord Strabolgi: I should like to say a few words about my Amendment No. 8 which is to provide publishing costs for the Survey of London. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, it is probable that it could be covered by his amendment or a government amendment, whichever it is. However, I hope that whatever we have, something will be done to include help for the Survey of London because it is in great difficulties. That is why I wish to speak on my amendment and to bring the difficulties to the attention of the Government.
The survey was started in 1894 as a private venture by C. R. Ashbee, who is well known as an arts and crafts architect. In 1900 the LCC joined up with Ashbee's London Survey Committee which had run into financial difficulties, and it put its much larger resources at the disposal of the project.
For the last 100 years, since its inception, the survey has compiled and published a splendid series of volumes on the London parishes, where the history of the buildings and those who built them, as well as many of the people who lived in them, is studied in considerable depth. If one is lucky, one finds that when the volumes deal with the parish in which one lives, one's own house is sometimes mentioned, with details of who lived there originally and who built it.
There have been two volumes on Chelsea and Mayfair, four volumes on Kensington, volumes on St. Anne, Soho, Covent Garden, Lincoln's Inn Fields, with thorough accounts of Spitalfields and Mile End. The two most recent volumes cover Poplar and the Isle of Dogs. The Survey of London to date has published 44 volumes on the different parishes. The current work is on Clerkenwell. At least another 12 volumes are needed, even without the City of London.
But what is the position today? When the GLC was abolished in 1985 no one knew much what to do with the survey. So it was eventually transferred under the aegis of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England. I understand that the only external funding that it has obtained is from the London Dockland Development

1379
Corporation, which paid a proportion of the publishing costs of the survey's work on parishes in south-east London. But that is so far as it went. The survey is actively considering seeking other forms of outside assistance. I understand that its work and future publications are in jeopardy unless further resources become available.
The survey's archive, consisting of countless drawings and photographs, is scattered between the Greater London Record Office, the National Monuments Record and the London Division of English Heritage, which is the successor to the GLC's Historic Buildings Division. It is not clear where all the drawings are today. This is the position that it is in. A lot of the responsibility, of course, rests with the Government.
Therefore, I tabled this amendment to bring the survey's difficult situation to the attention of the Government. For example, the Royal Commission will suffer cuts amounting to 18 per cent. in real terms over the period from 1997 to 1999. If the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Beloff, and others are able to devise a satisfactory amendment and will assure me that it will include help for the Survey of London, I shall not move my amendment when the time comes.
Lord Inglewood: In my brief remarks I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It seems a paradoxical state of affairs when we are all in agreement and yet we disagree with each other. But I believe that we can resolve this matter satisfactorily. It is important that we get it right. That is why I withdrew the amendments tabled in my name.
As everyone is declaring an interest, I shall declare an interest in that I was a former pupil of my noble friend Lord Pilkington, though I fear that by itself that has not made me a historian. As my noble friend Lord Beloff said, the legal advice that we received was that the formulation contained in my amendment met the case. Bearing in mind the doubts that have been cast upon it, the importance of getting the matter right and the agreement between us, I am entirely happy that we look again at it. I say only to my noble friend Lord Beloff that the courts are full of people who found lawyers whose legal advice they did not like and so found someone who gave them advice that they preferred to hear. That is sometimes a rather risky course of action.
In this context we want to provide a form of words which enables the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, if they so wish, to support what I might loosely describe as the bench-mark works of historical research as they affect our country. We do not intend here to provide a means for every aspiring historian to come to the door of the trustees and try to find a subsidy to support his work of historical research. It is meant to be narrowly defined to cover work such as the Victoria County History, the Survey of London and the Dictionary of National Biography, which have been mentioned.
1380
I said earlier this afternoon to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that I would go away and think about his form of words. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I still think that I may be right, but I very much welcome the opportunity to think about the right form of words to meet this problem. I intend to draw in those noble Lords whose amendments are on the Marshalled List. I hope that, against that background, they will feel able to withdraw their amendments so that we can come forward at a later stage of the Bill with a form of words that meets all our collective desires and is agreed between us as being satisfactory.
Lord Beloff: In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may make a very brief point, of which I have not given notice because I expected to be able to make it on Amendment No. 5. It does not strictly relate to Amendment No. 5 but comes within Clause 1.
At Second Reading I mentioned that it would be highly desirable to use the power to prepare archives for the purpose of collecting together the vast amount of treasure trove already collected and in museums and the further amount of treasure which will be collected under the Treasure Act 1996 introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I have his blessing on raising this point, by the way. In reply to the point I made, my noble friend Lady Trumpington said that a code of practice with regard to treasure would be introduced.
It seems to me that the archive need not await the preparation of a code of practice; nor need the code of practice refer to the desirability of having an archive of treasure. I should have thought that under the Bill as it stands that could quite well be done without further delay. It will be a very big and long continuing job but I see no reason why it should not start soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend raises an important matter which I know is close to his heart. I hear what he says. But, of course, in addition to the Bill, it is also necessary for the process that he describes to take place and for the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fellow trustees to give it their blessing. I understand the point and if I may I shall clarify matters with my noble friend at a later date.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule [Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 23 [Restrictive trade practices]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 13, line 1, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the powers of revocation conferred by subsection (5) of section 29 of the 1976 Act,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos 2 and 3. These are essentially technical amendments designed to clarify the way in which Clause 23(7) of the Bill operates and do not represent any changes of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 13, line 2, after ("under") insert ("that").
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("29 of the 1976 Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have already been spoken to. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54 [Service of Documents]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 27, line 39, leave out ("this Part of").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a simple drafting amendment correcting an inconsistency in the wording of Clause 54 of the Bill, which deals with the service of notices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Heritage]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 166, columns 2 and 3, leave out lines 12 to 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as before, when taking part in the debates on this Bill, I must declare an interest as being a commissioner of English Heritage. The House will be aware that I addressed the Chamber at Committee stage to express my concern about the draft heritage agreement for Camden. I believed it to be flawed and to raise a fundamental question of principle.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goschen for taking a great deal of trouble over this matter and for giving it serious consideration in his efforts to find a solution to meet my concerns. I can assure the House that it has never been my intention to press for any additional controls or powers of veto over the works by English Heritage. That has never been the case. All
1382
I have been seeking is for the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment not to surrender their normal powers to determine any dispute which might arise under paragraph 4(5) of the draft heritage agreement.
For noble Lords who were not present at the Committee stage I remind the House that my anxieties are centred on the magnificent Grade I listed train shed at St. Pancras, a Victorian masterpiece of world significance. Under paragraph 4(1) of the heritage agreement the nominated undertaker—in this case LCR—shall seek to reach agreement with the local authority and English Heritage on the nature of the proposed works, the construction methods and materials to be used, any mitigation measures to be taken and, except in the case of the demolition of the building, the preservation of particular features of the building and any restoration or reconstruction works where reasonably practicable. That does not present a problem.
However, that paragraph is qualified by paragraph 4(5) which states that the nominated undertaker shall not be required to seek to reach agreement with the local authority, nor with English Heritage under paragraph 4(1), but shall only consult them on the alignment, position and overall dimensions of any works other than essentially shops, and on the nature of the proposed works and construction methods and materials used where the works comprise a trackbed, tunnel, earthworks or anything in the nature of plant, machinery or equipment.
My concern was that, in so far as that related to St. Pancras station, a great many alterations could be carried out to that splendid train shed without the need to do anything other than consult English Heritage. Unlike other recent railway Bills, there is no mechanism for disagreement over substantive heritage issues to be determined by the Secretaries of State. My anxieties were eloquently articulated by Giles Worsley in today's The Times and by Stephen Goodwin of the Independent.
I am pleased to report that my concerns have been considered further. My noble friend Lord Goschen, as I understand it, offered to move some way on this point. A mechanism is suggested for the Secretaries of State to determine any dispute between LCR and English Heritage and the London Borough of Camden in the event of a disagreement over what works fall to be considered under paragraphs 4(1) and 4(5). If that is the case it is extremely welcome. It would be helpful if he could clarify how the agreement should be interpreted in practice. However, I am still disappointed that my noble friend cannot go further and provide a full arbitration procedure for works submitted under paragraph 4(5) with the exception of railway engineering matters which I accept could be exempted as a special case.
It seems ironic that at the very moment when the Heritage Green Paper proposes to extend established listed building consent procedures by the removal of Crown immunity, those same procedures should be disapplied for a private developer. Nevertheless, I have always supported the case for the CTRL coming into St. Pancras and I am confident that in the LCR we have

1383
a developer which will do all it can to work in a positive and constructive manner with Camden and English Heritage to safeguard the outstanding qualities of the train shed and create a world-class railway terminus.
I accept that a great deal of work has gone into devising an alternative regime for St. Pancras in lieu of listed building consent. It may be that CTRL should be regarded as an exceptional case warranting exceptional measures. However, I must stress that that cannot and must not set a precedent for the future. The existing regime of statutory safeguards for listed buildings is a highly effective, tried and tested system which has served the country well for many years. It must never be allowed to be dismantled or set aside for short-term commercial advantage.
It will be helpful to me and to your Lordships for my noble friend to tell us himself exactly what his proposals are and how they work so that I can judge whether or not to persist with my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Cavendish in his amendment. I should perhaps declare an interest as chairman of the Joint Committee of the National Amenities Societies and the Georgian Group. The House will remember that I spoke in support of his amendment at Committee stage. My points in relation to the principles at stake, the precedent the Bill would set for other projects and the need for a new policy were not addressed by the Minister. I do not wish to repeat them; I wish only to make one point concerning the adequacy of the arrangements which are to replace statutory conservation controls.
Put in a nutshell: will the arrangements work? We must be confident that if we pass the Bill, they will work. My noble friend's backstop proposal would be extremely helpful. We must remember that the powers to be disapplied—the tried and tested procedures of listed building consent—depend at the end of the day on final and binding determination by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That element of the procedures is a clear, firm, fast and effective way of dealing with serious issues. The Bill before us disapplies those controls and puts in their place a complicated set of schedules, contracts, procedures, undertakings and agreements which the promoters say are an adequate substitute.
The main argument for allowing exemptions from the heritage deed, which are the problem, is that there are other powers in the package to cover the risks which the exemptions open up. The Minister pointed in particular to the design guidelines in the planning and heritage minimum requirements. Those are legally enforceable as part of the contract. It is therefore suggested that we do not need to worry about the exemption of a certain aspect of the plan because that is covered by legally enforceable design guidelines.
We have it from the Department of Transport that that aspect of the arrangement is unprecedented. A letter sent to the Victorian Society on 2nd October stated:
"Your second query concerned whether there was a precedent in heritage issues for the Secretaries of State to fetter their ability to issue a binding determination, and instead rely on a court ruling regarding the interpretation of a contractual document".
1384
The reply stated,
"Concerning precedent … the St. Pancras Minimum Requirements are unprecedented".
One of the design guidelines for the great vaulted space of the train shed, which is this great masterpiece, reads,
"The open nature and spatial integrity of St. Pancras Train Shed will be substantially retained. Any new works within the train shed must be consistent with these objectives and must be designed to the highest quality with the aim of minimising their impact as a whole".
It is difficult to see what those words mean. That was a point made by Giles Worsley in his article in The Times today. They surely could be interpreted in different ways by different people and, if push comes to shove, what would a court make of them? What experience is there in law for dealing with contracts with terms like those? In what circumstances should the court judge that LCR had failed substantially to retain the spatial integrity of the train shed to such an extent that it had broken the contract? Can we be sure that High Court litigation on such terms will be a practical alternative to straightforward determination by a Secretary of State? I fear not.
I was glad to hear from my noble friend that the Minister has something to say to us on this matter. My noble friend's proposal is a moderate one and has my support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, with the leave of the House, I put the Government's view at this stage. That would not prevent other noble Lords speaking afterwards if they wish.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope that will not preclude the noble Viscount speaking again at the end of the debate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall be delighted to mop up any residual points that may be made.
We have come again to the issue of heritage. I was very pleased to hear that my noble friend Lord Cavendish felt that considerable progress between us had now been made. I was certainly delighted to hear that.
Since the debate on the issue some three weeks ago I have met my noble friend Lord Cavendish, accompanied by his advisers, and also by the Minister of State for Planning, Construction and Energy Efficiency and Department of National Heritage officials. I believe we had a useful and constructive exchange at that time and since then there have been further constructive contacts between English Heritage and London and Continental Railways.
I made it clear on the earlier occasion that we had no intention to ride roughshod over heritage interests. The CTRL scheme, as we all agree, is of national significance and will bring major benefits, not least to the nation's heritage through creating a 21st century railway use for such a fine 19th century station. Because of the importance of the project it is being promoted as

1385
a hybrid Bill and, as normal for a project approved by such a Bill, the need to apply separately for listed building consent has been disapplied. But in its place we have produced a tailor-made package of requirements, controls and consultation which have been refined during two years' of negotiations. That is the key point which was somewhat absent from some of the press coverage in recent times.
At Committee three weeks ago there was no objection in principle to this approach from my noble friend. The area of difference was quite limited. English Heritage was not satisfied with the provision in the heritage deed that it will be consulted on railway works. Instead it favoured control or agreement. That was in substance the issue that was considered in detail by the Select Committee at the recommittal stage. The committee's view contained in the special report is perfectly clear:
"The Committee has no doubt that the draft Heritage Deed meets the interests of the petitioners".
Perhaps I may spend a few moments on the broader view. The fact that St. Pancras will be the London gateway to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link inevitably means that there will be some heritage impacts but those stand to be more than amply offset by the heritage benefits of the restoration works to St. Pancras Station and Chambers and the bringing back into fruitful use of the Chambers. That point is often not adequately made. That provides the best guarantee of future conservation. Furthermore, with the prospect of the new terminus comes the best regeneration opportunity the King's Cross area has had in decades. There can be no doubt that in heritage terms alone, even before one takes account of the economic and environmental advantages for the area, the new rail link will be a very significant net benefit to the area as a whole.
In the debate a few weeks ago my noble friend Lord Cavendish welcomed the competition announced by LCR to find a viable economic use of St. Pancras Chambers, and applauded the agreement reached by LCR with English Heritage on the arrangements for the listed gasholders and the waterpoint. Since then, as we have heard, there have been continuing constructive discussions between LCR, English Heritage and the local authority about the emerging design principles for the St. Pancras train station and also for the area between St. Pancras and King's Cross. Indeed, I understand that English Heritage has given a warm reception to the outline of the St. Pancras design proposals.
With regard to the further discussions, I understand that at a very recent meeting LCR and English Heritage agreed that they should join together in defining a letter of intent from LCR. This would set out how the stages of consultation provided for in the heritage deed would operate and serve and therefore to identify any potential problems in time for them to be satisfactorily dealt with. I am sure that will come as welcome news to the House.
In recognition of a key concern put to me by my noble friend when we met earlier this week, I offered an additional provision in the heritage deed that introduces a process to determine an important area of potential disputes in this important area. This will allow English Heritage or the local planning authority to seek
1386
determination by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport where English Heritage or the authority believes its agreement should be sought on a work but LCR proposes consultation. The Secretaries of State would thus be responsible for interpreting what the deed requires. This is an added protection in addition to all of those which I have already described and which offers heritage interests an avenue of direct appeal for determination to the Secretary of State.
I thought it worth speaking at an early stage after my two noble friends had spoken to put the Government's view, to illustrate the changes that had occurred and to welcome the great progress that I believe has been made towards bringing the heritage interests and those of the promoters nearer together. I feel that we now have an agreement and we have a situation with which we are all happy. While welcoming the opportunity for discussion raised by my noble friend Lord Cavendish I feel confident—I hope my confidence is justified—that he will not feel any need to press his amendment further.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, we are pleased that the Minister sought to meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. I have heard some good words of comfort and I believe that the new procedure needs to be tried on this important project. It is excellent news that it appears that agreement has been reached.
Extensive safeguards are already contained in the development agreement and I understand that those are already in the public domain. Extensive safeguards for-planning and heritage are minimum requirements. We have talked a good deal about consultation. It pleases me that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, is as impressed as I am with the ideas and proposals London and Continental Railways has put forward and with its commitment to heritage.
I wish to strike one note of caution. We must be careful in these discussions that perfection does not become the enemy of the good. There must be a tight timescale to this project if it is to be completed as planned and open to revenue earning traffic. The same happened on the Channel Tunnel. Speed is of the essence. I have a slight concern about the track record of speed and sensible resolution of problems in some of English Heritage's projects. I am no expert on heritage but I question whether it is good value for money to pursue a lady who puts up a special door in her house to keep out the traffic noise from the juggernauts thundering by, a door which looks like wood but is plastic. I also question whether Stonehenge should be staying in the state it is because the only acceptable solution to the road problem is £130 million of tunnel.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, £300 million.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that correction. It is £300 million. There must be an easier and cheaper solution in what is a fairly wide open space of countryside. As a result, nothing has happened in the interim because costs are high and finance is short.

1387
The train sheds and the railway works that go with them need to be used. At the moment they are sitting there doing nothing. I believe that the House should accept the safeguards which have been discussed and that there should be consultation with English Heritage. I hope that in the light of that consultation and the Minister's comments, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I wish to make a couple of brief points. I shall not seek to divide the House if the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, does not do so. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend Lord Berkeley that the price tag of the Stonehenge road has risen steadily since the closing of the latest public inquiry. The first figure was £80 million, then it was £120 million and then £140 million. I cannot imagine where the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, came by the figure of £300 million. I look on all those figures with the greatest scepticism.
However, returning to St. Pancras—it was not a long excursion—various speakers today have verged on alleging that the filling out of the detail will delay the construction of the railway. That is quite absurd. In fact, there is no real heritage objection to anything which the railway company wishes to do at St. Pancras. I cannot speak about the rest of the country. The objection is to suspending the law in its favour. As the company does not wish to do anything wrong, why is it necessary to suspend the law in its favour? Why should we believe that it will take longer to go through the normal hoops to obtain approval for whatever bits and pieces it has to do? I am sure that if it does take longer, an emotional appeal from the Secretary of State to Camden Borough Council will induce it to hurry up and that the Secretary of State will take an earlier decision. I wish to register a protest about the bad precedent of the suspension of regular preservation law in this case. That suspension is probably all the worse because there is no need for it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise in some embarrassment because when I intervened in Committee I did not realise that I should have disclosed an interest. I now realise that Foster Associates is the firm of architects producing the designs for the whole project. I must report that my son-in-law is one of its senior partners and may well be involved in this affair, as he was in the design and construction of the fourth London airport at Stansted. I find that embarrassing because it raises a problem about the relations of the architects to the scheme and the way in which that works out.
I appreciate the fine constitutional care which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, my old friend, has expressed tonight. The only trouble is that it is slightly like one of those two favourite arguments which are sometimes used. I refer not to the doctrine of unripe time—that although this is a marvellous scheme, the time is not yet ripe for it—but to the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument—we must not do this because it might create a precedent and drive a wedge through procedures of which we all very much approve. I understand that that
1388
is a valid argument, but I hope that on this occasion we shall not give into it in view of the importance of the whole rail link, which has been so long delayed.
I hope that the architects will produce designs which will satisfy all the preservation groups. Indeed, I believe that that will be the case. However, what will happen if there is a dispute between the architects and the railway company? Do we know anything about the sources of finance and whether they are totally satisfactory to the railway company? Let us suppose that the cash runs out during the project and the railway company goes to Foster Associates and says, "Look, I know that we agreed our scheme. It is a good scheme but you must now make some economies". In making those economies, Foster Associates may well say, "We cannot do that. We gave our word and our reputation as a firm of architects that we will produce a scheme satisfactory to all the environmental groups and concerns and we cannot now cut what we intended to do". In that case, the railway company may well say, "We shall have to find other architects". There will then exist a totally different state of affairs. Where are the safeguards in such a case?
The noble Viscount may well revert to an answer which, if I were in his place, I might well use: that we cannot go into every hypothetical consideration because we should be here all night. But I believe that the problem is genuine and I wish to know whether, if in a situation in which suddenly the terms change, the Secretary of State will be enabled to intervene.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, your Lordships might well ask why I am intervening, not having spoken previously. I believed that the arguments for making a small amendment to the Bill were so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and to a lesser extent by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that there was no need for a small voice such as mine to be heard. I too have an interest to declare. It is not such a grandiloquent interest as the noble Lord, Lord Annan; it is merely that I am a humble and long-standing member of the Victorian Society. Therefore, I am bound to feel sympathy when a proposal in a Bill which is seemingly as horrific as this is going to go through. In Schedule 7, to be disapplied from all constraints is a notable Grade I listed building, subject to a few concessions in column 3. Column 2 lists the entire set of listed buildings, subject to minute qualifications in column 3.
I believe that the proceedings have been conducted in such a constructive way that I have nothing but praise to accord. My only worry is that the accord is non-parliamentary. Why could it not have been achieved previously? Why were the Government so obstinate? I believe that we are in danger of losing parliamentary control if this kind of nod and a wink is allowed to proceed instead of provisions appearing on the face of the Bill. I believe that that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Parliamentary language is such that it cannot be contravened except by a further amending enactment.
These are very important matters. What the heritage is losing as a result of the rejection of these amendments is that an important precedent is being created. I say to

1389
the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that that is not a fussy or minute point at all. If it is the case, as I believe it is, that Parliament has never before agreed to a provision such as this without first having seen the plans and having approved them, it is not a minute consideration. Parliament is throwing away safeguards for the heritage and for humble organisations such as the one I belong to, the Victorian Society.
Having said that, and not having been at the important negotiations which have taken place, of course I cannot oppose the agreements which have been reached by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and the noble Viscount. I am extremely thankful that they have come to such agreements. I do not myself wish to amend the Bill at such a late stage as this. I ask the noble Viscount to make public the agreements which so far have been negotiated in secret.
6 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, it is in public. The Heritage Deed has been printed and it is available. It has been available to the noble Lord for quite a while now.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have just been hearing about the negotiations that have been taking place until this afternoon, not some time ago. What I am saying is that the detail of the fine tuning which has been taking place has not been available to me or to the noble Lord unless he has been party to those proceedings, which I suspect he has. I hope that the agreements which have been reached by noble Lords outside this House will, by some means or other, be made available to noble Lords within the House. That is only a second opinion. The first is undoubtedly that they should be in the Bill itself.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question? Has the noble Lord heard, as I have, that the Victorian Society is very satisfied with all that has been agreed?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I believe that is true.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I am very happy about almost everything that has been said. Perhaps I may deal first with what my noble friend Lord Henderson has just said. The Heritage Deed takes the place of putting things on the face of the Bill. There are approximately 600 undertakings which have been given. This is a hybrid Bill, which the noble Lord may well remember from his previous career is a different animal from an ordinary government Bill because it is ephemeral. It covers a short period of time and affects only a very small proportion of the population. An immense number of negotiations have to take place. They have the same force of law as if they were on the face of the Bill. If every one of those 600 undertakings were made part and parcel of the Bill there would have to be 600 schedules to the Bill. That would make it an even lengthier document than it is already.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested that this procedure was unprecedented. It is normal with an infrastructure Bill of this nature for the normal rules to
1390
be disapplied. One then puts in their place what has been put back in this instance, the Heritage Deed. It is absolutely true that this is a document which has been under negotiation for, I believe, the best part of two years. It was brought before the Select Committee and we made what we and, I believe, both English Heritage and the Victorian Society regard as some improvements. They obviously did not feel that we went far enough: hence the negotiations which have gone on since we reported the Bill to the House and which, I am very happy to hear, have now resulted in agreement being reached. That agreement will be an amendment not to the Bill but to the Heritage Deed itself, which will have just as binding an effect as it would if it appeared on the face of the Bill.
This is one of the two most contentious matters that remained at the conclusion of the hearings of the Select Committee. The other seems to have been resolved. I shall be extremely happy if this one is also resolved.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I would like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that neither I nor English Heritage in this context is pursuing a single interest line. Both of us are extremely excited by this Bill. It is a wonderful Bill offering opportunities not least to the heritage. We are not trying to take a narrow view of detail. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I shall not be drawn on subjects such as Stonehenge or plastic doors.
However, I would like noble Lords to understand that I took my amendment very seriously albeit that it was a wrecking amendment. One has to get to the heart of the Bill to make an amendment. If I had not had some comfort from various sources, I would have taken it to a Division. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for his remarks. There is an element of the removal of protection from Grade 1 listed buildings which I still maintain is without precedent, but be that as it may. We have accepted that this is a difficult and complex Bill.
I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for his detailed reply. As I have said, I believe that this is a compromise over a matter where arguably there should not be one. I hope that the House will take to heart the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, whom I thank for his kind remarks, that this will not be a precedent. Lessons will be learnt from a Bill which is truly unusual. There are many facets which have probably not been before your Lordships' House before.
There is one further matter. I have learnt this afternoon of the outcome of the meeting which took place this afternoon between LCR and English Heritage. LCR has agreed to define in a letter of intent the stages of consultation which will enable English Heritage to identify at any stage any outstanding problems. That is very helpful and provides more evidence, if it were needed, of LCR's goodwill in the matter.
The combination of these two changes gives me comfort. I offer renewed thanks to LCR for its constructive response to the concerns of English Heritage. I also thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who played a part in restoring harmony. I renew my

1391
thanks to my noble friend Lord Goschen for his helpful concessions on the draft heritage agreement. I have been given sufficient comfort to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Disapplication and modification of miscellaneous controls]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 180, line 33, after ("is") insert ("made under paragraph 9A below or is otherwise").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 to 16. These amendments honour the commitments I gave during the Committee stage of the Whole House and at Report stage, to look again at the provisions of the Bill that deal with the application of the London lorry ban to the Channel Tunnel rail link in the light of concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who also has an amendment tabled with this group.
The amendments follow a very useful meeting with my noble friend and the noble Baroness, and officials of the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, on 12th November, and a further constructive meeting between officials on Monday, when agreement on the exact nature of the amendments to be made was reached.
The amendments before us this evening remove the word "cost-effective" from the existing provisions of paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(3)(a), words to which, as my noble friend explained in Committee, LBTS objected. I should perhaps point out that the issue of timing in relation to the grant of permits raised by my noble friend in Committee has fallen away with the amendment to line 4 of page 181 removing altogether the provision relating to the deemed grant of permits after one working day contained in paragraph 9(6).
The amendments also provide a mechanism for "emergency" permits to be issued where a journey is proposed to be made in less than eight working days' time, allowing, among other things, the Secretary of State to impose conditions on the grant of such permits. I should stress for the record that such a procedure is intended for emergencies only, and that we would not expect its use to become the norm. Indeed, we have offered LBTS an assurance that we would require LCR to require its haulage contractors to submit applications at least eight days in advance where reasonably practicable. For its part, LBTS has accepted the need for appeals against the imposition of conditions which might obstruct the proper carrying out of the CTRL works to come to the Secretary of State.
Finally, I should say that we have also offered LBTS a number of assurances, one of which I have already mentioned, to deal with the concerns it expressed during the discussions which could not readily be dealt with in statute. Those include offering an assurance that we would require LCR to set up a contact point for LBTS for enforcement queries about its haulage contractors should, for example, LBTS sight a CTRL lorry on a road not covered by a permit.
Those assurances, once they are accepted, will of course be entered onto the register of such assurances that we have been keeping. I know that that is a particular concern of my noble friend Lord Jenkin and I hope that he is happy to hear that that assurance is now on the record. Noble Lords will know—from what was said during Committee, on Report, and from the letter I subsequently wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to which reference was made on Report, that that would mean that LCR would be required to comply with the assurances.
I hope, therefore, that it will not surprise noble Lords if I say that I believe that with these amendments and the assurances we have offered we have gone a very long way indeed to meet the concerns of LBTS, so eloquently detailed by my noble friend during the earlier stages of the Bill, and struck the right balance between the needs of a project of national significance that has the support of both Houses, and the environmental protection afforded to London residents by the lorry ban.
I am also happy to make clear to my noble friend that the procedures which we have now agreed, and provided for in our amendment, should not be seen—indeed, they are not seen by us—as setting a precedent, rather they reflect the national significance of the CTRL project, as can be seen from the scale and extensive planning provisions found in Schedule 6. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled an amendment which relates to this group. If it meets with the convenience of the House, perhaps I may reply to her points once she has spoken. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I seek to move Amendment No. 16 as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, but perhaps I may speak generally in response to some of the amendments that have already been moved, as well as explaining my amendment.
I am grateful for the time that the Minister and his officials have devoted to this issue. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who has put a lot of work into ensuring that the London lorry ban is not—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening, but, to set the record straight, technically speaking we are discussing the grouping with Amendment No. 6, so the noble Baroness does not need to move her amendment. That is what I understand from advice from the Table. Technically, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness has yet to be moved, but that does not alter the problem. If the noble Baroness merely speaks to her amendment, we can sort out the technicalities in a moment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am hearing different advice from different directions. I do not think that I have ever heard an amendment to an amendment being moved without us getting into some difficulties.
However, to return to the substantive point, it is perhaps something of a misnomer to refer to the "London lorry ban" in those words; it is a permit scheme

1393
to protect London's environment and to balance the interests of the environment with those of ensuring that important projects can develop.
I should prefer there to be no exceptions to the scheme— irrespective of whether they are or are not the thin end of the wedge or whether the timing is too early or too late. As a small measure of support for that, perhaps I may mention a letter which the unit received from the Corporation of the City of London, which I am sure that noble Lords will recognise takes a considered view of such matters and speaks authoritatively. The corporation said that, in its view, disapplying the ban would have set a particularly unwise precedent, particularly as the present arrangements appear to be working satisfactorily for large-scale projects. It is essential that local authorities have the ability to ensure that suitable routes are used—this is relevant to my amendment—that vehicles can be safely accommodated and that their impact on the environment in terms of noise, vibration and pollution is minimal.
My amendment relates to paragraph (g) of Amendment No. 15 which will be new Section 9A(3) which deals with proposed stops in London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection. The fact that I seek to alter those words in what may seem to be a minimal way might appear to be carping, but I do not believe that that is the case. It is important to ensure that lorries which do not have any proper business going through central London should be restricted in doing so. I understand that there is concern that there might be an occasion when the M.25 is blocked in both directions. That may or may not be a realistic concern and I leave it to your Lordships to assess the state of the M.25—but perhaps not tonight. If that were to happen, it must be more than likely that the police would impose diversions, but I cannot think that they would wish to divert traffic up, say, Acacia Avenue somewhere in the East End—in other words, along a residential street—as an alternative to using trunk roads.
It is important that individual drivers are not given an excuse to make short cuts or to stop off for personal reasons. In seeking to tweak the wording of the paragraph, I suggest that a provision to limit journeys through central London to those which are entirely necessary is an appropriate final amendment to make to this Bill. In this connection I refer to paragraph 3.4 in the policy statement dealing with exemptions published by the London Boroughs Transport Committee:
"The most important criterion which will apply when a decision is made whether or not to grant a Permit is the circumstances of the applicant's need for a Permit. First and foremost it is the Committee's policy to ensure that only vehicles undertaking necessary business in London should be permitted to use restricted roads in the area for which the Committee is responsible".
The committee is not only responsible for certain roads but is itself a responsible committee. One of the difficulties that underlay the whole debate on this issue over the past few weeks was the concern that the committee might change and not be so responsible. As proposed, the powers now rest with the Secretary of State rather than the committee. I am unable to resist the comment that the Secretary of State may change as well. Some noble Lords may feel that a future Secretary
1394
of State—I do not comment on colour since I do not want to make a party political point—may be less responsible. I do not believe that a complete balance has been struck.
I am glad to hear the Minister's assurance about the undertakings being formally recorded on the register. That is extremely helpful. I am also glad to hear his comment that because of the exceptional importance of the scheme no precedent is being set. Both I and the unit are grateful that matters have moved forward and perhaps some of the objections have been met, and, even more, it has been clarified how matters will proceed in future.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness. What has been working extremely hard during the passage of this Bill is the fax machine in my office. The documents that have poured forth from my noble friend's department and the London Boroughs Traffic Scheme have to be seen to be believed. That the amendments before the House tonight are themselves starred is testament to the fact that the work was proceeding until a late hour yesterday before my noble friend's new paragraphs could be tabled. At one point I received comments on an earlier draft when the new draft was already coming through by fax, which made life a little difficult. All this is testimony to the fact that officials both in the London Boroughs Transport Scheme and my noble friend's department have bent over backwards to try to reach a workable agreement to reconcile the very desirable objectives of protecting the citizens of London from unnecessary disruption and loss of sleep in the night and allowing this hugely important project to get under way.
My noble friend's department has been at the centre of a good deal of pressure. I have seen some of the pressure that has come from London and Continental Railways and the very proper and single-minded enthusiasm of the London Boroughs Transport Scheme. Like the noble Baroness, I was glad to hear of the undertakings for the formal recording of assurances that had been given to the London Boroughs Transport Scheme about the timing of applications and the contact point for enforcement queries. That will be most valuable. It demonstrates the importance of the register to which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred in another context a few moments ago. They will be recorded in the register and will be enforceable, and, if necessary, justiciable.
I also welcome the fact that the conditions to be attached to deemed permits under the emergency procedure will be departed from only where it is necessary to give effect to approved arrangements in respect of one or more of the qualifying authorities in London. That, too, is a valuable assurance. As we have heard in several debates, it is the nature of this huge national project that makes it necessary to suspend the operation of the normal rules and regulations. I believe that we are nearly there.
I refer next to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I shall become a little more earthy. I am sure that the railway company will do its best; I am sure that the head contractors will do their best. But one is here

1395
dealing with lorry drivers, who come in all shapes and sizes. There are kings of the road, who are men of the utmost integrity. As there are good schools and other schools, so there are good lorry drivers and others who do not quite match up. The amendment of the noble Baroness is aimed at the following.
Imagine that an urgent load, perhaps a special piece of excavating equipment, comes from a site somewhere to the west of London down the M.4, or from the north down the M.40. That load has to reach a site in Kent, perhaps—who knows? —at Ebbsfleet. As subsection (3)(g) of my noble friend's amendment is drawn, it is only if it has to stop in London that it will be subject to these constraints. It does not have to stop in London; indeed, it is not going to any place in London. It is travelling from a depot in the West Country to a site in Kent, which is outside London. Obviously, it is highly desirable that that load should travel via the M.25 unless the M.25 is closed, in which case the situation is covered by a police direction.
However, lorry drivers being what they are will not necessarily want to go through the tunnel and incur the toll. It would be nicer for them to cross a bridge and incur no fees and pocket the money. Alternatively, they may have other reasons for wanting to stop in London. It is well known that from time to time lorry drivers like to visit their girlfriends. If there is no obligation on a lorry driver to go round London on the M.25 and avoid the restricted roads—there is no power under the scheme to require him to do so because subsection (3)(g) refers only to lorries making deliveries to or collections from London—there is a loophole. That loophole does not concern any of the obstacles that may be in the way of the railway company getting on with building the railway. It is a loophole for lorry drivers.
The London Boroughs Traffic Scheme has had a good deal of experience in dealing with lorry drivers. It seems to me that the Bill should not leave a loophole. I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, which does not refer to delivering or collecting from London but is at large, will close that loophole. When the moment comes perhaps she would be wise to consider pressing her amendment in the light of what my noble friend may say in reply.
Amendment No. 14 has the effect of deleting from the Bill the definition of "working day" at line 21 on page 181. I should like to ask a question, not so much on that definition, but on the definition of "working day" which is relevant in the context of protecting people in the context of the environment. I refer to the definition of working day in the first part of the code of construction practice produced by the railway company to satisfy the environmental minimum requirements.
A normal working day is 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. There is a possibility in special circumstances of extending that by an hour so that work could start at 7 a.m. and continue until 7 p.m. It is suggested that that might become a norm when it should be only an exception. If my noble friend could give an assurance and state that the normal working day is what it is supposed to be and that the exception is supposed to be an exception only, some of us would go home happy tonight.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the Minister now speaks I am not sure whether I would have the right to speak again, so it may be better if I intervene at this stage. The House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for pressing the points they have in the way that they have, and to the Minister and his civil servants for responding as they have.
The ideas were put forward by the LBTS, as we heard in Committee. I thought then that they were potent points upon which the Minister should have reflected, and I am glad to say that he has. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rather than his fax machine, was able to represent the case on that occasion. It is a wonderful fax machine, over-used, but necessarily so.
I said at the time that I believed that reconciliation was possible. That has happened, with this relatively minor point, having regard to the totality of what was in issue, outstanding. In these matters it is difficult to achieve a proper balance. Someone once described a proper balance as having a chip on both shoulders. Everyone has striven to achieve that balance, and I believe that overall it has been accomplished.
The points made by the noble Baroness, as has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, are significant. I cannot believe that they would create too much difficulty. I hope that the House will not divide over that issue. I do not know what the Minister will say about it, but the best thing may be to see how the situation works, not in theory, but in practice. I have some doubts as to the wisdom of encouraging a Division, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, seemed to do, because we have achieved a great deal, and I do not believe that it should be spoilt. I would urge the Minister to seek to achieve a balance, even at this late stage, because we are not at the end of the proceedings. As the Bill has to go to another place, there is the possibility for that matter to be considered still further. Having said all that, I have some doubt about the practicality of the proposal, but I shall listen, as I said, to what the Minister has to say.
The House is greatly indebted to the Minister for the way in which he has responded on this matter. They were real ministerial qualities, if I may say so. He and his civil servants are to be congratulated on that. I support the Minister's amendments.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly just to say how sorry I am about the heat of the fax machine of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He could have avoided shifting his temperature by having brought this matter before the Select Committee, which, in some respects, is an omission which has given the department the task of finding rather hurried solutions to the problem. I welcome what the department has come forward with, which is along the lines, I hope, of what we might have come forward with.
We had problems of this nature; for example, in the Borough of Newham where there is a ventilation shaft, and, as it is surrounded entirely by residential streets, there is no way in which one can get rid of the spoil

1397
without causing some disruption. We have laid down what we hope will be suitable measures to protect people as best we can, but someone has to suffer. I hope that anything more rigid than what is proposed in the amendments will be avoided.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course there was a petition. There was thought to be an agreement. On that basis, the petition was withdrawn, which is why it did not go before the Select Committee.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken during the debate. Despite the procedural difficulties in which we found ourselves, perhaps I may address the points made by the noble Baroness. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his positive approach and support for the government amendments, and for his feeling that perhaps for the noble Baroness to seek to amend the Bill with her amendment would not necessarily be the best course of action. I hope that I shall be able to persuade her of that fact through force of argument. I also hope that I shall be able to persuade my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
I should like to welcome the role that officials have played, both those from the department and those from the LBTS. They have been involved in some of the most detailed, exhausting and exhaustive negotiations that I can remember. The running total is about eight-and-a-half hours of negotiations with several players on each side. We worked out the total at about one man-week.
Given the effort that has gone into producing what I understood to be an agreed solution, I urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment. It is not the minor detail that some might think. It is a significant amendment. Paragraph 9A(3)(g), as inserted by government Amendment No. 15, provides:
"if it is proposed to stop anywhere in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection, the place or places at which, and the time or times when, it is proposed to stop for that purpose".
The "if' at the start of the paragraph is significant, in that it contemplates the possibility that emergency permits may also be sought for journeys through London but where no stop in London is intended; in other words, it would allow emergency permits to be sought for through journeys, with no stop in London.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness replaces the original formulation with
"the place or places, and time or times, at which it is proposed to stop in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection",
which, by removing the "if', means that emergency permits could only be sought for journeys which included a stop in London.
Given that paragraph 9A deals only with emergency permits, the noble Baroness's amendment would not stop LCR or its haulage contractors applying for a permit for a through journey under the non-emergency provisions.
1398
Leaving that detail aside though, I should explain why we have felt it necessary to make provision for through journeys. We must take into account the fact that the CTRL project, which the House has so warmly welcomed, is linear in nature, extending through London and beyond, with construction and working sites all along the route, rather than a number of discrete sites as for the Jubilee Line extension works or those for Waterloo International. There may be times when, in order to carry out the CTRL works in a timely and efficient manner, an operator would need to travel through London rather than take an orbital route. We must have this flexibility for a project of this nature. For example, an urgent journey may need to be made at a time the orbital routes are closed. This amendment would not allow the journey to traverse London even where the alternative was an unacceptably wide detour.
Having said that, I appreciate the concern that an operator might seek to make a through journey rather than an orbital one just to save money—and that is essentially the noble Baroness's concern—by, for example, saving money on fuel. We have recognised and dealt with that concern.
One of the government amendments in the group removes the cost-effective provision in paragraph 9 which my noble friend was so concerned about. In recognition of that great anxiety, we removed that provision. Therefore, if my noble friend is considering whether to support the noble Baroness's amendment, I hope that he will bear in mind that we have removed the provision about which he was so anxious.
As a result, the LBTS could refuse a permit if it considered that a route through London had been chosen just to save money and that the lorry could be routed via the M.25 without interfering with the timely and efficient carrying out of the work or with the construction arrangements approved under Schedule 6.
Moreover, the need to cater for through journeys was part of the agreement reached with LBTS on Monday. That is a significant point. The agreement was reached as a result of exhaustive negotiations, and that was part of it. In the light of that, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will see the force of the argument that I have sought to put forward and will not press the amendment.
My noble friend asked about start-up and close-down times for construction sites. I cannot answer that in two or three words and I hope that my noble friend will bear with me because I must give a rather detailed explanation.
The code of construction practice which specifies, among other things, working times and appropriate noise levels, has been the subject of negotiations over several years between Union Railways and the local authorities. The latest version, incorporating the results of the discussions, which include the matter now raised, was sent on 19th September to the London Borough of Newham which has been leading for the local authorities. No comments were received despite a specific request that Union Railways should be informed as soon as possible if there were any objections.

1399
I remind the House about the provision for working hours. Normal working hours are from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening on weekdays, which does not include Bank holidays, and 8 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock in the afternoon on Saturdays. If longer periods are needed because of, for example, weather or seasonably dependent works, those can be negotiated with the local authority in the usual way.
The extra time, which was mentioned by my noble friend, is a period of up to one hour before and after normal working hours. They are said to be used for start-up or close-down activities. Every effort has been made to ensure that the arrangements do not cause problems for those living nearby. The code is explicit that the extra periods should not be considered an extension of the normal working day and, again, particular care will be taken to limit and control disturbance to local residents during such periods. The code even goes so far as to give examples of the type of work which would and would not be permitted. The movement and maintenance of equipment and taking deliveries would be allowed but the operation of equipment would not be allowed. The code specifies also that the noise generated by any activities must not exceed the levels agreed with the local authorities for the quiet times before and after normal working hours.
My noble friend has asked for an undertaking that those times should be used only in exceptional circumstances. I cannot give such an undertaking. The code is very clear. The start-up and close-down times are provided in order to maintain working hours. In the light of this very important project, that is reasonable and the constraints on working already provided offer substantial protection to those living nearby. I hope that that detailed explanation puts the matter into context and will satisfy my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 14:
Page 180, line 38, after ("timely") insert ("and").
Page 180, line 38, leave out ("and cost-effective").
Page 180, line 43, after ("timely") insert ("and").
Page 180, line 43, leave out ("and cost-effective").
Page 181, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) If on an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above against a decision under sub-paragraph (3) above the Secretary of State varies the decision, the variation shall have effect from and including the date on which the appeal was constituted or such later date as the Secretary of State may specify.
( ) The applicant may not challenge a decision under sub-paragraph (3) above otherwise than by an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above.").
Page 181, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Page 181, line 18, at end insert ("and").
Page 181, line 20, leave out from ("1985") to end of line 23.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 181, line 23, at end insert—
("London lorries: emergency permits
9A.—(1) This paragraph applies where a person proposes to undertake a journey before the end of the next complete eight working days, being a journey—

(a) proposed to be undertaken in connection with the carrying out of authorised works, and

(b) for which a permit under the London Lorry Ban Order will be required.

(2) The person may apply for a permit under the Order for the journey by giving the details mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below to the authority concerned by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission.
(3) The details referred to above are—

(a) the identity of the applicant,

(b) a number on which he can be contacted by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission,

(c) the registration number of the vehicle to which the application relates,

(d) the authorised works in connection with which the journey is to be undertaken,

(e) whether any approved arrangements are relevant to the application, and, if so, what they are,

(f) the date when the journey is proposed to be undertaken,

(g) if it is proposed to stop anywhere in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection, the place or places at which, and the time or times when, it is proposed to stop for that purpose.

(4) In this paragraph—
"approved arrangements", "authorised works" and "the London Lorry Ban Order" have the same meanings as in paragraph 9 above; and
"working day" means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.
9B.—(1) An authority responsible for dealing with applications for permits under the London Lorry Ban Order shall make arrangements enabling applications under paragraph 9A above to be made at any time.
(2) Once an application for a permit has been made under paragraph 9A above, then, for the purpose of any relevant journey, the application shall be treated as granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this provision.
(3) A journey is a relevant journey for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above if it is begun before the authority to which the application is made has communicated its decision on the application to the applicant by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission.
(4) If an application under paragraph 9A above has been granted, or is treated as granted, then, while the vehicle concerned is undertaking a journey covered by the application, paragraph 4 of the London Lorry Ban Order and of the Westminster Lorry Ban Order shall have effect in relation to it with the substitution for paragraph (a) of
"(a) in relation to any goods vehicle being driven by any person in a restricted street during the prescribed hours in respect of which an application under paragraph 9A of Schedule 10 to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 has been granted, or is treated as granted, provided that any conditions subject to which the application is granted, or treated as granted, are complied with; or".

1401
(5) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) above includes—

(a) power to make different provision for different cases, and

(b) power to make an order varying or revoking any order previously made under that provision.

(6) In this paragraph—
"the London Lorry Ban Order" has the same meaning as in paragraph 9 above; and
"the Westminster Lorry Ban Order means the City of Westminster (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1992.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the amendment which caused such consternation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 16:
Leave out paragraph 9A(3)(g) and insert—
("(g) the place or places, and time or times, at which it is proposed to stop in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment because this is my opportunity to respond to the pre-emptive strike by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
The suggestion has been made that one should leave things as they are now and alter them later having seen how they work. But this is the Third Reading of a Bill before Parliament. In practical terms, it will be very difficult if we wait to see how it works. So often we hear of the difficulties of finding parliamentary time. The prospect of finding parliamentary time to deal with an amendment to a schedule to this type of Bill frankly seems to me to be extremely unlikely.
Nor indeed do I think that it is appropriate to accept that because a whole man-week has been spent—and as I think some of it was a woman-week perhaps I should say a person-week—on negotiations relating to these amendments. That is not a good reason not to seek to get the matter entirely right.
The Minister said that there would be a problem if it is not possible to allow movement through central London other than on occasions when there is a proposal to stop. That is precisely the point. From the notes that I have seen, the whole issue is about a situation when it is not practicable, because of an emergency, to move round London in the way the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, described.
I believe that it strikes at the heart of the aim to protect the environment which is inherent in the London lorry ban scheme to suggest that there should be that exception. It may sound a small point, but it may also give rise to opportunities for improper and inappropriate journeys to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred, although he described it rather more earthily.
I do not believe that the point has been met, but there has been some movement in the Chamber and I shall move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I fear that I shall be guilty of the most heinous crime of leaving
1402
a lady in some distress. I found the explanation of my noble friend on the Front Bench entirely convincing. I had not given the importance to the word "if" at the beginning of the sub-paragraph which it deserves. Indeed, my noble friend went a very long way towards convincing me that the argument was the other way round: that the Government's amendments succeed in building in the protection which we are seeking whereas the noble Baroness's amendment might inadvertently cause us to lose it.
Those are matters of legal interpretation. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right. If this Bill is amended, it will have to go back to another place and there will be an opportunity finally to look again at that matter. I believe that it would be wholly inappropriate, despite what I may have said at an earlier stage, to press this amendment to a Division. I thank my noble friend most warmly for the very cogent and convincing replies which he gave not only on that matter but also in relation to the working day.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the suggestion that the noble Lord has just made regarding the noble Baroness is nothing compared with the fact that he sought to aid and abet her earlier on and then resiled from so doing. So he gave her that encouragement, and then walked away from her. However, my view remains that there is still an opportunity further to reflect on the matter. As I understand it, these discussions were still going on last night. I am inclined to feel that the Minister is right, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, indicated. It would not be the best way forward to pursue the matter tonight.
I am sure that the Minister will not say that consultations are at an end. He has come to a conclusion at present but he has shown himself flexible regarding two amendments discussed tonight. I urge the noble Baroness to leave the matter at this stage. If any discussions can take place by way of further amendment in another place, I am sure that that would be the best way to proceed. I find it most difficult to react in the way suggested by the noble Baroness. There has been so much discussion about all these highly complicated matters. Therefore, if we find that there is one possible loophole, it is difficult to make up our minds about it tonight. That would be the wrong way to proceed. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend very much indeed for listening so carefully to my obviously very powerful argument. Indeed, it certainly convinced me, and I am very pleased that it also convinced my noble friend.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Baroness's point has been addressed by the explanation that I gave; in other words, to make an attempt to go through just for the sake of money would be defeated.

1403
I hope that that explanation has convinced the noble Baroness. However, if it has not done so, I hope that it will have convinced many other noble Lords here present.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, again for his support for the Government's position. I would only differ with him in his interpretation of the finality of the proceedings. Clearly the Bill has been amended and will, therefore, go to another place, where your Lordships' amendments will be considered. I certainly hope that we are not about to embark on anything that could be described by the informal name for table tennis which has occasionally occurred when disagreements have arisen between this House and another place. That clearly is not the case here. The Bill is supported by all sides of the House.
The very point raised by the noble Baroness is most specific. From the way it is written, it looks as though it relates to a small detail, but it is important; it is of clear significance. The safeguards are there for the reasons that I have detailed. I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not know whether Hansard will record the laughter which filled the Chamber when the Minister thanked his noble friend for his remarks; indeed, he might well thank him. I am not distressed as has been suggested, but I am numerate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Protective provisions]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos 17 to 22:
Page 215, line 1, leave out ("If any") and insert ("Sub-paragraph (4) below applies where").
Page 215, line 4, after ("rights") insert— ("(4)").
Page 215, line 4, leave out ("to that effect").
Page 215, line 5, after ("undertaker") insert ("that this sub-paragraph applies").
Page 215, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("the").
Page 215, line 8, at end insert—
("(5) The obligation imposed by sub-paragraph (4) above shall not extend to the exercise by the undertakers of any power to acquire by way of compulsory purchase order any land or rights in land, other than any power which may be exercisable by them under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 to this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments honour a commitment given during an earlier stage of the Bill. Part II of Schedule 15 to the Bill sets out provisions for the protection of the various utilities affected by the construction of the CTRL. The provisions have been the subject of discussions with the utilities since the Bill was introduced, and a number of amendments to them have been agreed between the parties and made during the earlier stages of the Bill's passage.
What is before us this evening simply delivers the last of the amendments agreed in principle with the utilities last December. They make it clear that, if it proved necessary as a result of the CTRL works for compulsory purchase orders to be obtained for land required for the
1404
diversion of apparatus, the utilities would not be required to use the compulsory purchase order-making powers they have under their existing legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
It is a full two years since the Bill was first introduced. Throughout that period, the Bill has been subject to the most intensive scrutiny in both Houses. As a hybrid Bill it has been through all the usual stages for a public Bill, together with scrutiny by Select Committees in each House which occupied some 15 months, considering some 1,300 petitions in total.
The way in which the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, undertook its task has rightly won praise. I should like to reinforce the comments that were made at an earlier stage of the Bill and thank all the members of the Select Committee for their hard work and their exhaustive examination of the issues. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for his chairmanship. The way in which the Select Committee was conducted was a credit to the noble Lord and indeed to all its members. A remarkable amount was achieved in what was a comparatively short time.
There has been sustained enthusiasm from all sides of the House for this project, and a wish that it should be built as soon as possible. The project has been considerably improved during the consideration of the Bill and it can fairly be said that the legislation properly protects the interests of those affected. I should like to thank all noble Lords who spoke during the various stages of the Bill. I believe that there has been a level of co-operation and agreement across the House that is not altogether usual. It is widely accepted that all parties have wanted to see this link built and that the House has considered all the issues most thoroughly. I should also like to pay a tribute to all the officials from the Department of Transport who have worked long and hard on the Bill. They have certainly given me very good support. I believe that they have also provided a great deal of information which has led to successful conclusions within the House.
With the completion of the consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House, the project moves forward to detailed design and the raising of finance. This project is a flagship for the Government's private finance initiative. London and Continental Railways have taken over the project with considerable enthusiasm. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in wishing LCR well in bringing this nationally important project to fruition at the earliest possible stage.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton Davis: My Lords, the Minister is right to say that this is a Bill of monumental importance in moving towards the fulfilment of a vitally important project—one of the most important infrastructural projects ever undertaken. The noble Viscount is right to have offered the appreciation of the Government—and I am sure that

1405
that applies to the whole House—for the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and his colleagues in considering and invigilating all the points at issue with such great care. There is no doubt that that has reflected well, not only on the committee but also on this House and, indeed, on Parliament as a whole.
From this side of the House I should like to thank the large number of organisations and individuals who lent their support to the consideration of the Bill in its final stages; that is, through Committee, on Report and now on Third Reading. I have in mind those with environmental interests, who set out their case with great skill and care, the London Boroughs Transport Scheme, which has had a significant success, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I hope that we too have given them support and encouragement in what has been a very good outcome.
I wish to thank the promoters, too, for the care that they have given to concerns which arose during the course of the inquiries. I thank all noble Lords who spoke during the various debates. In particular, perhaps I may single out my noble friend Lord Berkeley. He has given me enormous help during the course of the Bill. I am very glad indeed that he has joined my transport team and has proved himself so well.
I am not prepared to give the Minister and his officials a general plaudit. My plaudits are strictly limited to this Bill, although we have a great affection for him. He has done himself proud, and his officials responded as officials should to the discussions in which they were heavily involved. The Minister has done his reputation no harm at all in the way in which he responded to the wishes of this House that discussions proceed in the way they did.
The Bill has been improved; I am sure of that. The House, the Select Committee and everyone concerned can take great pride in that. I join with the Minister in hoping that the matter can now proceed to as rapid a completion as possible. Let us hope that it will not be subjected to any other delays, such as those we experienced as a result of the incident recently. It is an important Bill; and the project is of great significance.
7 p.m.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, at this late hour, I do not wish to make a long speech going over the history of the Bill. However, as a member of the Select Committee, there is something that I must say. When the seven members of that committee met for the first time we were not well known to each other. However, during the course of those two months we became one of the best parliamentary committee teams that I have ever come across. That was largely due to the leadership that we enjoyed from the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. He sometimes hides his goodwill beneath a somewhat stern appearance, but it is not long before goodwill becomes absolutely apparent. I think that I can say safely on behalf of ourselves that in working with him we were completely in harmony throughout all our meetings during those two months.
1406
Not only is our gratitude due to him but also the gratitude of the petitioners and the promoters. No one worked harder than the noble Lord to ensure that every case was properly and sympathetically examined. Through his gentle persuasion, the number of agreements reached is quite remarkable. I say no more than that.
On behalf of the promoters, the petitioners, the committee and, I believe, the whole House, our thanks are greatly due to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, the House should take no notice of all the kind things that have been said about me. However, it is absolutely the case that it was the most marvellous Select Committee that it has ever been my privilege to head. I do not believe that there is any noble Lord present who served with me previously—and there have been some good committees, too—so I think that I can make that statement with impunity. The members were absolutely terrific. I think that we broke every record for the length of our sittings and the compression within the timescale thereof.
I wish also to thank the clerk of the committee, Mr. David Batt, who did a splendid job; and Mr. Brendan Keith who occasionally glanced over his shoulder. They did a stupendous job.
The officials of the department have been mentioned. They sat through 31 sitting days, and put up with listening to me, with many a jaunt through the countryside. They, too, were immensely helpful. So, too, was the team from Union Rail now part of London and Continental, who produced some machinery which made it possible to complete the committee in the time that we did. We all had a computer screen in front of us; thank goodness none of us had to work the knobs. But it meant that every document was brought before us in no time. I know that that is something the House will take on board for future occasions, should there ever be one quite as horrific as that. The counsel who appeared before us were admirable, and I think that it would not be inappropriate to mention them too.
An important debate is to follow. I say no more except to thank noble Lords very much for all the extremely kind things that have been said.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that I have been unable to take part in debates on the Bill. That is not through lack of interest or any wish to show any disparagement towards an immensely important project. I have read with great interest the proceedings of the House, and with even greater interest the report of the committee which was extremely interesting in all its detail. Nothing remains except for me to wish the project a very fair wind.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on that happy note, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words and reciprocate them. In doing so, I recognise the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord

1407
Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from the Liberal Benches. With those thanks and recognition, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland)Order 1996
7.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order makes a number of important changes in Northern Ireland's rating legislation, principally in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. For a number of years, the rating system in Northern Ireland has been significantly different from that which obtained in the rest of the United Kingdom and this difference has increased since the introduction of the council tax and uniform business rate.
The different legislative regimes stem mainly from the fact that in Northern Ireland it is central government and its agencies which provide up to 90 per cent. of the services which in 'Great Britain are the responsibility of local authorities. In these very different circumstances the Government have no plans at present to make fundamental changes in the Province's rating system, but it is necessary to review the legislation regularly. This order does just that. In addition, the order makes specific provisions in preparation for a non-domestic revaluation which will take effect from 1st April 1997.
I shall now deal briefly with the substance of each of the main articles. Article 3 of the order will enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to make regulations providing for different rate poundages to apply to the domestic and non-domestic sectors.
Article 4 removes an ambiguity in the law by providing a uniform method for determining the date of rate liability.
Article 5 is again related to the revaluation. A revaluation does not in itself result in any overall increase in ratepayers' liability. Generally speaking, higher valuations are offset by lower rate poundages.
However, a revaluation does redistribute the rate burden between individual ratepayers. That, indeed, is the purpose of having a revaluation.
The order enables a transitional relief scheme to be considered which can be used subsequent to a revaluation to moderate the swings between ratepayers if these are judged to be too severe.
Article 6 will enable the extent of all property occupied by a utility to be defined in an order after which a conventional, rental-based assessment can be undertaken. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain.
Article 7 will enable different types of property occupied by the Department of the Environment Water Executive, such as reservoirs, treatment plants, pipelines, and so on, to be valued as a single item and entered as such in the valuation list.
The effect of Article 8 will be to remove from the overall valuation that part of the valuation attributable to the dwelling house before consideration is given to the primary use of the remainder of the premises and the applicability or otherwise of industrial derating to that part.
Article 9 should be read in conjunction with Article 12, paragraphs (c) and (d). Taken together these will enable the definition of a railway to be revised and updated and the valuation of a railway to be specified in an order, and for that valuation to be apportioned between the various district council areas. At present railway property in Northern Ireland is valued at 1914 and 1932 rental levels.
Article 10 is intended to clarify what is a difficult area of the law by distinguishing between a private dwelling, the owner of which takes in the occasional lodger, and a commercial enterprise specialising in rented accommodation. It rests on the concept of "primary use". This will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain.
Article 11 provides for buildings associated with salmon and eel fishings, public parks and certain public recreation areas not to be hereditaments. That means that they will be removed entirely from the valuation list. In 1994 an amendment to the principal order provided that salmon and eel fishings, which make use of fishing engines as defined in the 1966 Fisheries Act, would cease to be hereditaments. It had been assumed that this would include buildings used for the storing of fish and equipment.
However, recent legal advice is that the 1994 amendment may not have fully achieved its purpose and these buildings may continue to be rateable. The present change will remove any doubt. The removal of public parks and other recreational areas from the valuation list is a technical change only, since they are already fully exempt from rates. The article is a parity measure which brings the treatment of parks broadly into line with Great Britain.
I referred earlier to Article 12 in connection with the valuation of railways. The article has three other purposes. First, it will enable a so-called "decapitalisation rate" to be prescribed in an order instead of being applied administratively as at present. This refers to a rate of interest employed in the valuation of specialist public sector buildings which are not usually rented; for example, schools, hospitals and leisure centres. It is a technique used to convert capital cost to an annual value. It is another parity measure with Great Britain.
Secondly, the article will enable Northern Ireland's plant and machinery regulations to be brought back into line with those in Great Britain. That had been the position until the 1995 revaluation when the Great Britain regulations were changed.
I hope the House will agree that these are important, useful and straightforward changes which have practical consequences for ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction. Only she could have made the rating of hereditaments occupied for the purposes of sewerage services an object of such glittering interest, particularly at this time of the evening.
Life is often so unfair. Why is it that our colleagues who live in Northern Ireland are not to have the treat of the poll tax or council tax?
I have one or two questions, delivered in perfect innocence. Is there to be a uniform business rate in Northern Ireland? Is there, lurking behind this apparently innocent scheme, a plan for the privatisation of water services or the railways in Northern Ireland? I have one last question—because I am conscious that we have other business to which to attend in the Northern Ireland context this evening. Is it anticipated that the rates payable by individuals will rise? If not, why is the order needed at all? We shall not oppose the order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for suggesting that I have skills that I thought were beyond me. Normally I say that things are done better in Northern Ireland. On the question of the community charge or poll tax, I shall simply confine myself politically to saying that, in this instance, they are different.
The noble Lord brings out three "nervousnesses". I assure him that it is not the intention to bring forward the unified business rate. Separate rates are needed as a technical measure; after the revaluation, the domestic and non-domestic sectors will be on different valuation bases. In such circumstances the uniform rate poundage which the existing legislation requires cannot be applied. It is not the intention of this order to bring forward to the House a privatisation move. The article on the water service merely provides a statutory basis for current administrative practice. As the railways were last revalued in 1914 and 1932, one feels that there is a very definite commonsense requirement that they should move into this decade.
There will be no overall increase in rates liability resulting from the revaluation. But for the most part higher valuations are offset by lower rate poundages.
A revaluation produces winners and losers—those whose valuations change by more or less than the average. At the end of the day we aim to have a fairer distribution of the rate burden. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Succession (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order before your Lordships' House gives effect to a number of minor recommendations contained in the Law Commission Report, Family Law: Distribution on Intestacy, which have already been implemented for England and Wales in the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995.
The order makes three main changes to the law of succession contained in Part II of the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
It amends the 1955 Act, which sets out an order of priority for sharing in the estate of someone who dies intestate, by introducing a rule that a surviving spouse should inherit on intestacy only if he or she survives the deceased by a period of 28 days. This is to prevent the somewhat arbitrary result where the family of one of the spouses inherits the property of both should the two die within a short time of each other—a common example of this is after a road accident. It has long been considered good practice for such a survivorship clause to be inserted in wills. The order will now reflect this good practice in the rules governing intestacy.
Secondly, the order will repeal the complicated and unclear "hotch-pot" rule enshrined in Section 17 of the 1955 Act which affects intestacies. Under this rule, benefits received by children (but not other relatives) of the intestate, during the latter's lifetime, must be brought into account against the share of the estate to which the recipients would otherwise be entitled. Not only has this rule proved difficult to operate, it is out of date and its strict application is undoubtedly capable of producing consequences which are not what the deceased would have wished. Consultation has revealed that its abolition will be widely welcomed.
The third change to the law brought about by the order is the introduction of a new category of applicant who may apply under the 1979 order for reasonable financial provision from the deceased's estate where the will or the rules of intestacy have left them without such provision. Under the existing law, cohabitees have to prove that they were actually dependent on the deceased. This can have the effect that a long-term cohabitee who has contributed fully to the running of the common household is unable to rely on the provisions of the 1979 order which was designed as a safety net.
This order will permit a cohabitee who has lived with the deceased for two years immediately preceding the death to bring a claim without having to show dependence. Rather, the court will take into account the applicant's age, the length of cohabitation and the contribution made by the applicant to the deceased's family.
Your Lordships will note, however, that some distinction between married and unmarried claimants is retained in that the definition of what constitutes "reasonable financial provision" is the same for cohabitees as it is for other applicants who are not spouses.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the provisions constitute a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform which has the support of all those who responded to the consultation on the proposed draft order. I beg to move the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we positively welcome this order. It is long overdue: the working paper which led to the consultation is dated as long ago as 1988. As the Minister indicated, this has been the law in England and Wales for about a year. The Law Commission has done a first-rate piece of work and we congratulate it on the thoroughness of its research.
One must bear in mind that sense and reason need to obtain at times of bereavement when those who survive are, in the nature of things, distressed and vulnerable. This provides an admirable scheme of additional protection for surviving spouses and also— extremely important— a just, appropriate provision by way of alteration which allows a cohabitee who has cohabited for the whole of the two years prior to the death to make a successful application without having to go through the sometimes rather unseemly formula, and sometimes rather an artificial formula at that, of proving dependency. We welcome the order.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, as I read the order, and particularly Article 4, I wonder whether it was written with undue regard to the welfare of the legal profession in Northern Ireland. We see the phrase:
"living… in the same household as the husband or wife of the deceased".
Surely that gives a tremendous variety of cases which will be difficult to prove. I presume there could well be cases where, for example, a man lives apart from his wife but has not divorced her. He may live in a house, perhaps with a housekeeper, but they have chosen to "comfort one another", as we say, for perhaps a year or more. I can see that kind of situation being the cause of undue, costly and tedious litigation. I wonder whether a better definition can be given to "cohabitee" in that case.
Perhaps I may also point out that there appears to be a mistake in numbering. In Article 4, the "(1)" is against the article number rather than the first paragraph. The numbers should all move down.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, for those comments and also the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his welcome.
1412
There is no attempt in the order to provide for the welfare of lawyers in Northern Ireland; that has always seemed to me well taken care of.
The article is specifically aimed at cohabitees. Married couples are already covered in the main legislation but "cohabitees" are further defined by Article 4 so that a man and woman must be living together as husband and wife for at least two years immediately preceding the death of the partner. This is a definition for the cohabitee which is successfully used already in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. I shall examine the wording of the Bill. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Northern Ireland Peace Process
7.24 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham rose to call attention to the prospect for the peace process in Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships will have observed that during the course of the week this item has mysteriously metamorphosed through the usual channels from being an Unstarred Question, which would have put a tight corset on our debate. The corset has been loosened and it has now become a debate on a Motion which I am glad to move. I feel that one of the regrettable features of the way in which we deal with Northern Ireland business in this House, quite apart from the strange hours of the day at which we normally do so—for those who do not regularly come to Northern Ireland debates, this is luxuriously early in the day for us to discuss Northern Ireland business—is that we generally discuss specifics such as a government Statement or one of the flow of orders by which the Province is so inappropriately governed under the present arrangements. That being the case, we rarely have the chance to discuss the general state of affairs in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Motion gives us a chance to do so.
This is an important moment in the so-called peace process. I believe that the question in a nutshell is this: can progress be made before the British general election and the Irish election which will follow it? Some may feel that the alternative is not too bad: to put the whole project in cold storage for a year, then try to warm it up again in the new political situation, whatever that may be.
I fear that that is not an option. In my belief we either move forward or we are likely to see a further retreat behind the barricades of the past and a relapse into sectarian zealotry and the barbaric acts with which we are familiar from the past 25 years. Consistently, the story of Northern Ireland over the past 25 years has been that, when hope is denied, despair fills its place.
We have an impressive list of participants in the debate. I thank those noble Lords who have put their names down. Perhaps I may say in particular how much

1413
I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Alderdice, the leader of the Alliance Party. He has been a consistent and eloquent voice in Northern Ireland against sectarianism and in favour of inclusion. He has been a consistent and benign influence for principled compromise between historical adversaries. He has been active in the whole peace process in a way which reflects great credit on him and the Alliance Party. I know that he will make a major contribution to this House, as he has over many years in Northern Ireland.
Let me start my own analysis of the prospects in Northern Ireland with something which is obvious to me but which is often ignored. Peace and political progress in Northern Ireland depend on one relationship above all others. No, it is not the relationship between Mr. Hume and the Republican extremists. Nor is it even the relationship between the British and Irish Governments, important though that is.
It is the relationship between sensible unionism and moderate nationalism. That means in party terms between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. That is what matters above all. Can they agree to share power and live together in the same space on the basis of equal inclusion? We all know that the context matters a great deal; that the nature of the relationship with and between the parent countries of the respective traditions is important; that the degree of respect and protection for both majority and minority rights is crucial; and that the presence or absence of violence is a vital factor. But nothing can take away from the primacy of the central relationship between moderate unionists and their nationalist counterparts. Anything which detracts from them settling down to build an accommodation is frankly displacement activity and even potentially a distraction.
That is why I believe that the message of the past few months is so mixed. On the one hand there has been the deeply depressing spectacle of Sinn Fein and its IRA allies slipping back into hot words and dangerous deeds—like the Bourbons, learning nothing and forgetting nothing. For those who have not heard, tonight we have news of a 600-pound car bomb, fortunately defused, outside the RUC headquarters in Londonderry. The menace of violence is there in a very real way.
But, on the other hand, there has been maintenance, however tenuous, of talks and even the first glimmering of genuine dialogue, albeit of a largely procedural nature, between constitutional nationalists and unionists. That must be welcomed. Indeed, I believe that it is one of the reasons why some of the militant Republicans now seem to be trying to find their way back into the process. The synchronised McGuinness—Mayhew dialogue of recent days may or may not lead somewhere. We shall all have to see. I do not regard what has happened tonight as particularly encouraging.
But, for myself, I believe that Sinn Fein could only be readmitted to civilised discourse if the proof of its seriousness was represented by some combination of three things: first of all, words—unambiguous adherence to the Mitchell principles; second, deeds—unequivocal commitment to a parallel decommissioning
1414
process; and third, time—the elapsing of peaceful time. Who can judge yet if Sinn Fein is serious enough to realise the depth of the distrust that it must now allay by the right words and deeds and the passage of peaceful time? In that context, I want briefly to refer, in comparison to Sinn Fein and the IRA, to the very great restraint that has been shown by the former Loyalist paramilitaries. That restraint over the past few months, when some of their supporters must feel that tit for tat must obtain again, has been, to say the least of it, impressive.
Reverting to Sinn Fein, I believe that the show must go on with or without it. We must never again allow a Hume-Adams strategy to so overwhelm the agenda of both governments and both communities, let alone the US administration, that everything and everyone is paralysed until Messrs. Adams and McGuinness smile upon us. Waiting for Gerry is not a strategy; it is a recipe for disaster. So if the show is to go on, it demands movement and compromise from those who want peace and stability. A stable settlement in Northern Ireland is absolutely essential to the inward investment and prosperity for which the noble Baroness labours so tirelessly, effectively and, if I may say so to her, so often unacknowledged. It is good to have the chance to do so here this evening.
I say to my nationalist friends in the SDLP, "This could be your moment. Sinn Fein is currently discredited. You have the opportunity for making sure that peaceful constitutional nationalism is a bridge between a past of division and a future of reconciliation." To my unionist friends I say, "Please, please respond to the mood of the people of Northern Ireland who want to move on rather than march to the old atavistic drums of the past. You have won the prize of no surrender. You have won the prize. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom so long as that is what the people want. So now set that agreement in foundations of stone by making the compromises essential to share power and create equal rights, so that the people of the rest of the United Kingdom feel proud of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland can experience your confidence and friendship rather than the suspicious distrust of the past." To the governments, I would advise, if I may, "Stay close together. Don't follow the IRA will-o'-the-wisp into the bogs. Let it come to you, if it will. Be ready to modify the North-South All-Ireland strand of the negotiations, so that cross-border institutions are seen primarily as practical means of necessary co-operation rather than as an attempt to create shared sovereignty."
In my opinion, the primary role of the Irish Republic should be as a co-guarantor of a new settlement rather than as a co-administrator of Northern Ireland. I believe that the Dublin Government under the able leadership of Mr. Bruton and Mr. Spring are ready to be realistic in that respect. Canon Frayling, in a notable sermon in Westminster Abbey in July, talked of the sense of betrayal felt by unionists over the years and the sense of injustice felt by nationalists over the years. He also said that politics alone cannot heal the wounds. Of course, he is right on both counts. But even if

1415
constructive politics are not sufficient, they are necessary. This is a time when the leaders of both main communities, like the Alliance Party which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, leads, need to listen to the people of Northern Ireland, who, in my belief, are ready to go that extra mile for peace. They must not be let down.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. We are very fortunate that he is here today.
Two weeks ago Mr. Spring said that Sinn Fein/IRA received 17 per cent. of the total vote in the last election. Mitchell McLoughlin, while complaining of disenfranchisement, claimed that between 35 and 40 per cent. of the nationalist population in the North supported the Sinn Fein/IRA. A poll since the election showed that it was running well behind the SDLP. Sinn Fein/IRA has a party which represents no more than one-third of the nationalist vote, one-sixth of the whole electorate in the North. So why is it deemed impossible for the parties already attending the talks to speak for or represent the nationalist community in negotiating the future, especially since the leader of the SDLP has retained throughout the years of political negotiation both close links with Sinn Fein and a close working relationship with the Irish Government as well as our own?
Why are the two governments, and no doubt the American Government and the European Union also, striving so hard to get Sinn Fein/IRA into the talks at any cost? Mr. Spring says that it is because:
"if you want an accommodation that has the broadest possible support, the 17 per cent. should be reflected in the negotiations that lead to the accommodation".
He does not say what the effect would be on the other 83 per cent. if Sinn Fein/IRA were to be brought in on any grounds other than the terms that have been laid down time and again in the Mitchell principles and by the governments.
The 83 per cent. might find it hard to understand why a party whose credibility as a political force rests almost exclusively on its claim to be able to influence the IRA—a claim which it effortlessly couples with disclaimers of any influence on that body—should expect to be allowed to dictate its own terms on the timing of its entry. Mr. Adams boasted, when he was asked at his book launch whether he would condemn the amassing by the IRA of 10 tonnes of explosive, that he had avoided the politics of condemnation before now and would continue to do so. How true! He never condemned Canary Wharf, Manchester or Lisburn; nor the punishment beatings. Was he perhaps not free to do so? Of course, he makes an exception when it comes to condemning the British for being prepared to defend the citizens of the United Kingdom as it is their duty to do. I hope that we shall not let down our security or our military guard.
1416
We have come to live in a looking-glass world, or perhaps it would be true to say that we are being manoeuvred to look through the wrong end of the telescope. The reason why Sinn Fein/IRA has, in Mr. Spring's view, to be at the talks, whether or not that might drive the other parties away—and then, of course, they would be blamed for destroying the peace process; geese are not allowed to object if the fox is invited into the coop—is that Sinn Fein has friends, the IRA, who are accustomed to kill whatever gets in their way and to negotiate through the bullet, not the ballot. In fact, it is perfectly prepared in every sense to kill as many innocent people as will secure media attention. That is what makes that grotesque little party so special. And the IRA can make trouble in the Republic too, despite the fact that Sinn Fein/IRA is even less representative of the democratic vote there than in the North. I could wish, incidentally, that the media would question Sinn Fein as toughly and rigorously as they do all other political figures.
Sinn Fein/IRA has three conditions which must be met before there can be any prospect of a ceasefire, according to Mr. McLoughlin, which are: a guarantee of inclusive talks involving Sinn Fein; a time-frame for political settlement; and confidence-building measures. Mr. Adams has added a further condition: that the Taoiseach's brief must include defending the rights of the nationalists in the North. No one must defend the right of the majority in the North. On the contrary, as Gerry Adams said at the Sinn Fein conference in 1995, the British Government must be pressurised to adopt a policy of disengagement based on Britain becoming a positive persuader for ending the Union. At that meeting he spoke of an all-Ireland struggle and stated clearly that Sinn Fein's objective was to bring about an inclusive and negotiated end to British rule in Ireland and to seek to replace it with a new and agreed Irish jurisdiction. He said:
"negotiations need to take place in a climate where no section of our people hold an undemocratic power of veto".
Ironically it is Sinn Fein/IRA which at present wields without scruple, through violence and the threat of violence, that undemocratic power of veto. All those who are urgently trying to make the peace process work should not forget that. Sinn Fein is prepared to be quite as undemocratic in the South, though hitherto the IRA has refrained from actual violence there—with one exception—in order to retain the freedom to operate from and train in a safe base. Mr. Adams said:
"Sinn Fein seeks the transformation of all Irish society, not only in the occupied areas but throughout the entire island".
The present Taoiseach said loudly, after the Lisburn bomb:
"We, the people of the Republic, have no agenda for a progressive take-over of Northern Ireland against the wishes of the majority there. There is no pan-nationalist agenda. Any government I lead would never be part of such an agenda".
That is what I call a confidence-building measure, and a great credit it is to him. I wish we could hear Mr. Spring say the same thing. Martin McGuiness said in February 1995:
"What is our agenda? We want the ending of British rule in our country".

1417
Let us examine Sinn Fein/IRA's latest three conditions which must be met before there can be a ceasefire. First, it wants a guarantee of inclusive talks involving Sinn Fein. Why should the other parties, including the Loyalist paramilitaries who have so steadily refused to be provoked into violence, allow the conditions to be set by the very party which is preventing any move to peace?
Next, it wants a time-frame for a political settlement. How can anyone set a date when the complex problems and difficulties of many years have to be resolved? If the date chosen is too soon, it will lead to recriminations and be used as an excuse for renewed violence, if no other excuse is handy. Thirdly, it wants confidence-building measures. Everyone but Sinn Fein and the IRA has leaned over backwards, including, let it be said, the Irish Government in their moves to legislate for decommissioning and their reference, at least, to eventual action to put the issue of Articles 2 and 3 to a referendum.
There is then the Loyalist offer, tabled as long ago as February 1995, to put the whole issue of decommissioning to an international body. We had the Mitchell Report; we had the President of the United States waving White House wands, only to find, poor fellow, that he had conjured up not the good fairy, but a wicked stepmother who was preparing for Canary Wharf at the very time that Gerry Adams was posing for pictures with him.
We have had the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, whose report Sinn Fein alone rejected. We have had, above all, wise negotiators in the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and his Ministers, and I pay my tribute to them tonight. It is not true to say that Sinn Fein/IRA—those infinitely skilled word- spinners—need a clear statement of the conditions required for entry into the talks. The Prime Minister said that we need an unequivocal ceasefire which is verifiable. What could be clearer or more reasonable? Mr. Hume has spoken of the need for litmus tests for the other parties on their commitment to the peace process. The IRA plays judo with us, requiring both the governments and the parties already involved in talks to prove their bona fides. The only people who can move us on, the only ones who can enable the peace process to be put into gear and move off are the IRA. It is the IRA's credentials which need testing. As the Prime Minister said, it is difficult to reconcile Sinn Fein's rhetoric of peace with the IRA's preparations for murder.
I am half persuaded that it would be no bad thing to call Sinn Fein's bluff—early rather than late—and once there is a ceasefire, let them into the talks to expose their real agenda; that is, a non-negotiable, undeviating determination to end Northern Ireland's present status within the Union, whatever the wishes of the majority, and to impose a united Ireland. Like the North Vietnamese, the IRA only negotiates to win. Once it finds it cannot secure, not partial, but total victory through talks, it will, I fear, revert to the only form of combat it knows—and it will be well prepared. If it has meanwhile succeeded in the negotiating phase in causing the other parties to withdraw from what could prove a travesty of democratic discussion if it was
1418
present, that too would be a victory. If it can provoke the Loyalists into breaking their ceasefire, it would be a disaster.
I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in believing that we should believe in the talks and carry them on. Therefore, though I admire the cool courage, patience and determination to find a way to talk and to be seen to satisfy in so doing the universal longing for peace for ordinary people on both sides, I fear the scenario is not encouraging. It could be another tactical ceasefire, probably preceded by a series of bombings which will be attributed, unless very successful, to mavericks. There will be the entry of Sinn Fein/IRA into talks and the presentation by them of a series of non-negotiable demands which the majority and at least one of the two governments cannot reasonably accept and which might lead to the break-up of the talks. Lastly, there will be the reversion to armed struggle, a renewed IRA campaign and inevitably in that case a Loyalist response.
Hence I hope that both governments will think long and hard before watering down the conditions or at least the timing for entry after any ceasefire until some verification has been provided. Meanwhile, let us get on with the talks as they are. The two governments should be seen by the majority who feel threatened already to be proceeding cautiously and not bounced by either Mr. Spring or Mr. Hume into premature action. I believe it is right and will be seen to be right to lean over backwards to let in Sinn Fein/IRA, after a ceasefire, once they comply with the necessary conditions.
At least by going as far as we have to meet the Irish Government, which is in general receptive to Sinn Fein for a variety of reasons, we ought to be able to expect from them a far more active policy of support; for instance, possibly the trying and imprisoning in the Republic of wanted IRA men when they cannot bring themselves—for good political reasons—to extradite. They cannot claim to advocate the interests of the North without accepting some responsibility for acting to contain and frustrate the IRA operations based in the Republic. The Garda is, of course, already doing something towards that.
The people who have had a taste of peace and prosperity, the Loyalist paramilitaries, who have shown such restraint, the American Government, who can so powerfully influence events, and the Nationalists, who trust the SDLP and the Alliance Party rather than Sinn Fein to represent them, must all see that everything has been done to bring Sinn Fein in. But it must not be perceived to be appeasement. The 83 per cent. must be given reason to trust the Government—indeed, the two governments—to remember that they are the majority and they have rights. If they lose faith in good government, that will be the real IRA victory.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the first thing I should do is extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I also want to take this opportunity to thank him sincerely for the patience and skill with which he has led the Alliance Party on a difficult path over the years, though I feel he has not as yet harvested the fruit.

1419
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, comes to the House with a great deal of up-to-date knowledge of the political position in Northern Ireland. I believe also that he has interests in some health matters as well. But his words will carry particular weight and be of great value to those who follow Northern Ireland affairs in your Lordships' House. I very much look forward to his maiden contribution on a very complex subject which is so near to his heart. If I have one caveat at all, it is this—and I speak as a Welshman. I believe that the Welsh branch of the Celtic family has an ancient and sceptical attitude towards your Lordships' House. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord can contribute to our work without in any way weakening his beneficial influence in Northern Ireland—because it is there that we want the enlightened leadership.
Over the past few weeks we had been expecting a definitive statement by the Government about the peace process. But that was not to be. Then the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked this simple but penetrating question: what is the outlook for the peace process in Northern Ireland? I find his question an extremely difficult one to answer, so I much look forward to the Minister's response to it.
Speaking on what is visible about the peace process—a great deal is not visible—I am saddened that the hopeful signs are so few as the obstacles are more and more visible. They have been mentioned this evening—the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire, then the events of last July surrounding Drumcree, the subsequent boycott of the shops and the continued discovery of arms. The cumulative effect of these events is that the general public are in a fairly pessimistic state about the political position in Northern Ireland. All this suggests to me that the peace process is proving far, far more difficult than most of us foresaw three years ago, two years ago or even a year ago. I am sure that there are lessons to be learnt for the two governments and for the political parties from the failure to make progress, but I have no wish to allocate blame—I have no wish to be involved in any argument—for the failure.
However, this week, like, I am sure, many others, I have been reading and re-reading carefully the report of the speech which the Secretary of State delivered at the Manchester Luncheon Club last Friday. I have a great respect for the Secretary of State's tenacity and for his judgment. I believe it to be an important speech for two reasons. First, the Secretary of State declares that we now have a basis for negotiations. Can I tempt the Minister to tell the House what precisely the Secretary of State had in mind when he used those words? In my view, the speech is important for another reason. The Secretary of State deals at some length with Sinn Fein's position, as outlined in the speech of Mr. McGuinness the previous night, a speech described by the Irish Foreign Secretary as "significant and important". It seemed to me that the Secretary of State's words throughout his speech—or what has been reported of the speech—are measured. The speech is carefully constructed. The analysis is a careful analysis. I welcome the tenor of his speech. But it is nevertheless not clear to me how great is the priority which the
1420
Government attach to the entry of Sinn Fein to the all-party talks and whether there are any significant differences between the two governments about that. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that an agreement between the SDLP and the Unionists would be a huge step forward. However, I have to say for my own part—I speak for myself and not necessarily for the Labour Party—that I happen to support those who believe that both governments and the Northern Ireland parties should continue to seek ways and means of bringing Sinn Fein into the talks. If it be true that one or both governments are today in indirect touch with Sinn Fein, does this not indicate that the obstacles may not be insurmountable? Unless its voice is heard in the talks, after it has been given reasonable opportunity to take part in them, I believe that the prospects of a just and lasting settlement will be fairly remote. I leave that matter there.
There is at least one other development which is required, and required before next summer. Nowhere were the difficulties facing Northern Ireland more vividly demonstrated than in the marches last July. The rule of law had a substantial set-back. The RUC's chief constable found himself in a hopeless position. In a sense the marches issue goes to the heart of the deep-seated differences between the two communities in Northern Ireland. It has fallen to Dr. Peter North, the vice chancellor of the University of Oxford and one of the most distinguished jurists of our time, together with two assistants, to review the current arrangements for handling processions in Northern Ireland and establishing principles which will reconcile the exercise of almost mutually incompatible rights. If a way can be found which will not be a victory for one side and not a defeat for the other, that will be a huge development and it will strengthen the peace process.
To find or design such a way is an exceptionally complicated task, but the Secretary of State has called to his aid some of the best legal brains in the country. I trust very much that their task is not an impossible one. When do the Government expect to receive Dr. North's report? If it recommends legislation, will that lead to a process of consultation, or will the Government proceed to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of Dr. North's committee if it is acceptable to the Government?
I do not wish to raise any other point. I thought it was worth mentioning those matters and I did of course mention them to the Minister so that she would be aware that I proposed to raise them.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for introducing the debate. Secondly, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. They are difficult matters to have to tackle. Finally, I apologise for being unable to stay to the end of the debate. I was advised that it was likely to finish earlier and therefore I shall try to be brief.

1421
I wish to raise only one issue in relation to the peace process. It arises from the 1995 annual report of the Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Annesley, of the RUC. Perhaps I may first recall the causes of the disturbances in 1968 and a report made in 1969 by the commission entitled Disturbances in Northern Ireland, which is Command Paper 532. That is often known as the Cameron Report, as he was the chairman of the committee. I shall not go into its contents. It showed only too clearly that for 40 years Catholics had been second-class citizens; that is, since Lord Brookeborough and his government took control. He should have been able to do much more for us—I speak as a Catholic—but, as the report shows, Catholic citizens were second class judging by the numbers in the Civil Service and the police force. The numbers taking part were laughable.
I believe that as a Catholic I have a duty to ensure that something like that never happens again. Using as yardsticks the composition of the Civil Service and the police force as regards Catholics and Protestants, one can see that during the past 25 years immense progress has been made. The composition of the Civil Service is about 60 per cent. Protestant and 40 per cent. Catholic. Given past history, that is a considerable achievement. It is well done and everyone should be proud of it. However, sadly, a very different state of affairs exists in the police force, the RUC. It is about 6 per cent. Catholic and the rest Protestant. I understand that during the last 18 months the figure for the number of Catholics has improved and that we welcome.
Why is it so difficult to get Catholics to join the Police Force? I shall quote from two paragraphs in the 1995 annual report of the Chief Constable. At page 14, he states:
"Regrettably, it is necessary to highlight the practice of pressurising local people in some areas not to engage in police/public consultation. This odious practice is not only clearly unacceptable, but it deprives members of the community of the benefits of information on important subjects such as drugs, child abuse and crime prevention. I salute the courage of those members of the public who have so firmly resisted this blatant attempt to thwart their freedom to talk to, and listen to, whom they wish".
An even more important paragraph appears in Appendix 1 at page 102. It states:
"I am sensitive to the real difficulties experienced by some people in considering a career in the RUC. I can assure those in such a position of our ability and preparedness to help them to overcome these difficulties. I am committed to making the organisation as representative of the population as possible.
A more representative police service, however, should also be the aim and responsibility of the whole community".
That is an extremely important point. He goes on to state:
"I invite everyone, including those who criticise the religious balance within the RUC, to note what we are doing to bring about change, and also to reflect on how they may assist us in making further progress".
That is the point that I wish to stress. It is for all citizens of Northern Ireland to try and encourage Catholics to join the RUC. It is the duty of the priests, the schools and responsible citizens wherever they may be so that the whole population will trust the police force. In the peace process, nothing is more important
1422
than a properly balanced police force. Everything that the Government can do to ensure that must be an essential and vital part of the peace process.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he aware that perhaps the main reason why Roman Catholics do not join the RUC in greater numbers is that those who do are branded as traitors by the IRA and INLA and are therefore at even greater risk of assassination and attacks upon their families than are their Protestant fellow officers, particularly those who choose to remain living in Catholic areas?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I fully realise that and the great difficulty and danger faced by Catholics who wish to join the RUC. However, the Government and chief constable have made progress and I beg all those in the Protestant and Catholic communities who are working so hard together to ensure that we achieve a balanced force in the RUC.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships for your welcome to this House. I appreciate it greatly. Secondly, I thank my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for bringing forward this topical Motion at this time. I know that a considerable number of noble Lords have a great deal of experience in Northern Ireland. As I look around the Chamber I see some who hail from our beloved Province. I see others who for a long time have had an interest there and those who have had experience as Ministers of Her Majesty's Government. I wish to refer in particular to the Minister. She has gained enormous respect right across the community in Northern Ireland for her indefatigable efforts to build up its economy, not least in its largest industry, agriculture. Her efforts are deeply appreciated.
Those who know Northern Ireland appreciate the enormous complexities, nuances and sensitivities of political life there. They are a minefield for the unwary and even sometimes for the wary. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Holme for showing not only his customary courtesy and political astuteness but also for an unfailing surefootedness in Northern Ireland politics and in dealing with Northern Ireland politicians across the divide. All will appreciate the considerable achievement that he has gained. Of course, we are all aware of his considerable achievements elsewhere, too.
I must also make mention of another Lord who is no longer with us. Henry, Lord Dunleath, was a member of my party and effectively the voice of the Alliance Party at Westminster for many years. Subsequent to taking his seat in your Lordships' House he stood for, and was elected to, Ards District Council where he served as a constituency councillor. He was also elected to a number of other assemblies in Northern Ireland. From 1982 to 1986 he served as Deputy Speaker in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He was a towering and significant figure in the business and agricultural life of Northern Ireland and also in the sporting, arts and charitable fraternities. We mourn his passing. We cherish his memory and pay tribute to his service in your Lordships' House, in Northern Ireland, and indeed to the continuing service of the Lady Dunleath.

1423
Not only was he one who moved away from traditional boundaries and crossed the borders of class, creed and political allegiance in the course of peace and reconciliation, he was, for all who knew him, a remarkable individual and a remarkable individualist. That was one of the things that made him a particularly precious symbol of our party because we believe very much in the cherishing of individual differences. It is these things which enrich our society and it is at the heart of what I and my colleagues believe. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland it has become common to reduce all the variations of religious belief, class, gender, cultural, sporting, artistic interests and political conviction to the traditional sectarian divisions of Protestant Unionist and Catholic Nationalist thus splitting the community and setting the scene for endless feuds.
How does this manifest itself in political life? In recent years the British and Irish Governments have sought to work together to try to address our difficulties and this is extremely welcome. However, Unionists find themselves opposing this co-operation because they believe that Her Majesty's Government should be backing their case because, after all, they are the ones who wish to remain within the United Kingdom. They become suspicious, angry and very fearful when they believe that that is not so. Nationalists, however, welcome the co-operation between the two governments because it means to them that a sovereign, independent Irish Government is available specifically to address and represent their interests. But in our view if the British Government see themselves as there to represent the views of Unionists and the Irish Government is there to represent the views of Nationalists, that is a recipe for deepening the split and institutionalising the polarisation of our society. In passing, I may also say that such a thing would leave little opportunity for the representation of those of us who do not particularly want to view ourselves as either Unionists or Nationalists, but liberal-minded, tolerant Ulster people. We want to see both British and Irish Governments being sensitive to the needs of all sections of our community, not each government acting as a supporter to one side against the other.
There are, of course, sections of our community whose actions do not excite sensitivity, but rather a rightful and frosty opposition. I refer to those who see violence as a legitimate political instrument. Since 1992 the notion developed that it might be possible to get an agreement which would not only bring our troubles to an end, but canvass the support of people right across the divide, from Mr. Adams and his colleagues in the Republican movement to Dr. Paisley and those on the right wing of Unionism and Loyalism. I was always sceptical of this view, but I am not one to sit on the sidelines and snipe just because an analysis is not my analysis or a strategy is not my strategy.
As soon as the violence was stopped I entered into discussions with Mr. Adams and his colleagues and with the Loyalists, publicly and privately, week upon week, for something up to 17 months. It is with some sadness that I have to say to your Lordships that during that
1424
time, while I find developments with the Loyalists, I find no indications that the republican movement is truly prepared for the kind of honourable compromise which is a pre-requisite for a settlement to our problems. Rather, it seemed to me, that despite the kind of memorandum of understanding which there had been in South Africa, which we had attempted to emulate by putting together the Downing Street Declaration, subsequently a framework document, and indeed in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin—a report which we had hoped that Sinn Fein could address and support—we find the republican movement turning back to violence and indeed a new form, the tactical use of the armed struggle.
Be aware that simply because there is no return to an ongoing campaign that does not mean that the trouble is truly less. It is simply that it is frequently found more effective to have a tactical use of the armed struggle which keeps the agenda and the focus firmly on the republican movement.
It is for that reason that I find myself returning to what I regard as the firmer and more solid ground, not the attractive illusion that we can bring together everyone unanimously. I know of no place in the world where it has been found possible for everyone to sign up to a resolution. In the Middle East, Hamas and Jewish fundamentalists still find themselves opposing everything. It was the case in South Africa that the white Right and elements on the other side, too, refused to go along with a legitimate, reasonable and honourable compromise. I believe that we may have to accept that it is not always possible—in fact, it is rarely possible—to get everyone to agree. Indeed, it can be the case that going for the ideal is in fact courting disaster. I fear that what has happened in the past two or three years is that the community has divided itself even more deeply than was the case before.
Why should that be when there was the chance of peace? When governments were seen to be addressing those who were on the extremes they felt themselves to be the big fellows. They felt themselves to be the ones who were running the show and those who were in the broad centre of politics found that their message—and I speak here not just of my own party, but of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP—was of less interest to government and to the media. When people discovered that they found themselves moving to the extremes as well. It is not a counsel of perfection to address the concerns of the extremists and to ignore the desires of the majority of people on both sides and across the community as a whole.
The current government have devoted a great deal of time to Northern Ireland. Perhaps no Prime Minister since Lloyd George and, before him, Gladstone, has devoted more energy to addressing our problems than Mr. Major. He is to be commended by all sides for that. I trust that, whatever the vicissitudes of politics over the next 12 months and whoever it is who heads Her Majesty's Government, they will continue to make a non-sectarian and non-partisan approach to Northern Ireland a matter of the highest priority until the matter is resolved as fully as it can be.

1425
But that is most unlikely to be successful unless we press ahead now with those of the broad centre who are prepared to build a sufficient consensus. We must deal immediately with the necessary structures and legislation which would facilitate the decommissioning of weapons in the event of a ceasefire. I and my colleagues have described in a detailed document elsewhere to the two governments and the other parties how that might be done. We are engaging in discussions each day to try to bring that closer. We must get beyond that and into substantive talks before the Christmas Recess, because I have to say to noble Lords that if that is not achieved, whether through the stubbornness and lack of courage of some Unionist leaders or because of Nationalist leaders chasing the end of a rainbow, this whole process could be in the most profound jeopardy.
The result will be much more serious than the running out of steam to which the Secretary of State referred yesterday evening. It will result in an ever-deepening polarisation of our community, the re-emergence of more serious and widespread violence, extending (as it has done before) to this side of the water and to the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps most seriously, it will result in a snuffing out of the hope which burned so brightly this time last year when the President of the United States of America, Mr. Clinton, turned on the Christmas lights in Belfast. The next few weeks will determine whether or not this Christmas sees a renewal of hope. I know that I and all concerned can depend upon your Lordships' encouragement in all our efforts to achieve that aim.
8.20 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to extend congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his very interesting maiden speech. He has a good deal of experience of negotiations in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him speak again in this House in the future.
Since 10th June, the Ulster Unionist Party has been engaged in multi-party talks at Stormont with the sole aim of securing an equitable, inclusive and peaceful future for each and every tradition that makes up the Northern Ireland community. In recent years we have developed proposals for a regional assembly in which all could share on an equal basis. The key is the principle of proportionality: an assembly elected by proportional representation, with no executive or cabinet in the conventional sense, but a body which would work through committees, the members of which would be appointed in proportion to their party's strength; the chairman and deputy chairman of the various committees being elected from the parties comprising the assembly. Every party with significant support could participate at every level. However, we think that it should be essentially an administrative body rather than one with legislative or financial power. Financial power should rest at Westminster for the foreseeable future and all major policy issues should therefore be decided here. So, it is not a choice between devolution and integration; what we propose contains elements of both.
1426
We also consider that the European Convention on Human Rights should apply to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, that cannot be done unless it is made to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not see why the Government should object to applying that to Great Britain or why they hesitate to apply it to the whole country.
Our proposals would involve replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, under which the government of the Irish Republic have a secret part in the government of part of the United Kingdom without any reciprocal obligations, without doing so openly in any democratic process, and still maintaining their territorial claim to part of the United Kingdom. That must be swept away. We believe that there should be co-operation on matters of mutual interest such as tourism and agriculture, but that that should be done openly and democratically, not secretively.
I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Perth, talk about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope he knows that in 1921, when the government of Northern Ireland was established, the then Prime Minister, Viscount Craigavon, reserved one-third of the places in the RUC for Catholics but they refused to take them up and have been very reluctant to join ever since, despite encouragement. Some of those who joined were probably very brave to do so, particularly if they lived in an area dominated by Sinn Fein, because they left themselves open to considerable danger. It is our desire to have the police representative of all elements of the community. It seems absurd to say that because Catholics have been reluctant to join they are being treated as second-class citizens. I submit that that is an affront to common sense.
Another difficulty at the moment is that the SDLP is now boycotting our only Province-wide democratic body, the Forum. It finds serving on a health committee with unionists unacceptable. That does not augur well for the chances of meaningful discussions about forms of government. I hope that everybody will see sense and that we can get down to what is an essential and important task.
We must move ahead with negotiations between responsible and law-abiding citizens whatever their political views, rather than trying, as the Government appear to be doing, to entice terrorists to join in. Surely they have learned something from the last ceasefire. It was a "ceasefire" in the sense that there were not so many bombings, but there was still intimidation. There were still punishment beatings and firms were still being blackmailed. There has now been a great increase in what is called "ethnic cleansing"—in other words, the boycotting of Protestant shops and businesses in the west of Northern Ireland with the intention of driving the Protestants out of those areas. I find such things beyond comment.
What we want is a genuine and permanent ceasefire. If it is to be permanent, those involved must show that they do not require weapons and explosives for future use. It is hypocritical to say, "We are going to have a permanent ceasefire, but we are keeping all our weapons

1427
and ammunition just in case it turns out not to be permanent". We want something that can be guaranteed to be permanent.
I have great pleasure in saying that I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, tabled this Motion to give the House the opportunity to consider this matter.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on a most excellent, interesting and well delivered maiden speech. The noble Lord is most welcome and we look forward to hearing his views on Northern Ireland for many years to come.
When I read the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on the peace process, I had to ask myself: what is the peace process? One might wonder how one can have a peace process without a war. My conclusion was that the peace process is fragmented into two very different parts. The first entails the containment of terrorism in Ireland. The second should be an attempt to create a peaceful environment in which Nationalists and Unionists can live together positively and fruitfully. On the plus side, at the moment some of the political parties are talking to each other. I understand that some useful work is taking place in the Forum. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are still giving strong and supportive leadership and, with the re-election of President Clinton, there is hope that the Americans will continue to have a positive influence.
Sadly, on the down side the terrorists have a well thought-out strategy. They have not given up, and I do not believe that they ever will. They will probably have to be defeated in one way or another. They have a well thought-out strategy which they have pursued with some success, despite the brilliant work of the intelligence services and security forces. It appears that the current terrorist plan is to have a mixture of fewer high profile incidents and periods of tactical ceasefires. Nobody should be fooled by that. It is linked to a rather nasty phenomenon—I do not know a great deal about it but I have heard and seen some evidence of it—known as popular violence. It involves inciting riots, barricading particular sectors and getting people in the street involved in destabilising the country. No one should be fooled by that either.
It is right that Ministers should be involved in high level talks with the elected politicians and the government of the Irish Republic in their attempts to find a solution to the problem of Irish terrorism. It is also right that as long as Sinn Fein represents an active terrorist movement it should not be at the table. It would be wrong, however, to allow the Dublin Government any say in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. Further, it is wrong to give an aura of respectability to ex-terrorists. I believe that the population of Northern Ireland as a whole has been horrified at the respectability accorded certain leaders of the Sinn Fein movement over the past year. Whatever success may be achieved and whatever agreements may be reached by
1428
government in their negotiations, there will be compromise. It will not be possible to impose that compromise on the population from the top down.
I turn to what worries me perhaps more than most. I believe that my noble friend Lady Denton knows what I am about to say. Part of the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, pronounced at the beginning was the coming together of the SDLP, the Nationalist movement and the Unionist parties, gaining a better understanding of each other and learning to live together. I, and I am sure others, have evidence that local authorities around the Province have done a great job. In many areas Nationalists and Unionists have found ways of working together on many important subjects. At times they have even brought in Sinn Fein. However, in Northern Ireland there is still a huge democratic void. To all intents and purposes, the country is run by the Northern Ireland Civil Service, with the exception of one or two departments from time to time. I have nothing against the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but it is not its role to run a country like Northern Ireland so that it is accountable only to visiting Ministers of the United Kingdom Government.
It is important that the Government address that problem and encourage local authorities to live and work together by returning to them greater authority, accountability and financial control, even if it means entering into another major reorganisation of local government. But in the democratic process in Northern Ireland we are seriously deprived of the budgetary controls and accountability that is expected of our local authorities.
I digress for one moment. As a Millennium Commissioner I have travelled the kingdom fairly widely and met a good number of local authorities who are dealing with major projects. I have seen the style, standard and size of budgets of local authorities across the country. Many of the projects that come to the Millennium Commission which are worth many millions of pounds, have been supported, backed and prepared by local authorities. Some have nearly 50 per cent. local authority funding. That has not happened in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is short of projects of any size and scale in terms of the Millennium Commission. I am convinced that in part the reason for that is that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is central government and many local authorities do not have the wherewithal to put together projects which similar bodies can put together this side of the water.
My plea to the Government is that they should look hard, seriously and quickly at how the democratic process can be significantly improved. We do not want the country to be run in future by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Civil Service does not want to run it either. We want elected representatives who are clearly accountable, and that is very much overdue.
I also ask the Government to put a little more effort, and perhaps a little more money if necessary, into balancing the propaganda account in Washington. My noble friend the Minister has done excellent work in America on the industry side in trying to bring inward

1429
investment to Northern Ireland, but I believe from what I read in the press that the propaganda remains unbalanced. We want a truly balanced propaganda machine in America.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, this is proving to be a very interesting debate. I and I am sure all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for initiating the debate. I listened carefully to all that he said. In many respects he put his finger on it. One question that he regarded as critical was whether it was possible for the unionists and the SDLP to agree. I believe that they can. I believe that that view is shared by most of the Unionist Party and the SDLP, but not in the shadow of violence. It is that which makes it so very difficult. I believe that it will continue to be difficult as long as the violence is there. For one thing, the SDLP must look over its shoulder at what will happen to its seats at the next election if it does something which Sinn Fein alleges is not the proper thing for nationalists. It is the shadow of violence that makes the position so difficult. If Sinn Fein is not in the talks, they will fail because of the shadow of violence; if Sinn Fein is part of the talks, they certainly will not succeed, because it is difficult to believe that Sinn Fein can in a short time become a truly democratic party.
Any debate on Northern Ireland affairs is made more difficult by the expression "peace process". It suggests that in Northern Ireland we are at war. That is not so. Northern Ireland is at peace, as we who live there know. But the community is under attack, or the threat of attack, by the IRA. That is not the same as war. Ninety five per cent. of the people fervently hope that the IRA will decide that nothing is to be gained by force, and that it will lay down its arms and cease other activities, such as the horrific punishment beatings and orchestrated boycotts. That is hoped for, too, by the vast majority of people throughout the island of Ireland. Permanent rejection of violence by the IRA and the acceptance of democracy by Sinn Fein are the prerequisites of peace and stability. Only then can inclusive talks hope to succeed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Protestant paramilitaries are just as illegal and form just as criminal an organisation? What does he propose to do about them?
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I believe that they have answered that question themselves by the way in which they have held the ceasefire, and are working hard on the perhaps more unruly elements who are also carrying out punishment beatings. That has to stop on all sides.
Unfortunately, Sinn Fein-IRA does not even recognise the right of the majority in Northern Ireland to be part of the UK. Many months were spent by the Dublin forum last year, when all other parties and the Dublin Government recognised the right of majority in Northern Ireland to determine their future. Sinn Fein was the only party to refuse to accept that. That is not a good omen.
1430
Again, Sinn Fein has recently restated the conditions under which it would be prepared to consider a ceasefire. The Government must not impose any preconditions to its immediate entry to inclusive substantive negotiations, but Sinn Fein has stated its own preconditions. They include no internal settlement, by which it means that Dublin must be involved. In the list of critical items, it includes adjustments to the constitution, changes to the police, and the release of political prisoners, which is its way of describing convicted terrorists.
After agreement has been reached on all those matters, Sinn Fein states that it will be prepared to discuss the removal of guns and explosives. Can anyone expect the democratic parties to accept that list? It would prove that violence pays, with the inevitable consequences.
There are only two options for the UK Government. The first is to make it clear that those conditions are not acceptable and to take whatever action is necessary to persuade Sinn Fein-IRA that armed force will achieve nothing. The alternative is to give in to the IRA in the form of successive fudges and confused statements with double meanings.
The general feeling in Northern Ireland—it is a deep feeling, I am sorry to say—is that our Government are heading down the appeasement route. If that should prove to be so, it is dishonest and will lead to even greater problems. I must state that, because it is worrying that such a feeling exists. Of course it would be dishonest because it would put blame for the failure of talks on to the pro-Union parties, which may refuse to talk to a party that in their eyes has not shown sufficient commitment to the democratic process, or, if talks do commence, may refuse to discuss constitutional matters, and again will be blamed for the failure of the talks.
The breakdown of the talks would be serious, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said in his excellent speech, that would lead to a worsening of community relations and further exasperation. I implore the Government to be careful to ensure that the form of the talks is such that there is hope of success. It is time for us all and for the Government to be realistic and to face facts. The leaders of the IRA are intelligent. It is their belief that violence has paid.
I mention two things which are a direct result of the IRA's campaign of violence—the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Frameworks Document. The Anglo-Irish Agreement enabled the Dublin Government to gain a foothold in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and the Frameworks Document as good as promised a step towards dual sovereignty in the form of cross-border institutions with executive powers. In parenthesis I say that everyone in Northern Ireland is in favour of extensive cross-border co-operation to mutual benefit but not in the form of cross-border institutions with executive powers.
The belief of the IRA that violence has paid should help the Government to reject a policy which is not helping. They should devise one which will offer hope in the future. It must be one which will ensure that the IRA is contained or otherwise dealt with.

1431
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, had to say about democracy. I will not add to what he said because I have spoken on the subject before. Many people have been doing their utmost to encourage an extension of local government powers. One thing I can add is that the forum which was set up in Northern Ireland, perhaps without government support, has proved to be a great success, in that it has given all parties, except the SDLP, an opportunity to discuss matters of importance and interest. It has given young people their first chance to sit down together to discuss subjects of mutual interest. It indicates that if those young people had a vehicle by which they could have some influence on local affairs, that would be a step forward.
There is some good news which deserves comment. The intelligence services, in collaboration with the police, have forestalled several major attacks and recovered significant quantities of arms and explosives. In the Republic, the Garda have done well recently with finds in Donegal to the north and County Louth to the south. Congratulations to them and best wishes to them for continuing success. Intelligence success could make a positive contribution and mean real containment of the IRA.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had one disadvantage. It showed me how little I know about Ireland. I ask noble Lords' indulgence to speak on this subject. I thought that it might be worth looking for a few minutes at what has happened in South Africa over the past 10 years to see whether we can learn some lessons from it to help those dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland. I spent 10 years as a child in South Africa, so the country has always been dear to my heart.
The situation in South Africa 10 years ago was apparently hopeless. It looked as if there could be no worthwhile political progress without a civil war. However, 10 years later, although there is more violence and lawlessness than one would like, there is nothing like a civil war. Fortunately for South Africa, 10 years ago they had a number of leaders of good will and vision. The breaking of the logjam came in an unpredictable way from an unlikely source. Members of the Dutch Reformed Church started to realise that the policy of apartheid was not only unfair, it was unworkable. They even convinced some of their colleagues in the Dutch Reformed Church and there was the extraordinary sight of Dutch Reformed ministers getting up in their pulpits and apologising to their congregations for having misled them about apartheid.
That action met with real Christian understanding from Dr. Mandela and his friends. It is to their greatest credit that, having already suffered unjust imprisonment for many years, they put all bitterness behind them.
Furthermore, there were political leaders from all sections of the political spectrum who were men of prayer. When Mr. de Klerk was asked recently whether
1432
the end of apartheid was brought about by sanctions he said, "No, but by deep self-analysis before God on our knees".
The divisions in Ireland are of course extremely complex and deep-rooted. There can be no quick fixes. However, the leaders of Ireland and Britain contain God-fearing men and women capable of emulating their South African counterparts in building bridges between the different sectors of the population. Many bridges are needed. Whatever has happened in the past 25 years, our record in the longer term is by no means without blemish. One has to think only of the massacres by Cromwell, the penal laws and the famines of the 1840s. We have often in our rule of Ireland been unfeeling and uncaring, and sometimes downright cruel. Moreover, over and above the troubles that one reads about in the newspapers and sees on the television, there is a spiritual battle which St. Paul tells us is the one that really matters. It is to be fought with spiritual weapons—truth, righteousness and so on. To go into the fray with unserviceable weapons is to court disaster and to go in as though you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back. The only way to get out of that situation is through forgiveness.
Now I must make one point which can be misunderstood; that is, the hurt has not all been on the Catholic side; the hurt has been on the Protestant side as well. Any action taken must reflect that. I know that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have expressed their personal regret for the actions that have marred our record in Ireland, as has the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I admire them for that stand. However, in my view what is required is a national act of apology and regret endorsed by the highest authority in the land.
The South African story points to the value of forgiveness and indicates also the importance of people—the ordinary people as well as the leaders—getting together if only to learn that across the divide there are other human beings. We should be grateful to those who are working in Northern Ireland to establish those day-to-day connections.
Finally, there is a need for everybody involved to be gathered together in prayer. Then, and I believe only then, will the wounds and divisions be sufficiently healed so that the peace process can go on. I am glad that the next speaker is the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because he is on record as saying that forgiveness clears the air. I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say. I thank your Lordships for listening patiently to me.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we all respect the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, partly, perhaps I may say without embarrassing him, because of the great way with which he copes with a disability which may afflict any of us at any time, particularly someone who is 90 years old like myself. However, we also admire him because of the clear Christian voice which emanates from him.

1433
He pleaded for an act of apology from this country. I cannot help but remember what I wrote at the end of a book which I published in 1935, which is probably before some speakers were born. I wrote at the end of that book:
"It remains for Ireland to do herself justice as a nation for that she has not yet done. It remains for England to make atonement for that she has not yet made".
As regards this country and the Irish Republic, the Irish Republic has done itself justice and this country has made atonement as far as necessary. In any event, it is not oppressing Southern Ireland any more. As regards Northern Ireland, that remains an open question but I see very much what the noble Lord has in mind.
We do not have unlimited time and many important points have been made. I should like to go on thinking about the points made, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and many others. But in the short time available, I shall make two submissions.
On the one hand, the gap between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland is nothing like as deep as people suppose. It is nothing like, for example, the gap between the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus or between Jews and Arabs. I speak as someone who was brought up an Irish Protestant but has been an Irish Catholic resident here for many years; my brother, a Protestant to the day of his death, was made a senator by Mr. De Valera. There was a minute's silence for him in Dublin when he died. Therefore, I am connected with this problem from both sides of the religious aspect and many other aspects, and have been all my life.
What are the two points that I would like to make? As I say, I submit that the gap is nothing like as deep as people suppose. Some years ago I founded a centre for homeless young people in London. There were two main social workers—a Protestant girl from Queen's, Belfast, and a Catholic girl from Queen's, Belfast. They became great friends. When the Protestant girl went back to Lurgan and married, the Catholic girl was her sole bridesmaid, and as chairman of the centre, I was invited to the wedding. I was given this tie, an Irish rugby union tie, by an Ulster Protestant. I am very proud to think that that is its origin, and I have worn it ever since. In that Protestant church in Lurgan there was that Catholic bridesmaid and me. I was elderly even in those days and I was prominent. It was impossible to believe that people could be killing each other not so many miles away.
Therefore, we must ask why there is trouble—not trouble in the political sense—but why are people killing each other. A former Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said a very wise thing when he went to Northern Ireland for the first time as Home Secretary. He came back and said there are too many guns.
Why are there too many guns in Northern Ireland and not in Southern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales? The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, spoke about the IRA as though they are the only gunmen. I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who cares so deeply about such matters, had been with me when I stayed some years ago—and she may believe me or not—with one of the leaders of the Ulster Volunteer Force. I spent an
1434
evening with him and his friends. He asked me whether I knew Carson who helped to bring the guns to Ireland in the first place. The guns were brought to Ireland by the Protestants, by the Ulster Volunteers, before the first war. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, might not have blamed the Catholics for all the violence in Northern Ireland if she had realised that that is where the guns first came from.
Again, and more recently, the noble Baroness may have cared to be with me when I visited IRA prisoners and Protestant paramilitary prisoners. Indeed, some time ago I met a Protestant paramilitary prisoner who had killed four Catholics on military instructions. Well, of course, a Catholic had done the same to them. It is a both-ways traffic. It would really be insulting the intelligence of this House to suggest that it was all one way. Naturally in England the IRA are the danger. One can understand that: the IRA is thought to be the danger here. The Protestants are not killing anyone in England. However, I rather hope that our Unionist friends—those very enlightened people from Northern Ireland—will not come here and, too often, give us the impression that all the shooting and killing in Northern Ireland is done by Catholics. Despite the recent Protestant ceasefire, they must know that Protestant paramilitaries have killed more than the Catholic paramilitaries. That is just a fact, but you would not gather that from our Unionist friends. Those are the actual facts. Here is this terrible mutual killing between people who do not really hate each other; it is just a horrible tradition. How can we solve it?
I come now to the solution. It lies in the way outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, at the beginning of the debate. We must bring together the moderate Protestants, the Unionists and the Social Democratic Federation. It sounds so easy. Why not? Let us take Sunningdale which is my own solution in just three words, "Back to Sunningdale". However, people do not like going backwards, so let us say, "Forward from Sunningdale". I do not think anything better has been devised. It was a coalition, a Protestant majority and a Catholic minority, including the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who was very prominently involved in all that, but he will speak much more about it in a moment. That worked extremely well but it was sabotaged by the Ulster Unionist strike. Those are just the facts. Indeed, going back a little before that, why did the British Army go in such force to Northern Ireland? To protect the Catholics against the Protestants. Let us at least be clear and try to balance the argument in this tragic situation. There are villains on both sides. We must not suggest that they are all on one side for that would be unworthy of the intellectual standards of this House. No, the answer is back to Sunningdale, or whatever you like to call it now, with a formula like that devised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. That is one way.
I should like to make one further point before I sit down. There is one aspect of this which is all-important. It is the only way to remove the fear that undoubtedly leads to some psychological support for the IRA among the Catholics. They are a minority and the Protestants are much stronger; the British Army had to be brought in to protect them. We must remove that fear. That could

1435
be done through an arrangement such as Sunningdale. We must also remove the counter fear—the Protestant fear—that they will be overwhelmed by the south of Ireland. If we get rid of the fear, then we will get reconciliation. As I said, the answer lies along the lines pointed out at the very beginning of tonight's debate by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, while listening to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I was reminded of my late grandfather, who lived to the age of 99. When I looked into his safe I found an armament which related back to the Clyde valley. I have been reminded of the problem of guns as mentioned by the noble Earl. I am afraid that it goes back an awful long way. I would prefer instead to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his maiden speech. I should at once declare a prejudice in the noble Lord's favour in that we were both reared in the same district of County Antrim. My late father was a founder and the first leader of the party which the noble Lord now leads with such ability and distinction.
The noble Lord's professional qualifications as a leading psychiatrist also give him the opportunity to analyse and diagnose, often with brutal clarity, the political behaviour of other Northern Ireland politicians. I suggest that noble Lords should consult him. But, above all, the noble Lord is a force for the good of the peace process. He represents—maybe not always with votes, but with the subconscious support of—the intelligent, moderate and reasonable people of all persuasions. This group is fed up with the posturing, the obstructions and the delaying tactics which have often dominated the talks to date. A sense of urgency and purpose has been so painfully lacking.
I have lived for much of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. I had, as a journalist in both Dublin and the North on the staff of that great organ, the Irish Times, a taste of the normality, the co-operation and the progress in the late 1960s; a time when we in Northern Ireland were in command of our destiny and of our relations with our neighbours in the South. That situation must again be the way forward and an objective of any new structures. After that period of hope I had to endure the strife and chaos of the next 20 years. For the last eight years I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and was able to participate in reconstructing a new, modern and thriving tourism industry. I celebrated the 1994 ceasefire and saw tourism grow by 67 per cent. in 1995, but I was devastated by the end of that brief period of peace and particularly by the events of Drumcree last July. I wish I could relate that the wheel had turned full circle in those 30 years. But it has got stuck.
I am sure that the Minister, who is responsible for the economy and for tourism—indeed, many noble Lords have mentioned how much the noble Baroness does, and I would like to associate myself with those remarks—was as outraged as I was, and many others, by the return to violence this year. It was clear that the tensions which led to Drumcree were so much worse than in 1995
1436
because Sinn Fein/IRA had gone back to violence. There are many who conclude that Drumcree was planned and orchestrated by Sinn Fein/IRA. There may also be those who criticise the chief constable for not having thought through the issues which led to disastrous decisions.
But the Government must ultimately bear the responsibility for their miscalculations. To many it was, at the least, disingenuous for government to pass off as an operational matter what was, by consensus, the most significant single political event which has landed us on a giant snake in what has become in recent years a game of political snakes and ladders.
Drumcree has infuriated, and even made extreme, all moderate people of both persuasions. It has polarised many communities and created no-go areas and boycotts. It has produced a poisoned atmosphere and feelings on the ground worse than I can ever remember. But there remains a hope that after that brief experience of peace in 1994–95 there is an overwhelming desire to return to normality and to support whatever it may take to bring us there.
Two lessons have been learnt: first, nothing cements peace more than a return to economic normality. The momentum of inward investment, unfortunately, has been stalled. Drumcree did enormous damage to the confidence factor so essential to inward investment. We must restore confidence. The announcement last week, in which the Minister participated, of the new Tourism Brand Ireland was an important step in that direction. I am glad that I was able to participate in the incubation of this project which gives Northern Ireland for a modest sum a piggy-back on a major £15 million campaign over three years plus to promote Ireland as a single destination, in partnership with the tourist boards North and South. What enormous benefits travel and tourism can bring both economically and politically. Travel in all its dimensions is a great healer and remover of prejudice for everyone involved.
Secondly, we have learnt that when you take away violence, you take away the border. Why cannot Sinn Fein/IRA learn that? The harmonious cross-border activity that surged during that busy period of peace, in particular in tourism, has been dissipated. The blocked roads and security controls have not returned, but the return to violence effectively brought the border back again.
Northern Ireland cannot be isolated economically or politically from the United Kingdom, of which it will remain an integral part, or from the Republic of Ireland, with which it is irrevocably interdependent. We cannot move forward to solutions towards living together peacefully unless we are economically closer; and all-Ireland tourism is an integral part of that process.
For a little place of 1.5 million people, Northern Ireland has produced a great number of highly dedicated, motivated and talented people. I do not refer just to Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Dunlop, to the dozen or more American presidents who have their origins in Northern Ireland, or to the many generals and field marshals of the Second World War—Alexander, Adair, Montgomery, Templer and others—but to many

1437
Members of this House and a few in the other place. I refer to people like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, who has presided over the reconstruction of Belfast as chairman of the inner-city development company, my noble friend Lord McConnell, and the right honourable Member for Wiltshire, North in another place, Richard Needham, who is also known to noble Lords as the noble Earl, Lord Kilmorey, from his Irish Peerage. Since 1986 he has been the architect of so much of the economic renaissance in Northern Ireland which the noble Baroness the Minister has been taking forward so gallantly. Our elected representatives owe it to all those people to make some fast and constructive progress in these talks; and at least I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, will play his part.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have spoken so many times on Northern Ireland issues since I came to this House in 1983 that I sometimes weary of listening to myself. When I heard that so many noble Lords were to take part in the debate I had decided to listen and to say nothing. However, having listened to the debate I have been struck by the fact that had this debate taken place in another part of this building there would have been numerous interjections asking the honourable Member to give way. But this is a polite House. We can say what we believe without fear of interruption.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on his speech, and on his political stance in Northern Ireland—I cannot call it a career. No one could take offence at what he said. I agree with every single sentiment. As I sat on a Back Bench looking at his luxuriant head of black hair, I could not help thinking to myself that this is his first debate on Northern Ireland; he is a young man. When he has spent many years in this House he will either be very grey or very bald, and the problems of Northern Ireland will still be with us. Again, I congratulate the noble Lord. I do not dissent from a single sentiment that he expressed this evening.
Nor is there any dissension in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who introduced the debate, and my remarks. I took a note of what he said. He talked about the speech by Martin McGuinness in the Republic of Ireland and that by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The most important thing that he said, which encompasses everything about this debate, was that a 600lb bomb was found in Derry this evening. That is the story of Northern Ireland and its problems. Sinn Fein will say that they want talks. The Secretary of State, using coded language, may say that he wants talks, too. But the fact that there was a 600lb bomb there is indicative of what Sinn Fein is about. They want to intimidate, to force their views on Northern Ireland. There must be talk in Belfast and Derry tonight that they were trying to bring about what they call "a spectacular". Fortunately, tonight the bomb did not go off and did not kill people. But had it gone off, they would have said, "We are people of peace. If you don't want this to happen again you had better talk to us". Mention of the bomb was the most significant thing said in the debate.
1438
I listened to the remarks of other noble Lords who spoke, and particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan. I knew his father, who was the originator of the Alliance Party. He expressed exactly the same sentiments. To consolidate the noble Lord's remarks perhaps I may say that 1996 was the most dangerous year in Northern Ireland that I have seen in my political lifetime. This year, after Drumcree, we were on the verge of a civil war. It was far worse than 1974, when loyalist mobs brought about the downfall of the Sunningdale executive which we had so laboriously created.
That brings me to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He referred to the fact that Catholics had not joined the RUC. They did not join for a very good reason. You cannot be a Catholic, live in a Catholic area and put on the uniform of an RUC officer. Nothing gives the IRA greater delight than to murder a Catholic wearing a uniform of the Crown.
That said, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was a former Minister of Home Affairs in a Unionist administration in Northern Ireland which violently and vindictively discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament when that was happening. The legislation on the statute book of a Unionist administration in Northern Ireland at that time was totally discriminatory against Catholics.
In Drumcree the Unionist mobs once again took control of the streets, as they did in 1974. The RUC were placed in the impossible position of trying to assert the rule of law. What happened? Protestant policemen living in Protestant areas of Northern Ireland were subject to violent attacks from the Orange mobs. The chief constable of Northern Ireland had to leave his own home because of attacks by Protestant mobs. So let us not put all the blame on the IRA.
I notice that the Government Chief Whip is making signs to me; however, I wish to say this. I said then, and I say now; I repeat and will continue to repeat—the last elections that were held in Northern Ireland were deliberately designed to bring murderers into the election process. I said that in this House at the time. The Government should never have engaged in an exercise to bring murderers into the democratic process. Those people have been guilty of the most atrocious murders. Now, it makes everyone sick to see them walking into 10 Downing Street with their briefcases and pinstripe suits.
I have been an opponent of the IRA all my life, and will continue to be an opponent of the IRA. But if John White, the murderer of my close friend, is welcomed into Downing Street, I have to agree, although it goes against my every instinct, that Gerry Adams may be entitled to go there. At least he has 116,000 votes behind him. John White does not have that support. The Government should never have designed an electoral process that would bring murderers to the conference table.
Attacks have been made here on the IRA, with which I agree. But let us not forget that we talk about decommissioning, taking arms from the IRA, but there

1439
is also an arsenal of arms within the Loyalist community. We should take the arms from them and decommission across the board, including all the so-called Loyalist paramilitaries.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, as does 100 per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland. I hope that she will not regard any of my comments tonight as being an attack on the Government's policy. I believe that she has done everything she can to bring together the various sections of the Northern Ireland community.
I am sorry to have taken so long but I must turn to what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said. The best and most hopeful experiment in Northern Ireland that we have ever had since the creation of the Northern Ireland state was at Sunningdale. There, the moderate Unionists and the moderate Nationalists, led by myself, went to Sunningdale. After many obstacles, we brought about the Sunningdale executive. I believe that at the end of the day that is the only answer to Northern Ireland's problems: moderate Unionism and moderate Nationalism.
I end with a note of warning to some of my former colleagues in the SDLP. There is talk now that at the forthcoming election, whenever it may be, the SDLP and Sinn Fein will do a deal on seats in Mid Ulster, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and the newly created seat of West Belfast. If there is any electoral pact or deal by Sinn Fein and the SDLP, it will do nothing but further divide the communities. I advise the party which I formerly led not to engage in that exercise. If we want to bring about reconciliation in Northern Ireland, let the moderates—Unionists and Nationalists—take a stand against the extremists.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for his notable maiden speech and, in all humility, for something of much greater value and worth—namely, his long labours in the vineyard.
The progress of the peace process is not to be seen as a simplistic matter. I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, said: the peace process must depend on immediate and long-term factors. It is important that it should take place on the basis of economic improvement. All credit to the Minister for her efforts. It must have been galling indeed to see Drumcree making inward investment slow, cautious, suspicious.
Perhaps I may give one example of where at the moment there is legitimate resentment in Northern Ireland about the treatment of beef farmers. Everyone taking part in the debate knows perfectly well that the regime of beef tracking, beef passports, in Northern Ireland is of such a different nature that a different solution ought to be carefully examined. There is a good deal of resentment in the important beef industry which is capable of spilling over and making the peace process more difficult in an indirect way.
1440
My belief and our belief on these Benches is that we must return to the Mitchell principles of last January. At the time, for some of us here—and certainly in retrospect it has become stronger—our feeling was and remains that the Mitchell principles were mishandled by the Government. That is not a reproach, it is a description. We need to know carefully, because these are delicate times, what indications the Government are getting from the United States about the continuing involvement of Senator Mitchell himself. If he is not to continue, what is to be the fate of the six principles? What is the United States indication to the British Government about what its continued involvement is intended to be? Those are very important questions which the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to ask and to have answered. What is the attitude of the present government in the Republic about the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the Republic? We on these Benches and the two governments have urged the parties in Northern Ireland to proceed on decommissioning in line with the compromise proposals in Senator Mitchell's report. There is no way forward apart from compromise.
I believe that any suggestion that there should be decommissioning of arms before Sinn Fein is allowed into talks will simply mean that Sinn Fein will not take part in the talks—I believe that to be an objective description—and we shall be back where we were 12 months ago.
Another question, which is distinct because it gives rise to great suspicion, is what exactly is the basis of the alleged contacts between Sinn Fein and the British Government via the agency of Mr. John Hume? What exactly is going on? We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for this debate and I believe that it was he who spoke of the curiously orchestrated coincidence in time between the speech of Martin McGuinness and the speech of the Secretary of State. If those questions fester suspiciously in people's minds, I believe that that is by and large counter-productive.
One of the real problems is the looming imminence of the general election in this country and, to a lesser extent, the elections in the Republic in 1997. There is a very deep feeling in Northern Ireland—it may be right or wrong—that we are now seeing a drift in government policy: wait and see; wait for the election. There is a distinct and deep sense of a dynamic lost and energy dissipated.
Of course we on these Benches support the restoration of an IRA ceasefire. Of course we commend the restraint of the Protestant loyalist paramilitaries. I do not believe, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, that there is anyone in your Lordships' House who does not know that in recent years there have been more murders of Catholics by Protestants than the other way around. I myself do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, is entirely ignorant of modern Irish history.
I believe—despite the bomb today, which was an outrage, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out—and it is only a subjective belief, that there is a sensible prospect of an IRA ceasefire in the not very distant

1441
future. Of course it will be tactical. Most ceasefires are in these conditions. But the fact that your opponent takes a tactical step means that you need to take your own tactical steps, not simply to ignore it. If there is a ceasefire, we must not lose the offered opportunity a second time.
I reiterate the clear policy of the Labour Party enunciated as plainly as may be by Mr. Blair on a number of occasions: there will be no change in the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That is given; but we cannot simply stagnate.
Drumcree was an avoidable error. We had called for a review of parades since June 1995. On an earlier occasion—I shall not weary your Lordships again—I reviewed the correspondence between Dr. Mowlem and the Secretary of State, which continued for a year. Nothing was done, Drumcree was a disaster. The chief constable at that time was put in an impossible position and I believe that it was an unjustly impossible position. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Flanagan as the new chief constable. I find him—it is not patronising—to be of an intelligent and reflective mind.
There are many things outstanding. I shall not touch on matters which have been raised earlier by your Lordships in this debate. We have the review of parades—the North Inquiry—but that is not to report until next year. It will be an act of senseless irresponsibility if appropriate and acceptable arrangements are not in place in ample time before next year's marching season begins.
There is the question of the race relations order, bringing in—soon, I hope—effective anti-racist legislation in Northern Ireland. The Chinese inhabitants of Belfast are entitled to domestic peace as much as any Roman Catholic or Protestant. We have to grapple with the future of policing in Northern Ireland, which, even this evening in our brief, panoramic review, has caused much feeling to be aroused, as reflected in some of your Lordships' speeches. My belief is that it is fundamental to questions of trust and confidence and therefore of peace and harmony that the police service in Northern Ireland has as wide a public popular acceptance as possible.
It is very important that behind the peace process the rule of law stands; that terrorist crime is detected, prosecuted and punished on the basis of generally accepted standards. I welcome the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. It contains specific recommendations of enormous importance. The single most important recommendation is that the interception of communications legislation 1995 should be amended to allow intercept material into evidence as part of the prosecution case in a criminal trial. I have never understood why that was not the position and am happy to say that when Mr. Straw, Dr. Mowlem and I attended to give evidence to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that was the stance we adopted. Stopping, searching and questioning is to be subject to external approval if the noble and learned Lord's recommendations are upheld. The prohibitions on terrorist finance will be extended to foreign as well as domestic activity.
1442
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, recommends that internal exile should be discontinued; that the power of executive detention or internment be discontinued; and that the Diplock courts be phased out. Have the Government a concluded view on that? If the Minister says that it is too early because the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, only lately came to hand, I entirely accept that. However, I shall be grateful if she will write to me in the usual way.
My 10 minutes have come and gone and I shall not need any signal before sitting down in a moment. I want to say this. The Government can rely and continue to rely on the bipartisan approach which it has had from Labour these past years. But I reiterate in no spirit of partisan criticism that drift is dangerous. It is becoming increasingly frustrating to large segments of public opinion in Northern Ireland. There is a feeling—whether it is right or not in a sense is not the point—that pressing and legitimate needs in Northern Ireland are not being attended to because of the domestic run-up to the general election. That is extremely dangerous, whether the perception is right or wrong. I shall be grateful therefore if I may have as much precision as possible in the Minister's answers tonight, not for my purposes nor for your Lordships' purposes, but for the wider purposes of those who live in Northern Ireland.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, this has indeed been an important debate and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right to draw attention to its importance to the people in Northern Ireland as well as to your Lordships in this House.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for moving this Motion, for affording us an opportunity for an exchange of views from the knowledge that is in this House and for arranging to loosen the corset so that those views could be delivered in depth—and in no greater depth than from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I was delighted to be in the House when he delivered his maiden speech. I congratulate him on it. I have had the opportunity in Northern Ireland to benefit from learning of the noble Lord's views on many occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is right to say that it is important that his work in Northern Ireland continues while he discovers the displeasures of shuffling backwards and forwards. It is extremely fortunate that he should now have the opportunity to address a wider audience. I know that was appreciated tonight.
I must confess failure. There is no way, without keeping the House here until midnight, that I can possibly answer all the issues raised. I shall try to cover as many as possible and noble Lords can be quite certain that I shall fully read Hansard and respond to any points I may miss.
I join noble Lords in condemning utterly the placing outside a police station in Derry of a very large bomb and I praise those who secured it and prevented any tragic consequences. There are many leaders working for peace: our Prime Minister—I thank noble Lords for their tributes to him—the Taoiseach and the President, who all believe that there is no future for violence and

1443
that the working together closely of the two governments of Britain and Ireland is an important part of that peace process. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that, whatever the impression, there is no sense of drift within the team of which I am a member. We believe, as many noble Lords have said, that waiting until the election for progress is much too dangerous a process to contemplate. I can assure the House that the number of hours which my colleagues—and I praise them—devote to trying to move forward the political process is enormous.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that the process is difficult and slow, but I would draw his attention to the fact that we are rewriting centuries of history. That is not done easily and it is not, I fear, to be done without steps backwards as well as forwards. What is important is that we never give up and never lose heart. We note that many people in the community too often say, "Our leaders will have to catch up".
The Government's aim in Northern Ireland is to secure a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement which satisfactorily addresses all the issues of concern to the main participants. Recent security events only reinforce the urgent need for dialogue through the multi-party talks. I assure your Lordships that the Government will not be deflected from their search for a lasting political settlement. Progress in the talks has been slow at times—painstakingly slow—but they are complex and difficult negotiations. The Government welcome the progress to date. It shows that the determination to advance the process is there, but there is still a long journey ahead. Without the talks, there is no hope of constructive advances. If such hope were taken away, the consequences would be bleak.
There is a heavy responsibility on all participants not only to continue the talks but to move on to the substance of the issues. That has been brought forward. The talks process provides the best opportunity for a generation to reach a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement which could underpin lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the bipartisan approach is possible. The support of the Benches opposite makes that process so much easier. We appreciate the commitment that the noble Lord gave once again.
Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself from talks. A party which reserves the right to resort to violence if its demands are not met cannot be permitted into democratic negotiations, as my noble friend Lady Park so rightly said. It will be invited to take its place in the process if, but only if, there is an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. And, following the breakdown of the previous ceasefire and the violent incidents since, your Lordships will readily understand that considerable reassurance would be required by everyone that any new ceasefire was truly unequivocal. The Government would need to examine carefully the wording of any ceasefire declaration, as well as events on the ground. Deeds matter as well as words.
The Government always wanted an inclusive process and the talks were set up to be inclusive. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to the fact that
1444
part of that inclusiveness is the participation of women in the talks. I firmly believe that if more women were involved in the discussions the path to peace would be shorter. It is regrettable that Sinn Fein has chosen to exclude itself. That will not be allowed to block the process. Those currently participating in the talks represent 85 per cent. of those who voted in the election, along with the two governments. A valuable and workable agreement can be made in Sinn Fein's absence.
The progress made so far in the talks should not be underrated. Complex rules of procedure have been agreed and much consideration given to the critical issue of the decommissioning of weapons. That necessarily takes time, but I believe that there is an understandable concern across the community in Northern Ireland that we should aim to achieve more. There is a great wish for advance and all of us involved in the talks must be ready to respond to it. I join noble Lords in praise of the Loyalists' holding of the ceasefire. It may be difficult for some people and I understand that. However, the strain of the achievement shows greatly in their faces and their determination has been helpful to the people who live in Northern Ireland.
Several noble Lords questioned government contact with Sinn Fein. After the ending of the ceasefire in February the decision was taken that there would be no ministerial contact with Sinn Fein unless and until there was a full restoration of the ceasefire. The possibility of official level contact remains open, but there is no contact at present and we have no plans to meet Sinn Fein. Following the end of the ceasefire, the Irish Government took the same position as the British Government; that is, no ministerial contact but the prospect of official level contact left open.
As a major party leader in Northern Ireland, we would meet John Hume on a regular basis, and we are always interested in what he has to say, but there is no question of a secret deal with Sinn Fein. We have had no meetings with Sinn Fein or the IRA and while there is no ceasefire we do not anticipate any. Our position on the talks and a settlement is absolutely clear and on record and it is not open to negotiation with Sinn Fein or the IRA.
Decommissioning is understandably of crucial significance to participants in the talks. Because of the sensitivities surrounding this issue, at the end of last year the two governments asked the Independent Body, comprising Senator Mitchell, Mr. Holkeri and General de Chastelain, to examine how arms decommissioning might be achieved. The Government have made clear their support, along with that of the Irish Government, for the compromise approach to decommissioning put forward in their report and called The Mitchell Compromise. The parties were asked to consider an approach under which some decommissioning took place during the process of negotiation rather than before or after. During the past few weeks the parties at the talks have been putting forward their views on decommissioning. I wish to acknowledge the helpful and constructive efforts made by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, towards the resolution of the current differences in the talks on decommissioning.

1445
I hope that they will contribute to an eventual resolution of those differences. We are doing all we can to find a way forward.
I stress that we are not looking, as some noble Lords suggested, for defeat or humiliation, but for the way forward. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, questioned the fact that there had been times when Catholics had not had the opportunities which he felt were their right. As we build a peaceful and prosperous future every citizen of Northern Ireland will benefit. The noble Earl apologised for his absence. Applications from Catholics to join the RUC in January 1994 were 12.3 per cent. of the total and in January 1996, 22 per cent. It is so important that the RUC has the confidence of the society in which it operates. I know that that is the aim of the chief constable.
It is very difficult to join the RUC. Many people from both communities have made four or five applications to do so. It is an organisation with high standards and it has opportunities for people for the future. The RUC is taking affirmative action, notably positive action advertising, to state that it welcomes applications from under-represented groups, by religion or gender. That is important.
My noble friend, Lady Park, questioned the relationship with the Republic of Ireland on security matters. We enjoy excellent co-operation with the Irish Republic on security. We have every reason to be grateful for the recent arms find by the Garda. There is an existing statutory provision for the trial in the Republic of those charged with crimes in the North in certain circumstances. As my noble friend rightly said, the commitment of the Taoiseach to this process cannot be doubted.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, questioned whether the future lay in dismissing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is accepted by both the British and Irish Governments that that agreement will be looked at again in the light of the achievement of a negotiated settlement. That is set out in the framework document. I join the noble Lord in condemning the boycotting of community activities in any part of the Province. It does great damage to local community relations. The unfortunate appearance of such action does not help the future of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord put forward proposals for a new form of local administration. That was an issue confirmed by my noble friend Lord Glentoran. We come to the political talks with no predetermined plans for a settlement in Northern Ireland. If such a scheme is put forward in the talks it can certainly be considered as part of the settlement. Ultimately, however, a settlement will only work if it commands support in both parts of the community. The talks will aim for that.
As regards the better protection of human rights, we should recognise that the existing situation is highly effective. There is a vigorous and fearless legal system. We have a Statutory Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which does much valuable work. We have long said that we would be prepared to enhance mechanisms for the protection of human rights under a future political settlement in Northern Ireland. In the current political talks the question of which rights need
1446
further protection and how that might be achieved will be open for discussion. No particular kind of solution is ruled in or ruled out.
I draw attention to the reason why there is a democratic deficit. It is for fairness. It is because there were situations where people were operating for the benefit of one section of the community only. It is important that we do not return to that situation.
I praise the partnerships, which are now working effectively. I praise also the economic development bodies which have been put together by councils. I ask only that my noble friend Lord Glentoran takes me off the list of visiting Ministers. I was well taught in my first week by the Reverend John Dunlop that when I left the mainland to return to England, that was an unfortunate event.
We are delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, took part in the debate. We admire the movement for peace in South Africa and we respect the individuals who showed such courage and bravery. We can always learn from them, but there are fundamental differences between Northern Ireland and South Africa. In South Africa, the majority of the population was denied democratic rights. I do not think that it is fair to the African National Congress to indicate that Sinn Fein is in any way to be compared with it. Perhaps I may also advise the noble Lord that there is much in the long and often tragic history of Ireland for deep regret and the British Government share in that regret to the full. There has been much pain in Northern Ireland and one cannot legislate for forgiveness. It has a personal timetable which people must reach for themselves. Many people do reach forgiveness in a way which is amazing and which restores one's faith in human nature.
The speech of the Secretary of State in Manchester was carefully drafted. This game is one of walking on eggshells, and we do it with great care.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the current position with regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. It is in the framework document. The Irish Government envisage making changes to their constitution to reflect the principle of consent in the context of a settlement. Mr. Bruton, the Taoiseach, reaffirmed that position last month to the Dáil and indicated that more specific amendments to Articles 2 and 3 were being considered.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to statements made some time ago. I must confess that at that time I had not yet learned to read, but I do know that if one dwells in history, it can become the future—and that is not the way we want to look forward. I assure the noble Earl that no one is outside the law, although some would like to think that they are. We have no league tables for killing. We regret any wasted life.
Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the Sunningdale Agreement and suggested it as a model to follow. I acknowledge their vast knowledge of history, but it is nevertheless a fact that the arrangements associated with Sunningdale did not provide the basis of a lasting settlement. We now have

1447
to deal with the situation as we find it. The present talks process was constituted so as to permit the achievement of the widest possible degree—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in what sense did not the Sunningdale Agreement provide the basis of a lasting settlement? It was sabotaged by the Ulster Unionists, but we have no reason to suppose that that would happen again. I would say that it did provide the framework for a lasting settlement. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, with the utmost respect, why she said that it was not the basis of a lasting settlement, given that it was sabotaged.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, one may regret the fact that it was sabotaged, but it was not a lasting settlement. If it had been a lasting settlement, the people of Northern Ireland would be living happily and peacefully and we would have achieved what we continue to work to achieve.
It will be for all participants now, for the people of Northern Ireland and of the South in a referendum and for Parliament to decide what the elements of a settlement might be. The Government do not believe that they can impose a settlement.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, with whom, as he so rightly said, we have had much pleasure in working to build the tourism industry. I must point out that that industry has been built up since 1989. Last year showed us what could be achieved in the future given a peaceful settlement, but tourism in Northern Ireland has been growing because the product is brilliant. He is right to point to the fact that the best cement for peace is provided by jobs. Inward investment is tougher but we are approaching the figures of the last record year. Moreover, I am delighted to say that our programmes for targeting social need within inward investment are working. Europe opened the borders and we opened the roads. The trade deficit with the South is disappearing, and I am sure that it will soon be gone. I believe that we should not look back to 1996. In November it is time to look forward to 1997.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, praised the farmers of Northern Ireland. I have reason to know them well, and I am grateful for their patience. I should point out that, as part of the United Kingdom, much money has been provided by the Treasury to support the beef industry in Northern Ireland. We are working to take forward a certified herd scheme to allow us to go back to market.
There was an urgency to the review of parades. The review team is operating to a very tight deadline and is expected to report in January. As noble Lords have said, it is important that we do not sit and look at the problem. The subject of race relations will shortly be coming before your Lordships and will also include measures to protect travellers in Northern Ireland, which is important.
We shall miss Senator Mitchell if he goes. He has rendered enormous service to Northern Ireland, and we are very grateful to him, but the Mitchell principles now
1448
go way beyond one man. I believe that they have the strength to survive. Having said that, I stress that we have no reason to know whether or not he is going, but that is the fear that people have.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of the Lloyd Report. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, it was a very comprehensive report. It will take time to study, to consult upon and to make recommendations. I will write to the noble Lord in greater detail.
Noble Lords have been very patient, but this is a subject that demands patience and commitment. Several of your Lordships were kind enough to make personal courteous remarks about my performance. There is no more satisfying or challenging job in the world than this, and I count myself very fortunate to be doing it. I suggest that the debate that has taken up much of this evening is a political process that must move forward, but the peace process is in the hearts and minds of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. We have a democracy in Northern Ireland. There can be no end to a peace process in a democracy. After the ceasefire the people of Northern Ireland crossed the road and talked to and worked together with others. In many instances they continue to do so, showing restraint even in the most difficult situations and building upon that process for their children and grandchildren. We support them, praise them, work with them and have faith in them. I know that your Lordships' House welcomes the opportunity to send a message of support to those people. The future will be driven only by their consent, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject this evening.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to put a question. She referred to legislating in terms of an act of repentance or apology. Does the Minister acknowledge that the national day of prayer held during the war was not the subject of legislation but was organised on a national basis?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, if I have not made myself clear. I did not propose legislation. I believe that forgiveness and repentance are personal agendas. In recent months we have witnessed more ecumenical activities in Northern Ireland than ever before and have seen people taking part in prayer together.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in her admirably comprehensive reply, the Minister managed to stop well short of midnight. Nevertheless, the hour is late, so perhaps I may just thank all noble Lords who took part in what has been an exceptionally rich and interesting debate, which I am sure we all look forward to reading carefully in Hansard. In particular perhaps I may again thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Alderdice on a most memorable maiden speech. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.

  Agriculture Council, 18th and 19th November
  Agriculture Council, 18th and 19th November
  Prison Transfers
  Prison Transfers
  Higher Education: Conditions of Employment
  Higher Education: Conditions of Employment
  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Partnership for Peace: Cost
  Partnership for Peace: Cost
  US Missile Tracking: Data Distribution
  US Missile Tracking: Data Distribution
  NATO: Counter-proliferation Planning
  NATO: Counter-proliferation Planning
  NATO Operations: Payment for Use of US Equipment
  NATO Operations: Payment for Use of US Equipment
  Victims of Genocide: Monument
  Victims of Genocide: Monument
  Lt Gen Joseph Lagu
  Lt Gen Joseph Lagu
  Public Inquiry Procedures: Sir Richard Scott's Recommendations
  Public Inquiry Procedures: Sir Richard Scott's Recommendations
  Contempt of Court Act 1981: Interpretation
  Contempt of Court Act 1981: Interpretation
  Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Guidance
  Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Guidance
  Scottish Sports Council: Lottery Distribution Criteria
  Scottish Sports Council: Lottery Distribution Criteria
  Council of European Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Council of European Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Asylum Seekers: Lodging of Applications
  Asylum Seekers: Lodging of Applications