Sitting of 1 December 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Brazier: What steps he is taking to ensure that Territorial Army units can continue to conduct unit-level exercises and participate, as units, in formation-level training. [16794]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Territorial Army units take part in a minimum of six days collective training each year and two of those are spent on a unit or formation-level exercise. The future training requirement for TA units will depend on the outcome of strategic defence review work into the future size and shape of the Regular and Reserve forces.
    Mr. Brazier: Is the Minister aware that such unit and formation-level exercises attract and retain the best-quality people in the TA? Is it true that an admiral has been asked to head the relevant strategic defence review team which will conduct the Reserve forces study?
    2
    The Royal Navy has so run down the resources for its own Reserve that it is now almost the worst-recruited section of the Reserve forces.
    Dr. Reid: In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we recognise the importance of collective training for individuals. The TA units took part in four formation-level exercises this year, compared with two last year, and four are planned for next year. We shall obviously bear that in mind during the strategic defence review considerations.
    As regards the make-up of the project team, senior personnel at two-star level have been given the task of overseeing each of the main project areas under consideration in the strategic defence review. The study on the Reserves is being conducted by a mixed civil and military team and includes the Director of Reserves and Cadets, Richard Holmes, whom I shall see tomorrow as part of those discussions. Brigadier Holmes and that group are overseen by an assistant chief of the defence staff programmes, who, as the hon. Gentleman says, is an admiral, but is also a purple post.
    Mr. Edwards: May I remind my hon. Friend that the oldest Territorial regiment in the British Army is the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, based in Monmouth in my constituency? Does he agree with me that the outstanding work that it has performed in Bosnia recently demonstrates the important operational role that the Territorial forces can play following the strategic defence review?
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute not only to the generality of the TA, but, in particular, to the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers. We particularly recall those who have done and continue to do such sterling work in areas such as Bosnia. We are truly fortunate to be able to call upon such dedicated, professional and highly motivated individuals who make up the voluntary Reserves. We are intent on ensuring that their use is as flexible as possible. Indeed,

    3
    only today, a reservist officer has been called up for service with UNSCOM in Iraq, which again demonstrates the flexibility and utility of our Reserve forces.

    Royal Engineers
    Mrs. Roe: If he will make a statement on the (a) financial and (b) service personnel impact for the Royal Engineers of his Department's land mines strategy. [16795]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Our land mines strategy will have no significant impact on the operating costs or manpower of the Royal Engineers. I am pleased to say that they will be playing a direct role in the Mine Information and Training Centre at Minley.
    Mrs. Roe: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister envisage that Royal Engineers personnel will play a more active role on the ground in mine clearing overseas?
    Mr. Robertson: In peacetime, it is not the role of our soldiers to get involved in humanitarian mine clearing, although they have considerable expertise in the clearance of areas following conflicts. I assure the hon. Lady, and I am proud to say, that the Royal Engineers will play a distinguished part in the work of the Mine Information and Training Centre. Its expertise and knowledge will be used in Government and non-governmental organisations to ensure that the task of humanitarian de-mining, which is of such great importance in the world today, is conducted in the most professional and expert way possible.
    Mr. Savidge: With the Ottawa treaty being signed this Wednesday, does the Secretary of State agree that we should now be concentrating on the task of ridding ourselves of those land mines that have already been sown? Will he tell us more about what the Government will be doing to assist those involved in the humanitarian task of de-mining?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A significant moment in history will occur on Wednesday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be in Canada to sign the Ottawa treaty, which will ban the export, import, transfer, manufacture and, ultimately, use of anti-personnel land mines. That, in itself, is one step in the direction in which, I believe, the world wishes to go.
    All across the globe there are the legacies of previous conflicts—areas that cannot be walked on owing to the potential terrible, wanton destruction of anti-personnel land mines that lie in the way of so many civilians. I am pleased to say that British Army expertise is to be used at a much greater level to assist in that project. Already, British troops have been involved in helping to rid parts of the world of the scourge of land mines. Those areas include Afghanistan, Angola, Belize, Cambodia and Cyprus. This country played an important part in establishing the United Nations mines action centre in Bosnia. We shall play our part and I hope that other countries will do the same.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Minister aware that the position of the head of his Department's humanitarian
    4
    mine clearance is as yet unfilled and there is a sense of urgency and concern in the mine clearance community that it should have been filled earlier?
    Mr. Robertson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in every area where there is concern on humanitarian de-mining, we are moving with expedition. My visit to Bosnia was designed to highlight a new five-point programme on humanitarian de-mining. Colonel Alastair McAslan has been nominated as the British Army's representative on humanitarian de-mining. We are fulfilling all the obligations which, as a major military nation, we should.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that the Secretary of State had an interesting visit to the Royal School of Military Engineering at Minley in my constituency. I was interested to hear him say that he reckons that the centre of mine expertise will not have a significant financial impact. When it was announced in October, it was reported that it would cost £125,000 to set up the centre. Will that money come out of the defence budget or that of the Overseas Development Administration?
    Mr. Robertson: Of course it will come from the defence budget, as it should, as it involves military de-mining. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is as proud as I am of the work that has been and will be done at Minley. The £125,000 is a good investment in the sort of jobs that will be done at that establishment by the Royal Engineers.

    Former Prisoners of War
    Mr. Gill: If Her Majesty's Government will repay to former prisoners of war the amount deducted from their pay on which they had paid taxes and which was not refunded to the German and Italian Governments in a post-war settlement. [16796]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): My decision on the review of officer prisoners of war and protected personnel pay deductions during the second world war was taken after very careful consideration of the submissions from ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel, and of the long and detailed report of the review, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. I concurred with the findings of previous Ministers that the contemporary evidence did not support the claims being made for further refunding of deductions.
    Mr. Gill: The Minister will be aware that this matter was discussed in the House earlier in the year, when there was support for the plight of ex-officer prisoners of war on both sides of the House. They will be disappointed in the answer that he has just given to my question. One of those who will be disappointed will be my constituent, Squadron Leader B. A. James MC, who, along with thousands of other people in the same circumstances, feels that he has been ignored and treated very badly. This question has rumbled on since 1980 and it is disappointing to hear the Minister say that he is not prepared to review the matter. Those involved would like there to be an independent inquiry at which prisoners of war could express their evidence in a way that they have previously been unable to do.
    Mr. Spellar: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have, as promised, reviewed the situation. I have gone

    5
    through a mass of documentation, including representations from ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel, and through the documentation produced by the Department. However, after full examination, I have to say that the case is not made, which is why we felt it right and proper to confirm the previous Administration's decision.
    Mr. Dalyell: Roughly how many people and how much money are involved?
    Mr. Spellar: There is considerable argument about several aspects of this matter, especially as much of it relates to records that no longer exist. All the issues were fully discussed in the House and fully examined by the then Government after the second world war and decisions were made on that basis. Successive Governments have gone through the information and confirmed those decisions because the case for doing otherwise has not been made.
    Mr. Rendel: I understand that the Government accept that money was deducted from prisoners of war and should therefore have been paid back after the war; but that, now that they have lost all their records, it is impossible to go over the case once again and decide who should be paid and how much. Can we have an assurance from the Government that, at least, individuals who have kept their own records and can prove how much they lost will be paid back?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is not looking at the case. In reality, a number of those who came back after the war were refunded by the authorities. There was discussion about that at the time. In a number of other cases, camp funds were put together, but that is a separate issue. Many of those who had had moneys deducted and who were able to demonstrate that they did not receive the moneys in the camp got a refund after the war. All that forms part of the body of facts that we have established and gone through, which is why we made the decision.
    Mr. Gibb: In preparing the report, what steps were taken to ensure that the first-hand experiences of the officers involved were reflected in that report? Is the Minister aware that those ex-prisoners of war, who served our country valiantly and selflessly during the last world war, feel strongly that they have been cheated and that they cannot get justice? Would it not be wiser to offer some consultation with them or, better still, to appoint an independent person to arbitrate on that matter?
    Mr. Spellar: All hon. Members, this Administration and previous Administrations fully understand the tremendous contribution made by many of those individuals, both before they were taken prisoner and, in many cases, afterwards, when they tied up many German and Italian troops in trying to recapture escaping prisoners of war. That is common ground. When we move on to the question of whether deductions were adequately repaid, we find that many of the investigations took place immediately after the war, that the issues were discussed in the House of Commons and that parliamentary questions were tabled. At that time, contemporary evidence was closely examined, which is why the
    6
    previous Conservative Government made the decision that they did and why, having examined the evidence after having entered office after the general election, we had to concur with their finding.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will my hon. Friend accept that much of the evidence on which he relies was produced before the election of the Labour Government? Several of my constituents have written to me saying that they understood that they had no hope with the other lot, but that they hoped that fresh consideration would be given to this matter. Much of the evidence put to me and to my hon. Friends is new evidence, and I ask that it be reconsidered.
    Mr. Spellar: Much of the evidence was considered by the Attlee Labour Government after the last war and the issues examined by those who were much closer to the evidence at the time. That evidence was re-examined by the previous Administration and by this Administration and, when we did it, we looked at a number of representations from those with an individual viewpoint, both officer POWs and protected personnel. We examined that evidence and compared it with the contemporary evidence and with the documentation. It was for that reason that we took our decision.

    Royal Yacht
    Mr. Godman: What recent representations he has received anent the future of the royal yacht Britannia. [16798]
    Mr. Syms: If he will make a statement on the future of the royal yacht Britannia. [16802]
    Mr. George Robertson: My Department has received a large number of approaches about Britannia's future. Seven substantive preservation proposals are being examined in detail. I should prefer the yacht to be preserved, providing that the use is fitting and that there can be adequate arrangements to ensure that her fine appearance can be maintained. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Godman: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided to ignore the suggestion, or request, from Buckingham palace that the vessel be scuttled or scrapped. Does he agree that neither London nor Leith has a legitimate claim on her and that, in all fairness, she should go to the Clyde, to be berthed at the Govan dry dock close to the proposed science park? The ship should not finish up at the bottom of the Atlantic; she should be returned to the Clyde, where she was built.
    Mr. Robertson: Buckingham palace has been kept closely informed of the options for the ship's future, and has made it clear that the decision should and will be taken by the Government. Britannia is regarded by most people as a national treasure. She has given 44 years of distinguished service to the Queen and the country. My preferred option is that the yacht should be preserved, but its use must be fitting and there must be adequate arrangements to maintain its appearance. All seven bids will be considered fairly and in detail, and we shall come to a conclusion in the near future.
    Mr. Syms: May I press the Secretary of State further? When will he come to the House with a decision?

    7
    The public are greatly concerned that the yacht's use should be appropriate. May I make a plea for the south coast—particularly for Portsmouth, which has a very good claim to have the yacht berthed there?
    Mr. Robertson: It is critical that we look at each of the proposals in some detail. I am concerned to preserve Britannia, and to ensure that her dignity and long-term future are absolutely assured. I shall take no prior view of which option is best. They will all be considered on exactly the same basis, and I hope to be able to make a decision shortly.
    Mrs. Gilroy: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has just issued a plea for the south coast. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend if I rise to make a plea, backed by the representations, which I know that he has received, for Plymouth. I ask not only that the vessel be preserved but that, by means of a private finance initiative, she is kept in use. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to that idea, along with the other representations that he has received.
    Mr. Robertson: I am not certain whether my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue when she said Plymouth—perhaps she meant Portsmouth, as Plymouth has not entered a bid for consideration. We need to take a dispassionate and objective view of the proposals, and to consider all representations. I appreciate that there are strong views in each of the localities involved in the decision. They serve to underline the fact that there are strong feelings in the country that Britannia should be preserved. It is my responsibility to ensure that, if she is preserved, that is done in a way most fitting for the ship and for the country.
    Mr. Hancock: Most of my constituents will be delighted that the Secretary of State shares their opinion and not the opinion of the Princess Royal, which was that the ship should be scuttled. Indeed, they have made a strong case for Britannia to go to her natural home, in Portsmouth. However, if the ship is to be kept as a national treasure, I suggest that that can be done only if the Government keep some control over her by providing a dowry to ensure that the ship is restored in the way most people would expect her to be.
    Mr. Robertson: It has been made clear that there will be no call on public funds, but we must ascertain that in connection with any of the seven bids that are being considered. The Britannia will not be replaced or rebuilt; that decision is final. All the private finance options would have been viable only with substantial amounts of public money. I appreciate that, inevitably, the hon. Gentleman will favour the Portsmouth option, and it will be carefully considered among all the other options.
    I look forward to being in Portsmouth next Thursday for the decommissioning of HMY Britannia.

    Defence Diversification Agency
    Jacqui Smith: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for a defence diversification agency. [16799]
    Mr. Spellar: Our aim is to fulfil our manifesto commitment to facilitate the wider application of defence
    8
    industry expertise to civil uses. Although I previously announced our hope to publish a Green Paper on this before Christmas, preparatory work has taken longer than anticipated. We now expect to publish the Green Paper early in the new year. However, I can assure the House that this remains a matter of the highest priority.
    Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance that this remains a priority, especially in the light of a survey of companies in my Redditch constituency with defence involvement, which suggested that, despite a reduction in their defence turnover, they believe that jobs could be preserved by defence diversification. What role will there be for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in the Government's plans for defence diversification? Will the Government learn from the experience of industries and other countries in that process?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of industries in her Redditch constituency, because many of those are the small and medium enterprises that are very much the core of our defence industry. Sometimes we concentrate too much on the prime contractors, to the exclusion of SMEs.
    Obviously, I cannot go into all the details of the paper now but, in answer to my hon. Friend's question about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, we shall consider how to diffuse the technology and expertise in the agency into the wider economy. We shall study the experience of many of the major companies in this country that have diversified some of their activities, and the example of other countries—not least the United States—and the successful work that they have undertaken in diffusing defence technology more widely into industry.

    Departmental Land and Buildings
    Mr. Pike: What estimates his Department has made of the potential for disposal of its land and buildings over the next five years. [16800]
    Mr. Spellar: In addition to forecast receipts this year of £140 million, we expect to receive about £200 million over the next two years for land and buildings that have already been identified as surplus. The strategic defence review is examining vigorously the scope for further disposals.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he assure me that the review is as vigorous as possible, to ensure both that every possible piece of land and building that can be disposed of in the new defence situation that we are facing can be sold and the money realised for the nation and that use of large parts of our land will not be blocked?
    Mr. Spellar: There has already been a considerable reduction in the defence estate. Further disposal will follow the identification of other areas. Of course we want to ensure that land and buildings are used to the maximum efficiency, not only to realise money for the defence budget but, quite properly, to ensure that land is available for regeneration and housing. Many local authorities are

    9
    discussing those matters with us and many hon. Members are approaching us with useful, imaginative and exciting ideas for the use of that land.
    Mr. Viggers: Can the Minister give an undertaking that, when defence land is released, the broader range of issues will be taken into account? I think especially of land in my constituency at Royal Clarence yard, where the Ministry of Defence is proposing to retain nine and a half acres, which is central to the millennium project for the development of Portsmouth harbour. Will he ensure that the Ministry of Defence is given an assurance by Government generally that broader interests are taken into account?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We try to take regeneration issues into account and to work with local authorities and other planning agencies wherever possible, but in many cases we must retain sites for strategic defence interests. We should not consider alienating that land if it were to the detriment of training or of the operations of the services. We are mindful of the need for regeneration and the ability, through that, to contribute to the regeneration of the whole country.
    Sir George Young: Where land and buildings are surplus to the Department's requirements, will the Minister liaise closely with planning departments, such as those in Hampshire, to see whether the sites could be put to housing use, thereby reducing the threat of green-field development on which so many of his hon. Friends seem hellbent?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who perhaps strayed into one of his previous incarnations in asking that question; but I take his point. We try to work with planning authorities at an early stage. That is important because it can facilitate the disposal of land, which can then be brought into effective use for the benefit of the community—with, incidentally, the best possible return for the defence budget.

    NATO
    Ann Clwyd: What assessment he has made of the cost to Her Majesty's Government of NATO expansion. [16801]
    Mr. George Robertson: Our assessment is that the costs associated with the enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be manageable. I and other NATO Defence Ministers will be considering tomorrow a report from NATO staffs on the military and financial implications of enlargement.
    Ann Clwyd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I have been asking the question for some time and I would have expected the Government to have been able to give an assessment of the costs of NATO expansion by now. Can he assure us that the cost of expansion will be met from the current defence budget and that he will not be asking for an extra penny from what many of us already consider to be much too large a budget?
    Mr. Robertson: Any additional cost to our NATO subscription arising from enlargement will be met from
    10
    the defence budget. Currently, that subscription costs 1 per cent. of the funds allocated to the defence budget. I believe that NATO is worth every penny that we spend on it.
    I have just told my hon. Friend that, tomorrow, Defence Ministers will receive the report from NATO on its assessment of the cost of enlargement. I would be most surprised if NATO expenditure were to rise significantly in real terms. There will certainly be a cost, but we believe it to be manageable and we shall pay our contribution.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no pressure on Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic to spend huge sums trying to integrate into NATO? Will he also confirm that there is no pressure on us and no urgent requirement beyond what might be described as command and control procedures, integrated air defence and so on?
    Mr. Robertson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the cost of NATO enlargement will be spread over a considerable period. For the new countries—the invitees to the membership of NATO—participating in collective defence is preferable to, and cheaper than, attempting to provide the same security on a national basis. Any nation—ours as well as the new countries—must be secure before it can do anything. Inevitably, the new countries would have been involved in assuring their future security by expenditure on military capability. Our country has been able to live in peace and security for almost half a century because of our membership of NATO. It is clear that the 12 nations that have applied for membership did so because they wanted the same.
    Mr. Llew Smith: What savings would come to the United Kingdom if we were to link our defence expenditure to the average of other western European countries?
    Mr. Robertson: I do not believe that we should link our defence expenditure to any average or any particular figure. This country should be defended strongly and it should be defended well. It is important that we establish the priorities for our country not only as a nation, but as a partner in NATO and a member of the United Nations Security Council. We make our own decisions. That was the position taken by the Labour Government in 1945 when they took Britain into NATO, and it is the position taken by the Labour Government who were elected this year.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) asked about the size of the budget. Does the Secretary of State agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in last week's pre-Budget statement: that defence is not a priority?
    Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party was elected on a manifesto that said that we would assure the strong defence of this country. Of course it is a priority and it will remain so. This nation's defence is safe in this Government's hands.

    Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft
    Mr. Wilkinson: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of heavy lift transport aircraft in Royal Air Force service. [16804]
    Dr. Reid: Our strategic lift requirements, in terms both of air lift and of sea lift, are being scrutinised closely in the strategic defence review, which aims to ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped to undertake their tasks. That scrutiny is, of course, informed by my Department's assessment of the adequacy of our currently available assets.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful for that answer. In peace maintenance as in war fighting, is it not important to get to the critical spot firstest with the mostest, particularly when the United Kingdom is increasingly withdrawing from overseas bases? Will the Minister therefore assure the House that, after the review, the RAF will be able to procure at the earliest possible date a proven aircraft—the C17, which can carry a main battle tank and has been an admirable aeroplane in the United States air force?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman, who is well known for his interest and expertise in these matters, is absolutely right about the nature of the threats we now face. The old simplicities and certainties of the cold war have gone. We live in a more volatile, less predictable world and our ability to react quickly is paramount. It is also important that we have a variety of equipment, which the RAF cannot, at present, move by air. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been at pains to make that point. Several options merit consideration, including, perhaps, the future large aircraft and C17.
    Mr. McCabe: When considering the future of RAF heavy lift, will my hon. Friend ensure that adequate attention is paid to preserving aircraft that have served us well, particularly as we approach the millennium?
    Dr. Reid: That is absolutely correct. I am pleased to say that, today, I presented a charter mark award to the RAF museum, which has played such an important role in maintaining and exhibiting our RAF heritage. I am also pleased to tell the House that, Treasury and Parliament permitting, as of today the RAF intends to pass the ownership of the vast majority—121 out of 122—of its historic aeroplanes to the RAF museum, thus showing our confidence in it and our commitment, as we approach the millennium, to retaining the heritage of past generations of the RAF for future generations.

    Regiments
    Mr. Robathan: What assessment he has made of the importance of the regimental system. [16805]
    Dr. Reid: The strategic defence review's examination of the future structure of the Army is taking full account of the recognised strengths of the regimental system. It would, however, be premature for me to speculate on any particular aspect of the review's outcome.
    Mr. Robathan: I welcome the Minister's statement because I know that he is personally committed to the
    12
    regimental system. Will he ensure that the strategic defence review does not undermine the system, which is one of the strengths of the British Army? Does he agree that the current selection procedures throughout the armed forces and in regiments are based on merit and not anything that is politically correct?
    Dr. Reid: I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman on both statements.
    Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that tradition in the regimental system can be a burden as well as a benefit? What steps will he take to ensure that regimental traditions that restrict access to the officer class are swept away? In particular, what steps is he taking to ensure that youngsters who are not from public schools can become officers and, say, guards in the cavalry regiments?
    Dr. Reid: I have the utmost respect for the esprit de corps, the ethos and the almost concrete capacity of the regimental system to instil the will to fight in men—and, I hope, women—in the most difficult circumstances. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we have made it clear that we want the best and the brightest in the British armed forces. We want the widest possible pool of recruits and we want the pathways to progress in the armed forces to be open to all, irrespective of sex, ethnic background or social class. We shall maintain that commitment.
    Mr. Key: On how many occasions since 1 May has the chain of command's responsibility for military discipline been the subject of intervention by Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor?
    Dr. Reid: As far as Defence Ministers are concerned, none. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises, when he makes such imputations, that although he may be attempting to slur the Government Front Bench, he is also—wrongly—bringing into question the integrity of those in the Army chain of command, who would never allow such a thing. As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Lord Chancellor, I have no intention of commenting on internal advice or correspondence between Ministers, which I have already withheld under exemption 2 of the code of practice on access to information. The hon. Gentleman should know that that is always the position taken on such matters.

    Ethnic Minorities
    Mrs. Mahon: What steps his Department is taking to improve levels of recruitment from the United Kingdom's ethnic minorities. [16806]
    Dr. Reid: Our aim is that the armed forces should fully embrace diversity and better reflect the ethnic composition of the society they defend. I am glad that all three services are tackling the issue with considerable energy, and that a number of local initiatives are in place. Complementing those are the tri-service initiatives in Newham and Sandwell and the Army's specific ethnic minorities recruitment campaign.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of men and women from our ethnic minorities who serve in the armed forces is disappointingly low? I think that it is about 1 per cent. I welcome the Army's new recruitment initiative. What are the other two services doing?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. She will know that we are determined to ensure that access to our armed forces is open to the widest possible reservoir of talent. She may be aware of our initiatives in Newham and Sandwell. She will also be aware that the Ministry of Defence is 19 months into a five-year action plan with the Commission for Racial Equality. I welcome the recent initiative of the Chief of the General Staff, who introduced a series of measures to combat racism in the Army whenever it raises its head. I am glad to announce that the Army and the Royal Air Force are today introducing a confidential support hotline for counselling and advice on such matters. It will operate outside the chain of command and has the support of the chiefs of the services and the chain of command.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the Minister's comments. I urge him to meet the chairman of the Greenwich foundation for the Royal Naval college to discuss the options for ethnic minority recruitment. Will he also reassure us that the delay and the buck passing will come to an end and that the outstanding questions will be resolved so that that jewel in the nation's heritage is properly established and occupied in time for the millennium?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That question does not have much to do with recruitment.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, it does.
    Madam Speaker: Not in my judgment.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not one of the least attractive features of bullying in the armed services the fact that it is often related to racism? That provides a substantial disincentive for people from the ethnic minorities to join any of the armed services. Should not such matters be the responsibility of the chain of command? Is it not clear that if there is bullying and racism in any unit, the ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanding officer of that unit?
    Dr. Reid: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was here when I praised the chain of command and the chiefs of staff for the proactive, dynamic and absolutely committed way in which they have approached racism and bullying in the armed forces. I have no hesitation in saying that this is not being pushed as a political imperative on the chiefs of staff; it is a measure to which they are individually and collectively committed. I congratulate them on that. It is also a matter for congratulation that they have introduced, for the purposes of counselling, an independent hotline, which will serve as another building block to combat racism in the armed forces.

    Trident
    Mr. McAllion: How many representations his Department has received on the Trident nuclear weapons system since 1 May; and how many (a) supported and (b) opposed retention of Trident. [16808]
    Mr. George Robertson: We have received more than 150 letters and submissions about our nuclear deterrent since inviting public contributions to the strategic defence review. The majority have called for Trident to be included in the review. We have already made it clear that the review will examine all aspects of our deterrent postures to ensure that it meets changing strategic circumstances.
    Mr. McAllion: My right hon. Friend will recall that retaining Trident was a manifesto commitment of both Labour and the Tory party at the general election. Will he acknowledge that it is, at the very least, open to interpretation whether the British people embraced Trident by voting Labour in or rejected Trident by voting the Tories out? Given that uncertainty, will he take on board the latest polling evidence, which shows that 63 per cent. of British people believe that money spent on Trident is wasted public expenditure and that 59 per cent. of British people believe that this country would be much safer without nuclear weapons altogether? If we really are the people's Government, why do we not listen to the people and rid ourselves once and for all of these obscene weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Robertson: I should point out that the competition to my hon. Friend in Dundee, East came not from the Tory party but from the Scottish National party, which was in favour of abolishing Trident—and that my hon. Friend won and the SNP lost. Does not that suggest that people are in favour of Trident? Whatever is the preponderance of letters in the postbag or the outcome of occasional opinion polls, people believed what we said in our manifesto and they have every right to believe that we will conduct ourselves differently from the previous Government.
    The retention of Trident was one of the policy principles on which we will base our work in the strategic defence review, but within that framework the review will look at all aspects of our current deterrence requirements, including nuclear warhead numbers. We are committed to the global elimination of nuclear weapons. There might be some differences on how we get to that point, but the British people were in no doubt when they voted for my hon. Friend and me in the general election.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I welcome that robust response from the Secretary of State. Is he aware that, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when anxiety about nuclear deterrence was at its height, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament consistently produced strangely worded poll questions to get results such as that which has just been cited, but that whenever the British public were asked: "Do you think that Britain should continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them?" poll after poll showed two thirds of British people in favour of retention and never more than a quarter against it?
    Mr. Robertson: I am not concerned with the ups and downs of individual opinion polls. After many years of

    15
    deep consideration, the Labour party came to the electorate with an absolutely clear commitment to the retention of the Trident submarine fleet and with a much more urgent and determined attitude to arms control—especially nuclear arms control—than any previous Government. That is one reason why we were so emphatically returned at the general election.

    Armed Forces (Women)
    Laura Moffatt: What steps his Department is taking to expand employment opportunities for women in the armed forces. [16809]
    Dr. Reid: Women already make a substantial contribution to the armed forces and serve alongside their male colleagues in many roles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in a defence debate on 27 October that, from April next year, the proportion of posts open to women in the Army will rise from 47 to 70 per cent. We have also commissioned a review that will enable us to decide whether any of the remaining restrictions on employment opportunities for women in all three services can be reduced or removed.
    Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that women have always proved themselves—especially in Bosnia, as I have witnessed—able to take part in the armed forces? Does he agree also that women are capable of taking part in combat roles in the Royal Navy? Does not that put paid to the claim that women are not suitable and that such roles are suitable only for the chaps? Thank you.
    Dr. Reid: It is a pleasure. The Government, as my hon. Friend would expect, and the armed forces are committed to expanding career opportunities for women. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that service women now represent 7 per cent. of total strength and that in the 12 months to 1 September 1997 14 per cent. of new recruits were women. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 October that from 1 April next year the proportion of posts in the Army open to women will increase to 70 per cent.
    I am glad to say that the Ministry of Defence has a good working relationship with the Equal Opportunities Commission. Later today I shall meet Kamlesh Bahl, its chairwoman, to see how much further we can expand opportunities for women in the armed forces.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Ethical Investments
    Ann Clwyd: What assessment he has made of the impact of the contacts between the Church's ethical investment working group and GEC on GEC's arms exporting policy. [16829]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): In the absence of my hon. Friend the
    16
    Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I am answering these questions as a Church Commissioner and as the member of the Cabinet with responsibility for Church matters.
    The commissioners believe that the impact has been positive. The ethical investment working group put four questions to the company at its annual general meeting on 5 September as an encouragement to GEC to disclose hopeful information in a public arena about its defence-related business. The group will continue to inform itself about GEC's business strategy and will maintain contact with the company.
    Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I put it to him, however, that since the so-called dialogue began, GEC has continually expanded its defence manufacturing and increased its exports to Indonesia—a country with one of the worst human rights records? Is there any point in this dialogue if that is the result?
    Mr. Straw: I think that there is. It is fair to say that the commissioners are now being much more proactive about their investments in pursuit of their approach not to invest in any company whose main business is in armaments, gambling, breweries, distilleries, tobacco or newspapers.
    I understand that, over the past three years, GEC's exports to Indonesia have totalled only £20 million and comprised simulation and training equipment for the navy, short-wave broadcasting equipment for the national network, transmitters for commercial broadcasters and five omniphones.
    Mr. Burns: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that, in a constituency with four GEC companies in it, a distinction must be drawn between weapons and weapons systems that are produced for the bona fide defence of a country from external attack and weapons such as land mines, that are universally condemned?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point. Speaking not as a Church Commissioner but as the Member of Parliament for Blackburn, I must tell the House that many of my constituents' jobs depend on defence contractors. It is also fair to add that NATO countries account for some £2 billion of the £2.4 billion—85 per cent.—of GEC defence sales.

    Pensions
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the impact of pension provisions on the number of people applying for a career in the Church since Parliament approved the current pension provisions. [16831]
    Mr. Straw: This is not strictly a matter for the Church Commissioners. I understand, however, from the advisory board of ministry that the number of candidates recommended for training for the ministry increased significantly in 1996 and this year. Confidence in the Church's arrangements for funding the ministry may have played a part in this encouraging development.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is time that the Church Commissioners took far more

    17
    interest in ensuring that those who serve in the Church receive proper pensions and other rights? I consider that they are entitled to the same pension rights as Members of Parliament. I hope that the Church Commissioners will take some interest in the future of those who serve in the Church.
    Mr. Straw: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on to the commissioners who deal directly and professionally with the issue. It is reasonable to point out that the number of people recommended for training was 420 in 1995, 453 in 1996 and 486 so far in 1997. The Church Commissioners are concerned to maintain the funding of clergy pensions and that is why they have made new arrangements. From 1 January next year, dioceses will meet the cost from funds provided by parishes of all clergy pension rights for future service, but not for past service. That is being done not least so that the commissioners can ensure the future funding of stipends in needy areas.
    Mr. Sayeed: In his Budget, the Chancellor 0069mposed a £5 billion tax on pensions. How much will it cost parishioners to fund that tax?
    Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about changes to advance corporation tax. The cost to the Church Commissioners will be £12 million per annum in 1997 values. The commissioners tell me that they welcome the time allowed by the Government to plan for the removal of ACT relief and the phasing of its impact between 1999 and 2004.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Miss McIntosh: How many lawyers are employed by the National Audit Office. [16832]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office does not employ staff as lawyers, although 10 graduates in law are employed by its auditors. The National Audit Office obtains legal advice as required from various sources including commercial firms and the Treasury Solicitor.
    Miss McIntosh: Is any of those people sufficiently qualified in public procurement contracts for tender under European Union regulations? Was any of them consulted before the contract was awarded for the refurbishment of Canary Wharf prior to the recent Anglo-French summit?
    Mr. Sheldon: There is a big difference between the way in which auditors are employed by the National Audit
    18
    Office and the way in which they are employed on the continent. In other countries, auditors have legal representation because they regard that as rather more important than the auditing function. The hon. Lady should understand that the Public Accounts Committee looks at value for money extremely well. I am sure that its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), will want to satisfy himself that that continues to be the case.

  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Persian Gulf
    Mr Waterson: What is the level of Her Majesty's forces currently deployed in the Persian gulf. [16810]
    Dr. Reid: UK forces currently deployed in the Gulf consist of HMS Coventry, supported by Royal Fleet Auxiliary Bayleaf, as part of the Armilla patrol. Shore-based forces in the Gulf area comprise six RAF Tornado aircraft operating from Saudi Arabia, supported by two RAF VC10 tankers in Bahrain, which contribute to the enforcement of the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. A UK battalion is currently exercising in Kuwait as part of a routine training programme.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that, as long as there is a perceived threat in the region, this country will continue to maintain similar forces? Does he agree that the current regime in Iraq is all too willing to perceive as a sign of weakness any reduction in our forces or those of our allies in the area? That is another good reason for maintaining the current level of availability of British forces in the region.
    Dr. Reid: Yes, we have made absolutely plain our concern about the potential existence and use of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein. That is why we have made it clear throughout this period that although we have of course sought, and will continue to seek, a diplomatic solution, we will not rule out the use of force. As the hon. Gentleman will know, HMS Invincible remains in the Mediterranean, ready to respond at short notice, giving the UK flexibility in the near future should Saddam's promise of co-operation with UNSCOM prove illusory.
    The hon. Gentleman may also be aware that in the past few days my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited HMS Invincible to speak to the men and women who are serving on that aircraft carrier and who will be discharging the responsibility of this country in the efforts of the international community to ensure that the will of the United Nations cannot be thwarted and that the danger and menace of weapons of mass destruction is not held over the head of the global community.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following the actions of Welsh fanners in Holyhead last night, has the Secretary of State for Wales asked to make a statement to the House today? I make it plain that I cannot condone the actions of those farmers—we could never condone such illegal actions—but the Secretary of State should answer some pertinent questions about the problems that those farmers face.
For example, recent figures show that there has been at least a 30 per cent. drop in the incomes of Welsh farmers, a strengthening of the green pound because of the Government's economic actions, and a £16 million clawback of the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments to farmers in less-favoured areas—all this at a time when money is generally being made available because of the ewe premium rebate, which should be coming back to support Welsh farmers.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting into a policy argument. I let him continue because I wanted to check when Welsh questions were—they happen to be on Wednesday.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet finished. The question was whether the Secretary of State for Wales had asked to make a statement. The answer is no, I have not been informed that he is seeking to do so. The hon. Gentleman raised a lengthy point of order—I hope that those on the Government Front Bench have taken note of it and that the House has noted that Welsh questions are on Wednesday.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question relates to the tabling of oral questions. I understand from the media that the Lord Chancellor has let it be known that he sees himself as having a new co-ordinating role across Government Departments as, in his words, "a new Cardinal Wolsey". If we wish to question him on that matter in the Chamber, should we do so through his Parliamentary Secretary or through the Department concerned? He appears to have started with the Ministry of Defence.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for the rota of when Ministers answer questions. That is determined through the usual channels. It is for the individual Member to determine which Minister is responsible for answering the question that is tabled. If there are any problems, I know that the Clerks in the Table Office will provide guidelines and as much help as possible.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want in any way to quibble with your response to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), but I would want to raise under Standing Order No. 24 the issue that has been concerning us overnight. It is a matter not just for Welsh Ministers but for the whole of the rural community, the whole of the United Kingdom and all of us who represent agricultural
20
constituencies. I would suggest that when patient people such as British farmers resort to civil disorder on the scale that they have, it is a very serious matter and, although we would not wish to condone their action, we should have an opportunity to debate it in the House.
Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman, and all those who might want to touch on this subject, that there was ample time before 12 o'clock today to make an application under Standing Order No. 24. I have made my views known on the matter. I want no further points of order on the issue; I have dealt with it as far as it is my responsibility to do so.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fear that there may have been a misunderstanding in the reply of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to my question during Question Time.
I have put the same question to the Prime Minister. He has been asked about the costs of refurbishing Canary Wharf for the Anglo-French summit. To my knowledge, he has not replied. The point that I was trying to make in Question 35 was that we are obliged, under European law—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is trying to extend Question Time. She asked how many lawyers are employed by the National Audit Office. I cannot extend Question Time.
Mr. Damian Green: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer given you any indication that he wants to make a statement on the tax-avoidance schemes of the Paymaster General, especially since the Chancellor appears to have changed Government policy on the issue without informing the House? At last year's Labour party conference, the Chancellor said:
"A Labour Chancellor will not permit tax relief to millionaires in offshore tax havens."
He should tell the House whether that still applies to all millionaires or only to millionaire Treasury Ministers.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Yes, I will hear a further point of order. I want to deal with this matter.
Mr. Jenkin: Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that, if a matter is of sufficient importance that it requires a Minister to rush out a statement clarifying why there has been a change of Government policy, that statement should be read out in the House by the Minister? Therefore, should not either the Paymaster General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to the House to clarify Government policy?
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I can deal with this, thank you very much, Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: All right. It is fair enough to hear one from the Government Benches.
Mr. Skinner: I remember that, in years gone by, when the Tories were in power, I used to try might and main to find out just what had happened to the £65 million concerning the then Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—where he had got it, where he had put it, who was in charge of it. I got the brush-off from the Speaker at the time.
What is more, I saw in the papers at the weekend that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), was to ask a question about the matter. Well, he is not present. I can only assume that he is still in his French investment over the channel.
Madam Speaker: I assure the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that he is not likely to get the brush-off from me.
On the very serious point, any hon. Member on either side of the House who believes that a Minister has acted outside Government guidelines should make representations to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for ministerial guidelines covering all Ministers. I hope that, if there is any thought of that in relation to this issue, hon. Members who are concerned will make proper representations, with evidence, to the Prime Minister.

Points of Order

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
  That the matter of government expenditure in Wales in 1998–99, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Question agreed to.

Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Welfare, Pensions and Disabled People
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. lain Duncan Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House deeply regrets the unnecessary delay to proposals on pension and welfare reform; finds it inconceivable that having attacked reductions to lone parent benefits proposed by the previous Government this Government now plans to implement the same reductions; and urges the Government to take this opportunity to reassure people with disabilities that they will not tax Disability Living Allowance or transfer disability benefits from disabled individuals to bureaucracies such as local government's social services departments.
  The debate is timely not only because of the internal Labour rows over cuts to lone parent benefit but because, after seven months in office, it affords us an opportunity—
  Mr. Denis MacShane: What rows?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The real rows come from among the hon. Gentleman's friends and all those sitting on the Back Benches behind him.
  With briefing, counter-briefing and leaks, the Department for Social Security is developing a sense of confusion which bodes ill. The Secretary of State and her party came to power on a promise—among many promises—of large-scale pension and welfare reform. The Prime Minister established that as one of his main priorities. He said that his Ministers would "think the unthinkable" and
  "end welfare as we know it."
  In office, the Prime Minister reaffirmed that commitment as recently as October. He said:
  "We need to invest more as a country in savings and pensions. But Government's role is going to be to organise provision—like new stakeholder pensions—not fund it all through ever higher taxes."
  He was equally explicit about welfare. He said:
  "it means fundamental reform of our welfare state, of the deal between citizen and society"
  I shall deal with pensions first. After the Labour party's scurrilous attack during the general election campaign on basic pension plus—which was essentially a proposal for discussion, not dissimilar to a Green Paper—it was legitimate to expect that the new Government were ready to move fast on pensions. One would think that they had an alternative, but apparently they did not.
  Expectations were underlined by the appointment in May of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is in his place. He was the Prime Minister's personal appointment and carries the unprecedented title of Minister for Welfare Reform. Given the amount that he has written on the subject in

  23
  the recent past, the country would have been forgiven for expecting an early Green Paper on pensions. After all, the very phrase "stakeholder pension" is one which he coined in his pamphlet "How to pay for stakeholder welfare".
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He was the author of a notorious pamphlet in 1993, which struck a chill into the heart of every pensioner in the country, for the No Turning Back group, that ultra-rightwing, reactionary Thatcherite group. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is reading."] I am reading because I am quoting. In that pamphlet, the hon. Gentleman proposed that people be allowed to opt out of their basic state pension. Is that still his policy—yes or no?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and I am pleased that he has bothered to read my pamphlet. I have been waiting some time for him to get round to it. The Secretary of State for Social Security might do well to read it herself. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that pension reform requires one to consider all aspects—
  Mr. MacShane: Answer the question.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the answer. I do not resile for one moment from the idea that, as the Prime Minister said, pension reform requires one to think the unthinkable. Ministers are doing very little thinking, unthinkable or otherwise. What I wrote in 1993 went further towards pension reform than anything that Ministers have produced.
  The pamphlet by the Minister for Welfare Reform is very interesting, and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) should read it. He might be interested to find out what the Minister's opinions are. The pamphlet was the product of a number of years' thought on how to provide second pensions for all, and such thought was also evident in other pamphlets such as "Private pensions for all: squaring the circle" and "A national savings plan", which was about universalising private pension provision.
  Those pamphlets emerged before the election, but, instead of the expected early Green Paper, which the hon. Member for Rotherham is so keen on, a pensions review was announced in July. Instead of being actively led by the Minister for Welfare Reform, it was run by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). It took him until September to announce the members of the review panel and on 31 October the review was closed, only to be reopened until May 1998. We still have no sense of what basic policy the Government will pursue.
  Even the review is confused. After 1,800 responses, the Under-Secretary announced on 3 November in a written answer:
  "The Government intends to publish its initial framework for change in the first part of 1998. There will then be a further period of consultation before firm proposals are developed."—[Official Report, 3 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 90.]
  On 19 November, the Under-Secretary opened another, separate review, before he had read and digested all the responses from what he called the stakeholder
  24
  consultation. What was the purpose of the first review? I was not aware that it left out stakeholder provision; indeed, various people commented on that subject in their submissions. The Government seem to be making policy by procrastination.
  It is worth reminding ourselves what the Minister for Welfare Reform said just before the election. Speaking about his party leader—now the Prime Minister—on 18 October 1996, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "His aim is for Labour to enter Government with a sufficiently well created plan that it can be part of the first Queen's speech and a draft Bill in the first year, allowing for a year for debate."
  He went further, saying that it was
  "crucial to avoid the mistakes of Dick Crossman and Harold Wilson who spent four years consulting and lost their plan in the 1970 election".
  I heard the right hon. Gentleman say earlier from a sedentary position, "It will be." We are already reaching the end of the year and no Green Paper is even evident. As he knows, the review process is stretching out to the latter part of next year. He says that there will be something, but we see nothing coming up.
  Mr. Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman talks about the pensions review, but does he not agree that, in cutting value added tax on fuel, eliminating the gas levy and announcing increases for winter fuel of £20 to all pensioner households and £50 for those on income support, we have done more for pensioners in the past six months than the Conservatives did in 18 years?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman is doing very well, is he not? He rose to take a position on pensions, but he talked about a giveaway in the green Budget, which was more about protecting the position of those on the Government Front Bench than anything else. It was cobbled together quickly to get them out of a hole because they are getting nowhere over all their so-called reform processes.
  The hon. Gentleman should try answering the question: when will they go for the Prime Minister's position of full pension and welfare reform? There has not been a word so far about where all that is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to answer that question. When will that be? There is no answer, is there? So it goes on. I can understand the frustration of the Minister for Welfare Reform as he perceives the process being delayed; after all, he has written about it. As I said, he wrote all that on pensions alone.
  The delay goes back to the emergency Budget that the Chancellor produced for, it now appears, no reason at all. He went further than he said and not merely on the windfall tax. He set about pensions. Let us put on one side for a moment the Chancellor's attack on pensions, which will cost those who need to invest in their pensions billions of pounds and lose them a lot of money.
  With the abolition of advance corporation tax dividend tax credit, the right hon. Gentleman devalued the national insurance rebate. Having made those changes, far from leaving the state earnings-related pension scheme as an option for those who wished to remain in it, as the Labour

  25
  manifesto said—a rather vague commitment—he has gone a stage further and has enhanced the option of SERPS, increasing the number of people opting in. That is happening now and research by Scottish Life clearly shows that,
  "Based on somebody earning £15,000 a year, remaining out of SERPS could cost them the equivalent of £360 a year in retirement income. And for higher earners it could be far more."
  So people are opting back in. On the margins, there is no purpose in staying out as the rebate has been so devalued.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform is also fairly unequivocal about SERPS, as the Secretary of State knows. The Minister said:
  "A failure to close SERPS will mean substantial tax bills for future generations."
  I agree, as I am sure does the Secretary of State. I am also intrigued by how the Minister views his colleagues, given that he said at some point:
  "Anyone persuaded SERPS had a future ought to be made a ward of court".
  On 29 October, given all the confusion, the Prime Minister had clearly lost track of who was running what. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) asked straightforwardly at Prime Minister's Question Time whether the Minister for Welfare Reform had his support for thinking the unthinkable and proposing pension improvements. The Prime Minister expressed himself in complete confidence with the Minister for Welfare Reform's duties—an interesting choice of words—but went on to say that the Minister would be producing a Green Paper shortly. We are talking about pensions, let us remember. Are we to assume that the Minister will also be carrying out a separate review of pensions? Perhaps he could let me know.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field)indicated assent.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I see that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding, so we have established that. In that case, what was the purpose of the review by the Under-Secretary of State, and if the Prime Minister thought in October that the Green Paper would be issued shortly, why do we have to wait until the new year to receive it? Nothing has happened. Three months after that promise, we will still be waiting.
  The Secretary of State, who may or may not be listening, has said remarkably little about pensions in the past few months, either in the House or outside. Pensions reform is being pushed into the blue yonder. It is too difficult to rectify, and there are too many hard choices to make, so the Government prefer to slide it out into the future and leave only the minimum change that can be made. So it goes on.
  Caroline Flint: How many people suffered the abuse of pensions mis-selling under the previous Government? The hon. Gentleman is outlining duties; what duty and responsibility did the Tory Government have to prevent that?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady asks a serious question. The issue of pensions mis-selling is being dealt
  26
  with, and was being dealt with before the general election. I understand from the Treasury figures that the sum under investigation is £2 billion maximum, and perhaps less.
  That is a serious matter, but why do Labour Members never mention the fact that, as a result of all the changes that the Conservative party made before the general election, about £750 billion—more than in the whole of the rest of Europe put together—is now invested in private pensions here? They never mention that success. How do they intend to persuade members of the public to invest in pensions if they never talk about the success of private pensions, which were driven forward by the Conservative party over the years against perpetual opposition from Labour?
  The process with welfare reform appears to be similar. We have a series of proposals that need to be implemented quickly, so that the changes can be bedded down and we can have proper discussion to make sure that there are no problems. All through the summer, no one would answer the important questions: when and whether there would be a Green Paper on welfare reform, and who would produce it.
  Throughout the summer, a series of leaks and counter-briefings in the press took the debate beyond the House, but still we have no answers. The Financial Times reported that someone in the Treasury, who is apparently close to the Minister for Welfare Reform, said:
  "His package now seems insufficiently new Labour.
  The summer was dominated by a war of words, with briefing and counter-briefing between the Secretary of State and the Minister for Welfare Reform. There was no progress until finally, at the end of the summer, she was forced to agree to his producing a Green Paper; but not, apparently, until early in the new year.
  Is the Chancellor's welfare review—it is run by Martin Taylor and has nothing to do with the Department of Social Security—which is supposed to be considering merging tax and benefits, taking priority? Does the Chancellor not like what the Minister for Welfare Reform has written progressively over the years? In his green Budget, the Chancellor continued to refer to the Minister's proposals, even though it appears that they are being rapidly watered down and now focus solely on making family credit payable through pay-as-you-earn rather than through the benefits system.
  The clash between the Minister for Welfare Reform's views on the ending of means testing and the Chancellor's view that means testing is necessary through the tax system may explain some of the problems.
  There is also the thorny point of what the Secretary of State thinks of the Chancellor's proposals. After all, she has long said that she does not like the idea of benefits being paid through the wallet rather than through the purse. There was a big debate, and she always argued that benefits should be paid to the person at home. Then again, if the Chancellor requires the change she will no doubt change her mind and implement it. That seems to be the process, and it is what we have come to expect.
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: I remind the hon. Gentleman of his celebrated comments in a pamphlet in 1993, when he suggested that disability living allowance should be means-tested. Does he write in one tone and talk in another?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: If the hon. Lady were to check the intervention list from her Whips Office, she might

  27
  understand that she has got most of that wrong. I will discuss the disability living allowance later, but the simple fact is that no welfare reform package or review is on offer. The hon. Lady cannot substitute that fact with an attempt by her Whips Office to find out exactly what someone else, who is not even in government, proposed. The Labour party are in government; the hon. Lady is in government; when are we going to get some proposals from them? We have heard no answers from them. The hon. Lady should check her Whips Office little list again, because it has got it quite wrong.
  I posed a series of questions of the Secretary of State when she first announced in the Budget debate how she intended to operate some of her proposals, such as the new deal for lone parents. The right hon. Lady stuck with single-minded determination to that new deal; that is what she has spoken most about and has issued most press releases about. It seems to be the main drive behind most of what she has said and done.
  Assuming that the pilot programmes were meant to inform us whether the policy on the new deal for lone parents is working, I said from the beginning that the right hon. Lady would need to institute proper control groups inside the pilot programmes to measure the effectiveness of each pilot. Most of those comments were obviously ignored.
  As I and my team went around the pilot centres during the summer, it became absolutely clear that, with the absence of control groups, it would be impossible to measure why people got jobs and whether that was because of the new deal. We are now told that some time in September the Department of Social Security partially changed its mind about control groups. It did so retrospectively—that was never mentioned in the original plan, and the right hon. Lady never answered that question. The Department now needs to tell us how those control groups will work. I gather that it is even trying to backdate the information from those so-called pilot areas.
  When the control groups were set up, there was a flurry of press releases—long before any real success or failure could possibly be measured. Of particular interest was the Secretary of State's press release of 23 September, just two months after the programme began, which spoke glowingly about how successful it was. The other important press release was that issued on 23 October, when the Secretary of State readvertised her programme as a huge success, after just three months.
  The time came to analyse those figures, and we found that when the Secretary of State announced that they were a huge success she was talking about a 20 per cent. success rate. She failed to tell us that 433 people taking jobs out of the 8,600 to whom letters were sent is equivalent to a 5 per cent. response rate. She has never yet once explained how she can make a success out of 5 per cent., when so many people have not even bothered to respond to those letters.
  What has happened to all those people who did not respond? Have the Government studied the reasons for that lack of response? Not one comment have we heard from the Government. Now we discover from figures apparently released by the right hon. Lady's Department
  28
  that the chances of people getting work from the programme are roughly the same as they would be were they not in that programme.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes and, apart from attacking the fact that the Government are reviewing the welfare system, he has said absolutely nothing about the Opposition's views on welfare reform. At the very least, will he say whether he supports the Government's proposal on the new deal for lone parents?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Frankly, if the hon. Lady tries to persuade her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make us all offers to move over to the Government Benches, we will listen. The truth is that, believe it or not, the hon. Lady is in government. Those on her Front Bench are there to make decisions. When will they do so? The Government do not like the fact that I am simply saying that when they promise major reforms, and then do absolutely nothing, they are misleading the public. The longer we go on about that, the less they like it. We have been offered no reform.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Could it not be that, while the Minister for Welfare Reform said:
  "Women with children of school age should be under an obligation to look for work",
  the Secretary of State cannot make up her mind? In October, she said on television:
  "Compulsion is absolutely not the issue."
  While they are busily arguing among themselves, they cannot come up with a consistent policy.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: That is the point that I am coming to. The reality is that there is one dispute after another. The Secretary of State is arguing with the Minister for Welfare Reform about who should be in charge. He wants compulsion; she does not. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that it is one endless internal dispute after another, which is why we are not getting anywhere with the reforms. There have been no reforms at all.
  The new deal for lone parents is becoming more and more of a trumpeting exercise in publicity rather than a serious study about how people can get into work and how they can be assisted in doing so if they wish.
  The Conservative Government proposed some changes to cut child benefit and the supplement to income support in their final Budget last November. The present Secretary of State attacked the proposals and immediately said that she did not intend to implement them once in government. She went further in an interview with Polly Toynbee of The Independent. When asked whether she would introduce the changes to lone parent benefit, she said, "No, of course not." On 28 November 1996, she said:
  "The Secretary of State says that he is cutting benefits to lone mothers because they are at an advantage compared to married mothers…but it is not fair on the families of women who bring up children on their own. They will be worse off."—[Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 501.]
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that on the two occasions in this

  29
  Session when there have been votes on the abolition of benefits for lone parents, the Conservative party has abstained, thus proving that it has no opinion?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman asked what our position is. Had we won the last election and been in government now, we would, without question, have implemented the changes. I have told the Government that.
  I can tell the Liberal Democrats that the simple position is that we certainly shall not oppose any such changes if the Government introduce them. That is straightforward and our position is clear. We have not broken a pledge, unlike the Labour party—the party of the hon. Member for Rotherham. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should calm down—he is obviously being vibrated too much by his Whips Office. He and his hon. Friends have broken a pledge—the Secretary of State has broken it more than anyone else.
  In the interests of clarity—[Interruption.] It is no good trying to protect the Secretary of State; I just want to hear from her about it. In 1996 and 1997, she made it absolutely clear that she would not implement the change. Will she tell us exactly what changed her opinion? If she disagrees with the policy in principle—as it seems from those quotes and from all the speeches that she has made and discussions that she has had—will she now give an undertaking that if, at any time, the Exchequer moves into the black and starts to repay debt, she will reverse the cuts? She might do so if she does not agree with the policy in principle and it is only about saving money. At some point in the future, will she change her opinion, or will she stand by the reductions in lone parent benefit that we proposed before the election and she attacked? Would she like to answer that question? No, she does not want to answer.
  The Secretary of State's view that the Labour party in government would not implement the cuts was supported by the Prime Minister—her Back-Bench colleagues should remember that. When he was asked on "World at One" whether he would implement the cuts, he said:
  "No. We believe that we can avoid that situation within the existing budget".
  He knew what he was saying; he was referring to what the Secretary of State had said to Polly Toynbee in an article in The Independent. He was clear and unequivocal. He knew exactly what the Labour party was planning to do in government: stick to existing spending totals.
  It is no good Labour Members saying that, before the election, the Conservatives instigated a devious plot to change the spending totals; they knew what they were, and the present Secretary of State and the Prime Minister knew that.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall give way later.
  Our position has been clear. Had we been in power after the election we would have stuck to our pledge and implemented the policy, because we believed that it was the right thing to do.
  The most important result of the right hon. Lady's problems with her Back Benchers and her Department was that, at the last moment, the Chancellor decided to
  30
  cobble together a rescue package in the green Budget and buy off the animosity against those changes with the announcement about after-school clubs. What gave the game away was that, in answer to a written question about the policy on after-school clubs, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), had written:
  "We are currently developing a National Childcare Strategy which will help parents…I will make an announcement in the first part of next year."—[Official Report, 24 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 361.]
  That is true, is it not? He wrote that at the same time as the Chancellor was rising to his feet to announce that there were to be after-school clubs.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister was absolutely clear that they were going to give the details of the package next year. They changed their plans simply because the right hon. Lady was in trouble, along with her right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Mike Hall rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: There is no point in rising to protect them—the hon. Gentleman should stop trying to be an air raid shelter taking some of the flak for the Secretary of State. The reality is that the Chancellor suddenly managed to find £200 million from the lottery, £50 million from the Department for Education and Employment and £30 million from the windfall tax to pay for after-school clubs.
  The announcement that 50,000 people were to be trained to be child carers was given as though it was something new, but it had already been mentioned in the Budget. During the Budget debate, I told the Secretary of State that it would be difficult to find 50,000 child carers from the welfare-to-work programme, given that numbers were falling fast because so many jobs were being found. In an attempt to find those extra 50,000 people, the Government have again decided to backtrack by opening up training to all young unemployed, whether or not they have been unemployed for more than six months.
  There is a problem with that—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Yes, there is."] I am glad Labour Members admit that there is a problem. The interesting thing is that Labour Back Benchers do not seem to understand that the age limit has been set below 26 because of the minimum wage. It appears now that the Government will exempt all those under 26 from the minimum wage, so that they will not have to pay the extra sums that they know they cannot afford.
  The Secretary of State and her right hon. and hon. Friends have worked it out very carefully. Will the right hon. Lady let us know whether they will train people over 26 if they cannot find enough people to train as child carers, regardless of whether the exemption on the minimum wage stands for those under 26? Will she tell us that, either in her speech or in an intervention now?
  All right, fine. We will not get an answer on that.
  Mr. MacShane: Get on with it.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting—getting on with it is the simple process of

  31
  discovering from the Secretary of State exactly what her plans are. Not surprisingly, we will now move on to disabilities.
  Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way before leaving the subject. Is the problem not merely the number of people the Government have to find to take on child care, but the serious nature of the business of child care, which is not a matter for any frivolity? Carers must be of high quality and properly trained, and that will take a long time.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, we will have people trained for child care through the welfare-to-work programme who might have to be compelled into that process, but they might be looking after the children of those whom the right hon. Lady refuses to compel to go into work. That is a dichotomy: on the one hand, we will have people not compelled to take up jobs and, on the other hand, people being compelled to train to look after the first group's children. Child care is a serious subject and the Government are treating it with a great deal of frivolity.
  I have some serious questions to ask the right hon. Lady about disability benefits; I want to give her the opportunity to clarify one or two problems.
  First, there are some people with disabilities who have been awarded disability living allowance for life. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that life means life, and that she intends no change?
  Secondly, we hear that the Government are considering taxing disability living allowance. The Labour manifesto stated that there would be no new taxes; given the raid on pensions, who would now believe that? Where do these pledges leave people on disability living allowance? Do the Government plan to single them out, or does the right hon. Lady deny that such a proposal exists?
  On 17 November, the right hon. Lady answered a question at the Dispatch Box, saying that she and her colleagues had spoken to more than 40 organisations representing people with disabilities; yet on the "Link" programme on ITV yesterday, disability groups were adamant that they had not been approached, and they accused the Secretary of State of misleading the House of Commons. The programme had contacted 28 leading organisations, including the Royal National Institute for the Blind, all of which said that they had not been consulted or approached by the Secretary of State or the Department. Will the right hon. Lady take this chance to clear that up? Did she intentionally or otherwise mislead us during oral answers to questions or does she stand by her claim that she contacted these organisations?
  Benefits Agency staff have been making home visits to 150,000 people who receive disability living allowance at the higher rate in both care and mobility components. What training have those people had? These are all serious questions to which we demand serious answers, either from the right hon. Lady or at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Mike Hall rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am concluding.
  32
  The debate would not have been necessary if the right hon. Lady and her team had set about their brief in line with what the Prime Minister has said. In a rhetorical flourish, he told them to think the unthinkable; they would change welfare and engage in sweeping pension reform. The right hon. Lady and her team have not done that. They promised before the election not to cut lone parent benefit and the supplement on income support, yet they are doing just that.
  In everything that is going on we perceive delay, vacillation and policy U-turns. The cross-briefings and disputes between the people running the Department do not bode well for the biggest Department in government or for the Secretary of State's stewardship of it. Labour party members charged around when they were in opposition—many of them still think they are in opposition—promising Back Benchers and pressure groups to deliver on their most favoured programmes; a nod here and a wink there. It was not so much a case of a wet Wednesday in Dudley as of a United Kingdom programme of empty promises seven days a week.
  The Treasury seems determined to make spending cuts, while departmental Ministers are more worried about their jobs than anything else. They are so busy trying to extricate the knives from each other's backs that they have no time to think about where the next cut will fall.
  No wonder Labour Back Benchers have smelt a rat. Someone needs to take control of the Department before it descends into chaos. I urge the right hon. Lady to get a grip and to get these reviews moving, as she promised to do. She must also explain why she has reneged on her promise before the election not to cut benefits. She must get the Department focused.
  The Secretary of State says that no Green Paper is ready yet. The Minister for Welfare Reform has already published quite enough to form the basis of a Green Paper, but the right hon. Lady simply has not bothered. Instead, her Department is led by press release, cross-briefing and dispute. It is time she started to change—fast.
  4.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government for the progress that has already been made on reforming the welfare state to tackle social exclusion and welfare dependency; backs the Government's strategy of offering hope, opportunity and a better standard of living for people through its welfare to work programmes for lone parents, disabled people and those with long-standing illness, young unemployed people and the long-term unemployed, and the National Childcare Strategy, in contrast to the previous Government's approach of writing millions of people off to a life dependent on benefit; welcomes the Government's determination to ensure security in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners through the pensions review and the action the Government has already taken to get help to Britain's pensioners, particularly the poorest pensioners, by cutting VAT on fuel and through the £20 winter fuel payment to pensioner households and the £50 winter fuel payment to pensioner households on Income Support; and congratulates the Government for keeping its promises and delivering its manifesto commitments to the British people.".
  This debate has shown that the Tory Opposition have nothing to say about welfare reform, nothing to say about tackling worklessness and poverty, and nothing to say

  33
  about social exclusion or the problems of pensioners. However, the debate does allow Labour Members the opportunity to expose the full extent of the previous Government's legacy of failure, to set out the Government's approach to tackling that failure and to talk about the progress that we have already made.
  Reforming the welfare state to tackle poverty and welfare dependency is a priority of the Government. We are delivering on that commitment. There is a new deal for the young and long-term unemployed, and the biggest employment programme for 40 years. A new deal for lone parents is already up and running and transforming the lives of lone parents and their children. There is the first national child care strategy for Britain, with the biggest ever investment in out-of-school child care. There is a new programme to give extra help and opportunities to people who were written off by the previous Government as long-term sick and disabled. We are getting help to all Britain's pensioners, with extra help to the poorest. That is what we said before the election that we would do, and that is what we are doing, now that we are in government.
  Before I continue, I want to place the debate in context. The social security system that we inherited failed to tackle poverty. It trapped people on benefit and did nothing to help them into work. Under the previous Government, spending on social security rose to £100 billion a year—£25 billion more than the total amount of income tax collected in any one year.
  Despite that huge growth in welfare spending, during 18 years of Tory rule, more and more people were excluded from the main stream of society. The system was not working because it had failed to respond to social and economic change. The Tories got it wrong. Growing social exclusion—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who does not seem to know what it means—means adults deprived of work, children deprived of a decent education, whole communities cut off from their more prosperous neighbours, and a growing gap between rich and poor.
  Mr. Simon Burns: The Secretary of State said that the Tories got it wrong. If that is correct, why has she now decided to implement one of the policies which, according to her, the Tories got wrong—the cuts in lone-parent benefit, which the right hon. Lady constantly condemned at the time and said that she would not implement? Will she once and for all tell the House what has gone through her mind to make her change her policy, announced last winter, that she would not implement those cuts?
  Ms Harman: The Tories got it wrong on lone mothers, because their proposals left 1 million lone mothers bringing up 2 million children on income support, and offered no help or opportunities for them to work, despite a growing economy.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. Now will she answer the question? Why is she now implementing the cuts that we proposed, which she condemned as wrong?
  Ms Harman: I have answered the question. We said time and again that our approach to lone mothers would be to help them to work, so that they could be better off than they would ever be on benefit.
  34
  In a growing economy, increasing numbers of people were left behind. There are now 3.5 million households of working age in which no one works. A quarter of all children are growing up in families in which no one works, and the poorest pensioners are being left behind. Although one in eight pensioners are among the richest 20 per cent. of people in the country, a quarter are entitled to income support.
  Mr. Burns: Answer the question now.
  Ms Harman: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. We said that we would have a welfare-to-work approach to tackle the poverty of lone parents and their social exclusion and that of their children. The previous Government proposed no opportunities programmes for lone mothers.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ms Harman: I will not give way to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns); I have given way to him twice to answer the same question. I give way to his hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
  Mrs. Theresa May: Did the right hon. Lady have the opportunity this morning, as I did, to listen to the radio phone-in programme on welfare benefits? A single mother rang to say that, although the Government claim to be doing so much to get lone parents into work, if she were to take temporary work over the Christmas period to earn money to provide for her children, she would go back on to lone-parent benefit at the reduced rate. How would the right hon. Lady answer that lone parent?
  Ms Harman: We do not believe that the changes will be a disincentive to work for lone parents; if we did, we would not be introducing them. Our approach to lone parents is to help them to become better off, by working, than they could ever be on benefits.
  Mrs. Gorman: If what the right hon. Lady is saying is correct, why have more than 100 Labour Back Benchers signed an early-day motion and written letters privately condemning her policies?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Lady speaking out on behalf of Labour Back Benchers is a touching spectacle, but they are probably more than capable of speaking out for themselves.
  The British people have had enough of division. The general election showed that they were no longer prepared to put up with such a deeply divided society. They gave us a clear mandate to tackle social exclusion and to build a better one-nation society.
  Mr. John Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the latest published figures, in parts of my constituency the average gross household income, including all non-housing benefits, is—and I ask hon. Members to listen carefully—less than £3,000 a year? That is less than 60 quid a week to support

  35
  a household. Those people have been excluded and they are looking forward to my right hon. Friend and the new Labour Government giving them hope.
  Ms Harman: That is why the people in my hon. Friend's constituency will welcome our proposals for a minimum wage and a working families tax credit to make work pay.
  The British people gave us a mandate not just to tackle social exclusion, but on how to tackle it—not simply by adding to the benefits bill, which had been tried and had not worked, but by investing wisely in extending economic opportunity to all.
  We have two equal but quite distinct duties in government—a duty to invest in helping those who can work to do so, and a duty to focus help properly on those who cannot work. The key failure of social policy in recent years has been the failure to differentiate between those two groups. That has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people of working age being written off to a life of dependence on benefit, when the Government should have been helping them to work. Work is central to this Government's attack on social exclusion.
  Mr Rendel: The right hon. Lady said that she was hoping to focus benefits on those who were not able to get work. In what sense is the cut in lone-parent benefit focusing benefits on lone parents who cannot get work?
  Ms Harman: No lone parent currently in receipt of income support will have their benefit affected. However, there will be a welfare-to-work programme—and I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with us on this—because the best way to tackle poverty among lone parents and their families is to ensure that they are much better off in work than they could ever be on benefit.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the housing benefit system works in such a way as to lock people into unemployment. Why do we not take a far more imaginative approach and directly interfere in the free market for rents, thereby reducing housing benefit and saving hundreds of millions of pounds—far more than anything we could gain by the measures that she is considering?
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the housing benefit system locks people into dependence on benefit and deters people from working. I and Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have said that, in reviewing the social security system, we shall examine the role of housing benefit to ensure that the housing support system accords with our priorities: that people have every incentive to work and do not remain—as they were under the Tories for 18 years—trapped on benefit when they want to work and be independent.
  Mr Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend has missed my point. High rents mean high housing benefit and they exist in a free market for rents, which affects millions of people. Why do we not interfere there, thereby slashing the benefit bill in a major way, instead of concentrating our efforts on lone parents?
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend raises some interesting points, which we shall make part of our housing benefit
  36
  review. We shall go out of our way to discuss with him his constructive proposals, so that they can feed into our thorough and comprehensive review.
  Work is central to the Government's attack on social exclusion. Work is the way in which people provide for themselves and their children. It is how people set an example to their children.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the Conservatives were in government, all they did was to chastise and castigate lone parents? This Government are presenting them with real opportunities. Will she join me in congratulating the Cambridge benefits agency on being close to getting its 100th lone parent back into work?
  Ms Harman: I congratulate not only the Cambridge benefits agency, but my hon. Friend, who had a role in pioneering the ideas behind this programme of bringing together all the advice and information about jobs, training and child care, to enable lone parents to move off benefit and into work, where they can be better off.
  Mr. Julian Brazier rose—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Ms Harman: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a perfect world, the idea of getting everyone a job is sound? However, it is an imperfect world and it will always remain so, whether the Conservative or Labour party is in power. Welfare to work is a wonderful-sounding notion, yet in large parts of Britain, including my constituency, many people would like to get into work but cannot, and that will apply to lone parents as well.
  Another question has to be taken into account. Some lone parents want not to work, but to look after their children, and they should not be penalised because they take that honourable stance. The question is: where is all the work in this imperfect world, and why should people be penalised because they want to bring up their kids?
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a point about people in his constituency without work. The economy may be growing, but some people in my constituency and in his constituency are simply left behind. In my constituency, some young people do not have the proper skills and educational qualifications to allow them to apply for the jobs that are available. Some lone mothers do not have child care or help to enable them to take the jobs that are available, and there are people who have been made redundant in their late 40s and who think that no employer will ever look at them again because they have been written off.
  Our welfare-to-work programmes not only sound nice, but will transform the lives of people who were written off under the Conservative Government; for those people, the programmes will bring the dignity of work. Work is essential, helping people to provide for their children during their working years and to provide for themselves in retirement. Work by those who can helps to support those who cannot. Work is not just about earning a living. It is central to independence and self-respect.

  37
  We all have constituency experience of families with a spring in their step who have hope and the prospect of a better future, and of others with no hope and no prospects who are downcast. That is the difference between a family with work and a family without work. Work makes the difference between a decent standard of living and never-ending benefit dependency; the difference between a cohesive society and a divided one. That is why we are reforming the welfare state around the work ethic.
  We have put into place the biggest welfare programme ever in this country, tearing down the barriers to work, enabling people to realise their potential and thereby increasing the prosperity of society. We are investing more than £3 billion in a new deal for the young and the long-term unemployed.
  Too many of our young people have never had a job. They feel that they have been thrown on the scrap heap before they have begun. That was acceptable to the previous Government, but it is not acceptable to us. From April, every young person unemployed for more than six months will be given real opportunities, with worthwhile jobs and quality training.
  Too many people who lose their job and cannot find another feel that they will never work again. That was acceptable to the previous Government, but it is not acceptable to us. From next June, employers will be encouraged with a payment of £75 a week to take on someone who has been unemployed for more than two years.
  Our welfare-to-work programme recognises that the problem of worklessness that grew under the previous Government goes far beyond the official unemployment statistics. Too many lone mothers have been written off to a life of dependence on income support. We now have 1 million lone mothers bringing up 2 million children on benefit as a result of the previous Government's policies.
  Mr. Brazier: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I have given way about 15 times. I intend to press on with my speech. The hon. Gentleman should try again later, when I have made some progress. He might need the time to think up a sensible question.
  Lone mothers want to work for the same reasons as married women—for a better standard of living for their children. Lone mothers have even more reason to want to work—not just for the money, but to set an example to their children that life is about work, not just about being on benefit. Lone mothers who most need and want to work are less likely than married mothers to be working, because they are trapped on benefit. Our new' deal for lone parents is a radical programme that recognises and backs lone mothers' desire to work. It is already up and running in eight areas. It is based on the simple idea of giving lone parents whatever help they need to get into work. That help is offered when their youngest child starts school at five.
  What a contrast with the previous Government, who told lone parents to stay on benefit until their youngest child was 16. The previous Government then complained about the inevitable rise in the benefit bill and said that lone mothers posed a threat to society.
  Last week, we announced that the national roll-out of the new deal for lone parents would be brought forward to April 1998 for all lone parents making a new claim for
  38
  income support. In the eight pilot new deal areas, lone mothers with children under five have been asking for help from the programme, too. That is not surprising, when half the married women with children under five are working. That is why we have allocated an extra £25 million to our new deal—specifically for lone parents whose youngest child is under five—when it rolls out nationally next year.
  The new deal has been welcomed by lone mothers, and employers have been offering them jobs. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green can be dismissive about it, but it has transformed the lives of the lone parents whom it has already helped into work. One lone mother with four children, in Cardiff, who started work as a care assistant in September, wrote to us, saying:
  "It feels good to be back at work. I haven't had a proper job for 14 years and I wouldn't have had the confidence to go out and look if it wasn't for the New Deal."
  Of course, we are evaluating the programme. That was decided at the outset. We are spending the best part of £1 million on an evaluation between the eight pilot areas and six matching control areas, so the hon. Gentleman's point about a lack of evaluation is complete nonsense—like, unfortunately, so many of his other points. Does he welcome the help that we are giving to lone mothers, such as the one in Cardiff whom I mentioned? I shall give him the opportunity specifically to put it on the record. Does he back our new deal for work for lone parents?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Of course I back the efforts to help lone parents. The Secretary of State may recall that, when she came into government, there was already a programme to be set up in the same eight areas, called parent plus, which was started by the Conservative Government.
  Ms Harman rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No. The right hon. Lady asked me a question. She shall get the answer.
  The right hon. Lady has grafted her policy on to ours, but she lost one essential part. She dropped the control groups that were part of the pilot areas, because she was interested solely in the publicity and in trumpeting success. She does not know why many lone parents get jobs, because she does not study the results.
  Ms Harman: After 18 years of Conservative government, there was no programme for opportunities for lone mothers, only a programme of criticising them from the conference platform in Brighton and Blackpool. The hon. Gentleman is not able to listen to what I am telling him about the evaluation. We are having an evaluation, where we compare the eight pilot areas with six matching control areas.
  Of course, one of the biggest headaches for mothers who want to work is child care. We are taking action on that, too. We are implementing a three-part national child care strategy to meet parents' demands, which for so long have not been met: for accessible, affordable, high-quality child care.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Lady is talking about measuring the results. We visited the pilot areas in September. When officials were asked whether there were

  39
  control groups to measure the results, they knew absolutely nothing about it. They said that the control groups did not exist. Her Department cobbled them together in late September. That is the reality, because they were not there before. The right hon. Lady is misleading everybody.
  Ms Harman: I am not misleading the House. The hon. Gentleman is having difficulty understanding this. The local officials were collecting the information. There is an academic programme of evaluation. That is how it is done.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: It has been backdated.
  Ms Harman: It has not. It was implemented at the outset.
  As I said, we are implementing a three-part national child care strategy to meet parents' demands for accessible, affordable and high-quality child care.
  First is accessibility. In his statement to the House last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £300 million to extend out-of-school child care. That is another manifesto promise delivered. We shall extend out-of-school child care to every community in Britain. There will be an extra 30,000 out-of-school child care projects—up from only 3,500 at present. It will mean places for nearly a million children, so that child care will be available after school—possibly before school—and certainly in the school holidays and during in-service training days. We are making swift progress on our plans.
  No blueprint will be imposed by Whitehall. We shall build on what works best at local level, using the expertise and experience of the public, private and voluntary sectors.
  I wish to announce to the House that next month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I will be bringing together the key child care players in a joint conference to drive forward our work on the national child care strategy, which will build up to a further announcement in January. The conference will be chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) and by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security with responsibilities for women, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock).
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green implies that our massive investment in child care was dreamed up over a weekend. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Labour party's manifesto, in which we stated that we would have a national child care strategy starting with a network of out-of-school clubs partially funded by the lottery. There is nothing mysterious or even spontaneous about our approach. Our policy is what parents want, and it is what we are delivering.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ms Harman: No, I shall not give way.
  Secondly, there is affordability. We have already announced extra help for parents with the costs of child care through the £100 child care disregard in family
  40
  credit. There will be more help with the cost of child care through the working families tax credit, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in his pre-Budget statement last week.
  Thirdly, I move on to quality. We have always argued that the issue is not only about more places but about quality, and that means high-quality child care. We must ensure that there is the proper quality of child care.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Harman: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady, because it is clear that she is trying to speak up for the Government rather than the Opposition. I shall not give way to her while she seeks to play that role. Of course, the hon. Lady was never much in support of the Conservative party when it was in government. Perhaps she is following a familiar line.
  As part of ensuring that properly qualified staff are available as child care expands, we are investing £100 million to train 50,000 young people as nursery and play staff through our welfare-to-work programme, leading to qualifications as a play worker for the over-fives, or as a child care worker for the under-fives.
  Together, those measures constitute the biggest programme of investment in child care that this country has ever seen. Child care is no longer an afterthought in social policy, but it was not even that under the previous Government. The Labour Government understand that child care is central to economic policy and welfare to work.
  Mr. Webb: Will the Secretary of State clarify one aspect of her approach to lone parents with young children? This is a genuine question. I am not clear about the right hon. Lady's position. Does she think that it is a valid choice for lone parents with young children to stay at home to look after their children?
  Ms Harman: It is a choice that married women who are not trapped on benefit make. Half of married women with children under five work, which means that half of married women with children do not. Only a quarter of lone parents with children under five work. The difference in the participation rate in the labour market, between lone parents and their married counterparts with children of the same age, reflects the fact that the benefit system and the lack of child care preclude lone parents from making the choice. They do not have the choice of going to work. They can only stay at home and live on benefit. Our child care expansion and the welfare-to-work programme will, for the first time, give lone parents a choice. It is a choice that previously has never been open to them.
  Mr. Burns: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Harman: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked his question in a much more intelligent way than the hon. Gentleman ever could.
  It was not only lone parents whom the previous Government wrote off to a life of dependence on benefits. They also wrote off people claiming benefits for

  41
  long-term sickness and disability. Five million people identify themselves as sick or disabled, and more than 2 million of them work.
  There are those whose ill health or disability means that they will never be able to work. They need and deserve proper support and a decent standard of living from the welfare state. There are others who want to work, and with the right help they could do so. However, for too long they have been written off. We shall tackle the exclusion of sick and disabled people, give them the same opportunities enjoyed by other people and empower them to play a fuller role in society.
  To answer the questions of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, of course we are working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. We are listening to their views. Two weeks ago, we held a major seminar on welfare to work, which was attended by over 40 organisations that represent disabled people. They are playing a crucial role in shaping our approach. For the hon. Gentleman to pose as the friend of disabled people and disability organisations—
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Or anyone else.
  Ms Harman: Indeed, or anyone else—is breathtaking.
  Disabled people are denied opportunities and they face discrimination. We shall tackle that discrimination by taking action on civil rights and by establishing a disability rights commission, about which more will be said later.
  We shall help people into work. We shall develop a package of innovative measures to help people with disabilities and health problems to get work and to stay in work. We are investing £195 million from the windfall tax in our new deal for the long-term sick and disabled.
  I can announce today that we shall be inviting bids later this month to spend the money from the windfall tax. We shall award some contracts on a fast-track basis in late spring and the rest by early autumn.
  Extending opportunities to work is not only about ensuring that people can be financially independent during their working lives. It is also about ensuring that they have a decent standard of living when they retire. We all know that that means having a good second pension on top of the basic state pension.
  The previous Government failed both today's and tomorrow's pensioners. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made great play of our review of pensions, but we are proud of the way in which we are going about our consultation on pensions. The Conservative Government wrote "basic pension plus" on the back of an envelope only to ditch the scheme six months later. They failed both today's and tomorrow's pensioners. A quarter of today's pensioners have to rely on income support, and a further 1 million do not even claim the income support to which they are entitled. The problem is set to worsen for tomorrow's pensioners.
  Two thirds of people in work now have no opportunity to save for a second pension in their retirement. They do not have an occupational pension at work and private pensions are a poor deal for them if they are on low earnings, if they work part-time or if they move from job to job.
  42
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green cared much about the private pension industry's opportunities, but he never gave a thought to the people to whom I have referred. The Labour party's manifesto contained a promise to address the central areas of insecurity for pensioners. We said that we would give priority to the poorest pensioners, and we have already made progress. In July, I announced a fundamental and wide-ranging review of pension provision.
  One of the key challenges is to provide decent pensions for all. Last week, as part of the review, we published a consultation document on the detailed framework for stakeholder pensions. We are making progress. Stakeholder pensions are designed to provide good pensions for people who do not have an occupational pension and for whom private pensions are poor value for money. They will provide a portable pension that is safe, simple and a guarantee of a good deal. At the same time, we are tackling the scandal of the people who lost out because they were mis-sold a personal pension under the previous Government's policies.
  Our detailed proposals for stakeholder pensions will be published alongside our proposals for the long-term framework for the pensions review early next year. We have had 1,800 responses so far to our pensions review, and we are undertaking detailed consultation on the framework for stakeholder pensions. We want to build a consensus and to consult widely—not for us back-of an-envelope proposals for pensions. We want pension proposals that will last.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that many of the submissions have proposed that the state earnings-related pension scheme should be phased out or abolished. Would the right hon. Lady be happy to get rid of SERPS, regardless of what the manifesto said?
  Ms Harman: There is no such thing for this Government as "regardless of what the manifesto said". We are in government to implement our manifesto. People know that our manifesto said that SERPS would remain an option for those who wanted to remain in it—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: So the right hon. Lady will not abolish it?
  Ms Harman: We said in our manifesto that SERPS would remain an option for those who wanted to remain in it.
  We are getting help to today's pensioners now. We have already helped pensioners with their fuel bills, by cutting VAT on fuel and reducing the gas levy to zero. Last Tuesday, in his pre-Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that for this winter and next, every pensioner household would receive at least £20 to help with winter fuel bills. He announced that those on income support—almost 2 million of the poorest pensioner households—would receive an extra £50. The money will be paid in time to meet this winter's heating bills. Together with the cut in VAT on fuel and other changes, it means that the poorest pensioners will be

  43
  helped by up to £130 a year. That is making progress on our manifesto commitment to get help to the poorest pensioners, and we are doing more.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to intervene on the subject of pensioners, unless he explains whether he still believes that he was right to insist on voting for VAT on pensioners' gas and electricity bills. Will he include that point?
  Mr. Gill: I am pleased to answer the right hon. Lady on that very point. The Labour party made much of the fact that it reduced the level of VAT on fuel. Labour Members could not have done that without the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). It was the votes of Conservative Members that helped Labour to reduce VAT. No credit is due to the Labour party there.
  I hope that Labour will consider this question. What is the cost of the benefits that the right hon. Lady has just read out? It is a miserly £190 million out of the £5 billion that she filched from the pension funds.
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman talks about a "miserly" £190 million, but that is £190 million more to help with fuel bills than his Government ever gave. He voted against our reduction in VAT from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.
  We are doing more, apart from helping with fuel bills and cutting VAT. There are 1 million pensioners on an income so low that they are entitled to income support who do not claim it. My predecessor, the former Secretary of State, said that the reason why 1 million pensioners did not claim the income support to which they were entitled was that they could not be bothered and did not need the money. We do not believe that. We are determined that they should get the money to which they are entitled and we are taking action. We are setting up pilot projects to develop ways in which to get help to the poorest pensioners.
  Will the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green now admit that his Government were wrong to put VAT on fuel and to try to increase the rate to 17.5 per cent.? Does he back our £50 fuel payments for the poorest pensioners? Will he welcome our further measures to get help to the poorest pensioners? Pensioners want to know where he stands; in fact, he sits saying nothing.
  Our extra help for the elderly shows how this Government are meeting the people's priorities. After just six months, this Government have already taken important steps to deliver our manifesto commitment to tackle poverty and inequality. We are investing in opportunities to work for people who were written off by the previous Administration. We are taking action to get help to Britain's poorest pensioners. We are preparing the way to ensure security in retirement for tomorrow's pensioners. We are rebuilding a society in which all have a stake. That was our promise to the people of Britain and that is a promise we are keeping.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I apologise for arriving late for the debate; I was detained on constituency business.
  I became interested in the cause of the disabled as a result of having as my secretary in the House of Commons somebody who suffered from considerable disabilities. It was through her that I learned a great deal about the problems faced by disabled people. As a consequence, I had the opportunity to try to help people in my own constituency who suffered from disabilities. I have therefore taken a particular interest in the subject.
  In the past few weeks, as a result of press comments and discussions within disability organisations, there has developed a real concern that promises 30 CD79-PAGI made to people who are disabled and others who are vulnerable are simply not being kept. I found in my post this morning a letter from a constituent. He has given me permission to read out the letter, which is a copy of his letter to the Prime Minister. He writes:
  "As a Labour supporter for the whole of my adult life—I am now 66 years of age—I am quite frankly disgusted by the plans to `Crack-down' upon the disabled members of our community.
  I firmly believe that you have lost sight of the basic philosophy of Labour, that of caring…recent announcements of introducing taxation to Disability benefits have made me decide to write to you to protest most vehemently."
  The letter-writer, referring to his wife, then says:
  "Now, we read that she is likely to have her pitifully small benefit taxed."
  Those fears may or may not be justified, but those fears are out there because of a number of developments that have recently occurred.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when his Government introduced incapacity benefit in place of invalidity benefit they introduced tax on that key benefit for disabled people?
  Mr. Spring: I want to touch specifically on what is in the minds of people such as my constituents. I want to deal with the way in which the Government are handling the issue in light of their promises before the election. That is the issue at stake and the Under-Secretary of State, of all people, should know perfectly well that genuine anxiety is felt by many thousands of people who, as a result of the nods and winks by Labour when in opposition, now feel that they have been let down.
  There is no doubt that the future of the welfare state is a matter of immense complexity in this and other industrialised countries. As a result of demographic changes, all societies will have to address the problem. All of us who live in this era of aging population have to grapple with it.
  We all accept that reform of the welfare state is necessary. Before the general election, the Labour party clearly implied that that could be an easy exercise and that the great increase in spending on the welfare state arose from the level of unemployment. We all heard that from those who are now Ministers and from the then shadow Chancellor. People clearly felt, therefore, that, if unemployment came down—this was the linchpin of the whole thing—the most vulnerable and those in receipt of benefits would receive more help. That is a travesty of the

  45
  real complexity of the welfare state. That message is one of the reasons why so many of the disability organisations and so many in our society who feel vulnerable are writing letters like the one that I have just quoted.
  Unemployment has indeed fallen, more so in this country than in any other, but it has not meant that people in receipt of benefit are likely, as a result of the Government's actions, automatically to receive substantially more benefit. That was a deceit perpetrated deliberately ahead of the general election to fan people's excitement and sense of anticipation about what a Labour Government would do, but people now realise that it is not happening.
  Miss Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman talked about the fear and alarm felt by the disabled community, but it is Conservative Members who are fuelling the press reports. They do not know what is in the review—none of us on the Back Benches knows—but by emphasising cuts and taxation that may or may not be part of the review, the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Back Benchers are making the situation worse.
  Mr. Spring: With respect, it is Labour Back Benchers who feel affronted and who are talking to the press and appearing on radio and television to condemn the actions of Labour Front Benchers. The idea that it is Conservative Members who have created this situation is absurd.
  Mrs. Gorman: Is it not true that representatives of disability organisations appeared on radio and television at the weekend to express their concern, but that the Secretary of State had something better to do, even though she had arranged to appear? She should tell us what was so important that she could not face those people.
  Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We now know that, whenever Ministers are embarrassed, as over the formula one fiasco or the issue of benefit for single mothers, they are not willing to appear on television, despite supposedly being in favour of open government. That is precisely why there is so much anxiety among Labour Back Benchers and disability organisations.
  With respect, I have to tell the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that I have spoken to many individuals who work with disability organisations, and they certainly do not share her perception of the situation.
  Mr. Hope: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the attendance allowance should be abolished, as stated in the No Turning Back group's pamphlet on benefits?
  Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) rightly takes the view that there should be a considered overall reform of the welfare state, without the huffing and puffing that we had from the Labour party while it was in opposition. Before the election, the Secretary of State made the most savage attacks on the previous Government because she felt that that would ensure votes and support. In practice, people are now turning against her.
  I deal now with the consultation process. I asked the Secretary of State about meetings that she and her fellow Ministers had had with organisations representing
  46
  disabled people, and she mentioned the figure of 40. However, it is not only what happens at those meetings that matters, but the nature of the consultation process itself. If the right hon. Lady is going to make substantive changes to benefits, the disability organisations are rightly demanding that they are brought fully into the loop and consulted properly. It is one thing to have superficial meetings—I am simply quoting what has been said to me—but people do not feel that, at this apparently critical stage in the Secretary of State's thinking, they are being adequately consulted.
  The main problem is that the Labour party thinks that, if it disseminates a message in a certain way, the reality will slot into place. The Secretary of State make an extraordinary announcement about her new deal for lone parents. We were told that it was a considerable success and that the results were very encouraging, although 8,651 lone parents were interviewed and only 433 found work. There was no demonstrable evidence that they would not have found work anyway, but the right hon. Lady and her spin doctors put it out as a wonderful example of the welfare-to-work programme beginning to operate when in fact the success rate was only 5 per cent. If the right hon. Lady continues like this, her personal credibility and that of the Government will be undermined.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as it gives me the opportunity, through him, to ask the Secretary of State a question that many of us tried to ask during her speech. Does she have any evidence that even one person among that 5 per cent. who found work would not have found work in any case?
  Mr. Spring: Without proper control groups to make the comparisons, it is not possible to answer that question, but the spin doctoring nevertheless continued. It is to the Labour party's shame that it indulges in that practice.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman produce for the House the evidence that shows that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is right? There is none.
  Mr. Spring: The point is that control groups are needed to measure such things accurately.
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend talks about spin doctoring. Is he aware—I am sure he is—that the Secretary of State, in her infamous press release, failed to point out that, of the 8,600 or so people who were written to, almost 75 per cent. did not bother to reply? Of the 433 people who found work, the 13 in east Sheffield are in their 30s or late 30s—they had obviously wanted to stay at home until their children were of school age, then sought jobs and got them. It was the interviews on the "Today" programme.—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind all hon. Members that interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely correct: there is no absolute evidence to prove that, as a result of the right hon. Lady's manoeuvrings in this direction, one extra job has been created.

  47
  That leads me on to a matter on which the right hon. Lady touched when she was summing up. At the end of the day, a growing economy is absolutely crucial as it provides jobs, and the last thing it needs is an artificial barrier to job creation. The reason that there has been such a dramatic fall in this country, most notably this year in full-time unemployment, is that, in contrast with what happens elsewhere in Europe, we do not have policies like the minimum wage and elements of the social chapter.
  No matter how the welfare-to-work programme proceeds, we need a growing economy and job creation opportunities, but the reverse will occur if we introduce artificial creations such as the minimum wage and if other regulations come in via the back door of the social chapter. They will cause precisely the horrific mass unemployment that exists in continental Europe.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that many of our European partners have had what we have not had until now, namely a comprehensive child care strategy? Most women on the continent take for granted standards of child care provision that women in this country have long awaited and which we are now looking to a Labour Government to deliver.
  Mr. Spring: I remind the hon. Lady that unemployment in countries such as France and Germany is 12 or 13 per cent. What hope is there for young people entering the labour force when one quarter of people aged under 25 in France, one third of young people in Italy and about 40 per cent. of young people in Spain are unemployed? Such figures result directly from the imposition of artificial barriers to job creation, with which the Government intend to destroy employment.
  I turn to the other regrettable element of spinning. We had an exciting announcement of £300 million-plus for after-school clubs and child care clubs for lone parents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' I am glad that Labour Members and the Minister for Welfare Reform have something to cheer about. It must be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to sit next to the Secretary of State and look cheerful.
  Of the £300 million, £220 million was taken out of lottery funds. The whole point behind the founding of the lottery was to help art, heritage and sports. Now, the principle of additionality has been flouted. I forecast that this is the thin end of the wedge. Every time the Government want to put money into some scheme, they will find some way of raiding the lottery, to the disadvantage of all its beneficiaries, flouting the very principle on which the lottery was set up.
  I will quote from the Labour party manifesto, which as an historical document will increasingly be regarded as very different from what I suspect the Secretary of State imagines. I hope that she will listen very carefully. It says:
  "People are cynical about politics and distrustful of political promises. That is hardly surprising."
  After the Secretary of State's performance, the way in which the Government have conducted themselves, all the nods and winks and all the promises to the most vulnerable people in our society, I hope that she will take their concerns on board. Certainly, her Back Benchers are doing so.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Wills: The debate is of great interest to my constituency, especially to the 6,000 lone parents and 22,000 pensioners in Swindon, who overwhelmingly voted Labour on 1 May because they knew that a Labour Government would provide them with the opportunities denied to them by the previous Government.
  I do not know why the Conservatives tabled the motion. It seems to have no point whatever—apart from allowing a little gratuitous abuse and somehow suggesting that they are anxious about the plight of lone parents, that they support people with disabilities and are the protectors of pensioners. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that they did nothing to help any of those people during their 18 years in government.
  If we want to know what the Conservatives really think about the issues for which they have suddenly discovered concern, we should look not at the motion but at what the shadow Cabinet have written and said before today. I also have some quotations, which, with the House's indulgence, I shall read.
  This is the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expressing his understanding of the situation of lone parents:
  "The natural state should be the two-adult family."
  What, in his considered view, does that make lone parents?
  This is the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, who is no longer present, expressing in October his respect for all the hard work and love that most lone parents put into their families:
  "Single parent families are more likely to be caught up in crime."
  Really?
  This is the shadow Foreign Secretary's considered judgment on lone parents: single mothers often prove to be inadequate parents because
  "since the state is educating, housing and feeding their children, the nature of parental responsibility may seem less immediate."
  Earlier in the same speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government
  "must examine all our policies to ensure that we are reinforcing rather than weakening a sense of responsibility",
  so I assume that he is moving towards suggesting that the state should no longer educate, house and feed the children of single mothers.
  The Conservative party made some of the neediest and most vulnerable members of our society the target of cheap political jibes, appealing to the most graceless and mean-spirited instincts of a mean-spirited and graceless Government. In 18 years, the Conservatives did nothing to help lone parents, nothing to help those with disabilities and nothing to help pensioners. On the contrary, it was central to their political philosophy to exclude such people. The difference between the Conservatives and Labour is that this Government will provide new opportunities to those who need them most, and not take them away as the Conservatives did.
  Mr. Rendel: I can understand how providing people with the opportunity to work may raise their status, but will the hon. Gentleman explain how benefit cuts can do so?
  Mr. Wills: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient a little longer, I will come precisely to the state of the budget.

  49
  This Government will help people and give them new hope and new opportunities not by short-term patch-and-mend measures but by a transformation of the welfare state to ensure that it is relevant to the needs of people today.
  The welfare state that we inherited was created in the first half of the century for the circumstances of the first half of the century. As the House knows, it was built to help people through particular crises in their lives; recognising that they needed help when they were not able to work to provide for themselves; supplying free health care so that medical treatment could be received without plunging families into poverty from which they could not recover; providing benefit to tide families through periods when the breadwinner or breadwinners were out of work, without plunging them into debt from which they could not recover.
  Vital as those measures were—everyone in the Labour party remains proud of the part that our party played in putting those measures into practice—people did not and could not envisage the problems that this country faces today. Large numbers of our citizens are excluded from the rewards of mainstream society because they lack work and are given no hope of working. Nearly one household in five with someone of working age has no one in work. That is a damning indictment of 18 years of Conservative government. For many, unemployment is not a cyclical phenomenon which they suffer along with their neighbours in the hope and expectation that sooner or later they will work again: it is an inescapable blight which sets them apart from their neighbours and offers them no hope of a better future.
  Surely it is time for the welfare state to play its part in tackling those problems. The country should not take the short-term view that, somehow, we can just muddle through again. This Government will rebuild the welfare state around work, giving everyone the choice and opportunity of work. This Government will make the welfare state the opportunity state, giving everyone the opportunity to make real choices about their lives.
  Choice and opportunity are principles of which the Conservative party is supposed to be in favour. The difference between the Conservatives and us is that this Government believe in choice and opportunity for everyone and in making those choices and opportunities real—real for the lone parents who the Government will help find work, which will make them on average £50 a week better off than if they had remained on income support. That is no deceit, as has been suggested. That is a fact.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wills: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will not give way. I have had 18 years to listen to him; he should give me 10 minutes.
  We are going to make choice and opportunity real for lone parents who want to find work—part time or full time—and who want not just the extra income, which is important and precious to those living on the margins of society, but the sense of being reconnected to the world outside the home. They have been prevented from finding such reconnection by the lack of affordable child care. This Government are committed to providing affordable and accessible child care for everyone.
  50
  We will spend £300 million to provide after-school club places for up to 1 million children. That is 10 times more places than there are now. We will spend £25 million to provide the new deal for those who have children under five and want to take part. When we talk about opportunity and choice, we mean to make it possible for everyone. That is the difference between us and the Opposition.
  We will tackle the exclusion of people with disabilities by developing an approach that focuses on their abilities. The Government will spend £195 million to provide opportunities to work for those people. We will give them opportunities and choices. What did the Tory Government ever do to enhance opportunities and choices for disabled people? This Government will tackle the discrimination that so often denies opportunity to people with disabilities by establishing a disability rights commission. What did the Tory Government ever do to give teeth to measures to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities? They have no answer.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: We introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise that.
  Mr. Wills: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am afraid that she did not hear what I said. I asked what you ever did to give teeth to measures to protect people with disabilities and your answer said it all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used the words "you" and "your". The Deputy Speaker is not responsible for those matters. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but I should be grateful if he would try to use normal parliamentary language.
  Mr. Wills: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We have to recognise that placing work at the centre of the welfare state means setting priorities. That is the inescapable and inevitable task of government. The nub of the matter is that government means making hard choices, and that is what the Government have done. Within resources, which are inevitably and always restricted, we have made work—and the opportunities and choices that flow from it—our priority.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I am grateful to you—I mean to the hon. Gentleman—for giving way. Is it not true that the present Government will never get any policies through the House which require hard choices because his hon. Friends will not allow it?
  Mr. Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for making the same mistake as I did. I can only tell him to wait and see.
  Mr. Marsha Singh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole basis of the Tories' argument today is to ask us to break manifesto commitments? That is not surprising, because their history in government was to break promise after promise. They have forgotten how to keep manifesto commitments, but we have not.
  Mr. Wills: That is right, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Taking hard decisions and making hard choices is the mark

  51
  of a Government who are determined to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to make the most of themselves. That means that we must make commitments that are sustainable. We will not make the mistakes made by previous Governments and make promises that we cannot keep. There is little more cruel than holding out hope only to snatch it away. We shall not do that. We shall deliver on our promises, unlike the Conservative party.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he believes that failing 95 per cent. of the lone parents to whom letters were sent constitutes keeping promises to 100 per cent. of them?
  Mr. Wills: I fail to understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. What does he mean by failing? We have been in government six months and we have already done more than the Tories did in 18 years. The word failure comes ill from the hon. Gentleman's lips.
  To deliver on our promises, we have to keep public finances under rigorous control. We have to set clear priorities and ensure that public spending meets those priorities. That is what we said that we would do, and that is what we shall do. We shall ensure that our commitments to lone parents, people with disabilities and pensioners are sustainable throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and beyond.
  A Government taking necessary, hard decisions need no sanctimonious, self-righteous lectures from the Opposition, who did nothing for so long. Important as work is to our reforms of the welfare state, we must recognise that some people are no longer able to work. It is bad enough that the Opposition should pretend to be the friends of lone parents and people with disabilities, but even the Conservative party should blush at pretending to be the friend of pensioners.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wills: I will give way when I have made my point about the mis-selling of private personal pensions.
  Not only did the Tories create a situation in which so many people were so damaged by the mis-selling of private personal pensions, but they failed to do anything to put it right. The Tories abandoned the pensioners but now pretend to be concerned about them.
  The Labour Government are delivering on our promises to pensioners. We shall be judged by the outcome of our reviews on how we get help to the poorest pensioners. We shall be judged by the fact that we have cut value added tax on fuel to 5 per cent. and reduced the gas levy to nothing. We shall be judged by the fact that we have helped pensioners with their winter fuel payments. We will give £50 to 1.7 million pensioners on income support and £20 to 5 million other pensioners. We are also proud that the Government acted promptly and decisively to put right the scandal of the mis-selling of private pensions.
  Mr. Gibb: How does the hon. Gentleman consider it to be friendly to future pensioners to support a Government who, through tax, will take £5 billion of assets from private pension funds each and every year?
  Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the difference between a tax and a reform of the corporate tax system. If he would like to have the difference explained to him, I shall be happy to do so after the debate.
  52
  I have spent much of the past 20 years listening to the Tories talk about choice and opportunity, and I fail to understand why they oppose the measures that the Government are introducing to increase opportunity and choice for everybody. Are the Tories opposed to spending £300 million on implementing a national child care strategy? We do not know.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wills: If the hon. Gentleman will answer my question, I will give way to him.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such expenditure would be valid if it worked, but invalid if it did not? Does he further agree that the evidence of the 95 per cent. of people who did not succeed in getting a job after they received letters suggests that it did not work?
  Mr. Wills: I was under the impression when I gave way that the hon. Gentleman was about to answer my question rather than to ask me one. He obviously does not know whether he welcomes £300 million being spent on child care. Perhaps he can give us an answer when we next debate the subject.
  Do the Tories want to see child care facilities in every town, helping parents who would otherwise not have access to affordable child care? Do the Tories want to see measures to encourage lone parents back into work? Do the Tories support the payment of £50 to Britain's poorest pensioners to help with winter fuel bills? They do not know. That, in a nutshell, is the sum of their attitude to the neediest and most vulnerable members of our society.
  Why cannot the Tories, just once, welcome what the Government are doing? After all, the Labour Government are taking these steps within the spending limits set out by the previous Government. The Tories failed to take such measures. Why cannot they welcome the fact that we are now succeeding? We are providing genuine choices and opportunities within a rigorous, prudent and therefore sustainable financial framework. The truth is that the Opposition cannot and will not welcome any of that because their motion is no more than shoddy political opportunism, the worst sort of gesture politics. They are pretending that they have answers and concerns about the neediest and most vulnerable people in our society when they did nothing for them in 18 years.
  This Government offer the only sustainable and practical help for pensioners, people with disabilities and lone parents. I hope that the House will treat the motion as it deserves and vote it down.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful for the chance to participate in this debate, because it is clear that three different points of view on welfare and, in particular, the cuts in lone parent benefits are held in the House. One view is held by the Conservative party, another by the Government and a third by the Liberal Democrats and, I understand, rather more than half of the Government's Back Benchers. It is important that that third view should be heard and I look forward to stating it.
  Before I do, I must return to the speech made by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), on whom I intervened when he was complaining that the previous

  53
  conservative Government had reduced the status of lone parents. I agree that that is exactly what they did. I asked him in what way reducing benefits for lone parents would increase their status. He promised he would come back to the subject. I listened to the rest of his speech, but heard not a thing about it. If he would like to intervene, I would welcome the answer to that question.
  Mr. Wills: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I was saying. I made it clear that the Government had to set clear priorities for how they would spend a finite sum of money. They have made it clear—and I support them—that their priority must be work and the choices and opportunities that flow from it. I hope that that is clear. We have to help people back into work.
  The people who are already in receipt of benefits will not suffer any cash disadvantage, but will carry on just as they are. We are talking about the future and we must re-build the welfare state of the future around work. That is this Government's priority. We made it clear before and during the election, and we are now delivering on what we made clear then.
  Mr. Rendel: I am sorry to say that that gets us no further. I asked the hon. Gentleman in what sense reducing benefits for lone parents increases their status. He talked about all sorts of other priorities with which I may agree, or not, but they are irrelevant to the question. Does he think that that enhances the status of lone parents or not? Is he prepared to intervene again? I am happy to give way if he wants to answer.
  Mr. Wills: At risk of carrying on, I said that there will be no cuts for lone parents who are in receipt of those benefits. Before the election and just last week, I met lone parents on the most rundown estate in my constituency. The message is that they want child care more than anything else, both those who want to go into work and those who merely want some break from their existing burdens. That is the truth. That is what they want and that is what we are delivering. If the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting longer than speeches. The hon. Gentleman will please resume his seat.
  Mr. Rendel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear from that waffle that the hon. Gentleman does not have an answer to my question. It is also clear to every hon. Member that reducing benefits for lone parents will reduce their status. Perhaps 250,000 lone parents will not get the lone parent premiums next year. These will be the new claimants and their status will undoubtedly be reduced in exactly the same way as happened the previous Conservative Government. I hope that Labour will take that fact on board.
  I must refer briefly to the speech made by the Secretary of State: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady is not in her place to hear my response. Her speech was an inadequate answer to the worries of Labour Members, in particular, about lone parent benefit cuts. At the heart of her speech were several illogicalities, not least her failure to answer my intervention, when I asked in what sense she felt she was targeting the most needy by reducing benefits to lone parents. She claimed that she wanted to target the most needy as well as to provide work for lone parents; she
  54
  also wants to target those who do not get work, yet she is reducing their benefits. That is illogical, as anyone can see—it does not take a great genius to see it—but it was her argument in defence of her policies.
  Frankly, it was pathetic and inadequate—one of the weakest arguments I have heard from a Secretary of State in support of a policy that is admittedly pretty indefensible. I do not think that her speech will have convinced many of the Back Benchers who have shown their unhappiness with the way in which she has been pushing through the cuts.
  Liberal Democrat Members welcome help for job seekers and we welcome the fact that lone parents who want work are being given help to get it. We welcome too the availability of more child care. The problems that women experience because of the lack of child care are well known. We also welcome any help that can be given to enhance the possibilities for child care, as long as it is high-quality child care that avoids the dangers of child abuse that we have seen all too often. We welcome all that.
  Jacqui Smith: Bearing in mind the fact that the Liberal Democrats opposed the windfall levy that has raised much of the money that can now be put into welfare improvements, how can the hon. Gentleman justify demands for even more expenditure?
  Mr. Rendel: I am not justifying demands for more expenditure. The whole point is that, at present, the benefit cuts have not been made—they are in the Budget. There have been huge savings in benefit payments this year because of the unexpected fall in unemployment. The money is there if we want to spend it in that way.
  The Secretary of State missed the point, as did the hon. Member for North Swindon. The point is not what will happen to the women
  who are able to get work thanks to the policies that the Government are trying to implement and which we welcome, but what will happen to the others. There will always be a number of lone parents who, for good reasons, do not take up work—either they do not want to because they want to look after their children, or they cannot because they do not have the relevant skills or live somewhere that makes it difficult to get work.
  The Secretary of State said that she is worried that 50 per cent. of married mothers go out to work but only 25 per cent. of lone parents work. She said she wanted to raise that 25 per cent. to 50 per cent., on the assumption that lone mothers and fathers would want to work in the same proportion as married mothers. That is not necessarily the case. There is a good argument for saying that lone parents may believe that it is even more important for them to stay at home with their children since they are the lone parent and it is more important for their children to have someone at home the whole time.
  Even if work is as attractive to lone parents as it is to married mothers, given the Secretary of State's figures, 50 per cent. will still choose to stay at home and look after their children and it is those lone parents who will be bitterly affected by the Government's policies if they are allowed to go ahead.
  All the Secretary of State's arguments and those of the hon. Member for North Swindon about the importance of prioritising and getting people back to work miss the point

  55
  about those who do not go back. They have failed to answer that point and they will need to do so before 10 December if they are to get their Back Benchers back on board on this issue.
  The Secretary of State seemed to be using the old argument that attack is the best means of defence; that the best strategy is to attack the previous Tory Government for their mistakes—which some Conservatives have been good enough to admit, to some extent at least—but in so doing, the right hon. Lady failed to answer the pertinent points that my hon. Friends and I, as well as many Labour Back Benchers, have been making about the failures of her present policies.
  The motion seems to be in three parts. The first concentrates on pensions and welfare reform. We all accept that that is a long-term business—that is true of pensions by their very nature—so it is important to have consensus on how pensions reform, in particular, should be handled.
  I welcome the opportunity that all hon. Members have been given to join in the review. It is much more important to get it right now than to speed it through quickly and perhaps make mistakes. I do not accept the Tory view that we should rush it through as quickly as possible. We need to find an agreement that will give stability to pensions reform.
  The third part of the motion concerns disability benefits. Some worrying rumours have been circulating—even if some of them originate with Conservative Members, as was said earlier. The rumours suggest that the cuts in disability benefits may be much greater even than those for lone parents. If the Government cannot reassure us about their real plans in the debate today, which they have not so far done, I am sure that many people with disabilities will remain worried.
  In the Government's amendment, the only mention of people with disabilities is a passing reference to trying to help them get back into work. I would welcome any such help, but if that is all the Government intend to talk about it seems that they are not prepared to give the reassurances for people with disabilities that are being sought.
  It is ironic that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and his hon. Friends should express a new-found compassion for the disabled. It struck me as being like cannibals suddenly deciding that they are in favour of vegetarianism. The Conservative motion uses the word "inconceivable". It seems pretty inconceivable that the Tories have had a Damascene conversion to caring for the needs of the disabled, which certainly did not concern them when they were in power. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to reassure people that disability benefits are safe in Labour hands.
  The second part of the Conservative motion concerns lone-parent benefits. It is odd that the Conservatives do not congratulate the Government on their U-turn, which picks up the very policies that the previous Government wanted to implement. The shadow Secretary of State has told us with commendable honesty that he would have implemented those policies had his party remained in power. The Labour Government are implementing Tory policies.
  56
  The sad fact about the Tory attack is that they forced the Government to defend the U-turn rather than the policy itself. The excuse offered by the Secretary of State and others for the U-turn is that they are providing help to get lone parents back into work, but Government figures show that in practice they do not expect any more lone parents to be back in work next year than this year. Presumably, then, they are not expecting their policies to be all that successful.
  Lone parents are being sacrificed to save Labour's reputation for keeping its promises; but the Government will not even succeed in that, because, to keep the promise that they will stick rigidly to Tory spending plans, they have had to break the promise that they would revoke the benefit cuts. Lone parents are being sacrificed for nothing.
  There is no need for the Government to break their promise to reverse the cuts because there have been considerable cuts in spending on benefits this year as a result of the unexpectedly large fall in unemployment and money is available within the benefits budget. It is true that the Government could not stick rigidly to every part of the Tory spending plans, but they could certainly stick to the overall budget without implementing the cuts.
  The Government are playing the welfare-to-work line hard and saying what an excellent policy it is. Benefit cuts for lone parents are in themselves a disincentive to getting work: partly because lone parents will not gain so much by getting work once the cuts have been made; partly because those who receive the premiums have to take an additional risk if they accept a job now, because if they lose the job and go back on benefits they will have lost their premiums. The cuts make it more unlikely that lone parents will go back to work: the precise opposite of the whole basis of the welfare-to-work policy.
  Mr. Letwin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to say that, according to the Government's own recent production, "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System", 26 per cent. of those interviewed mentioned the issue of jobs being temporary, and 23 per cent. mentioned worries about reclaiming benefit after a short period of work, as reasons for not taking work.
  Mr. Rendel: I was not about to cite those statistics, but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has.
  It is clear from Government statistics, as was clearly explained in the Standing Committee on the Social Security Bill, that lone parents—not all, but the majority —are among the poorest members of our community; most of them are below the poverty line. Some may go back to work and thereby become better off, but many will not; even the Secretary of State has accepted that probably 50 per cent. will not. All those very poor people will be made even poorer by the Labour Government. Not all that many people who voted Labour in May thought that they were voting to make poor people even poorer.
  In November 1996, the Secretary of State, then in opposition, said:
  "Lone Parent Premium recognises that lone parents face additional costs in bringing up their children-they do not have a partner's time or income to help with children".
  That is right. They are already extremely poor.

  57
  It seems to me that the Labour Government are falling into the age-old Tory trap of thinking that the way to get poor people to work is to make them even poorer while the way to get rich people to work is to make them richer. I do not believe that both assertions can be true at the same time.
  The right hon. Lady continued:
  "The way to get lone mothers out of poverty and cut spending on benefits for them is not by cutting the amount on which they have to live year by year and plunging them into further poverty."
  She then said that the proposals of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) would make
  "hundreds of thousands of the poorest children worse off."—[Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 500–1.]
  Elsewhere, the right hon. Lady said:
  "Since one parent benefit is not taxed, it helped to bridge the gap between welfare and work. Its abolition will make working lone mothers worse off and will discourage work amongst this group".
  Again the Secretary of State's own words prove the fallacies in her current policies.
  Mr. Webb: I reassure my hon. Friend that it is not just the Secretary of State who holds such views. Is he aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), said before the election that the abolition of one-parent benefit would be directly contrary to a rational welfare-to-work strategy?
  Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that he agrees that, quite apart from the two people we have mentioned, many others on the Government Front Bench and Labour Back Benches have made similar statements in the past.
  In their amendment, the Government congratulate themselves on their welfare reform. I should like to mention another aspect of their reforms—their refusal to allow the backdating of benefit claims for more than one month. The Conservative Government accepted that there should be no backdating beyond three months, but the Labour Government have gone further and done something that is even harsher than what the Conservatives introduced.
  It is not a question of the Labour Government fulfilling promises to stick to Tory budgets or spending plans—they are going further and making life even harder for those who are least well off. Their policy will hit the worst-off members of our community. It seems that the Labour party—new Labour, the new Tory convert—is shouting, "Whatever you can do that's cruel, we can do something even crueller." I do not believe that that is what it was elected to do.
  The Labour Government believe that there should be no backdating beyond one month and that there is no excuse for late claims, not even when a claimant has good cause—such as being widowed, by which they may be extremely traumatised. Such good causes will be swept away by new Labour in an apparent bid to outdo, not just maintain the same strategies as, its Tory teachers. It is a tragedy that in the playground game that is being fought out over who can be toughest, those in need are suffering every day the Government continue in office.
  I urge Labour party members, not just those in the House but those outside it, to think about why they joined the Labour party. It was not, I suggest, to introduce
  58
  Conservative spending plans and Conservative social policy. Of that I am sure. I ask those in the Government who still have the courage of their convictions and who share our disgust at the Government's handling of social security to vote with the Liberal Democrats against the Government's benefit cuts.
  5.52 pm
  Caroline Flint: I am very interested in what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said, but I do not need to take lessons from the Liberal party, which voted against the windfall levy and therefore would have put a stop to the new deal programme. It takes some brass neck for Conservative Opposition spokespersons to attack new Labour's strategies to tackle the reform of the welfare state after the disaster that they left after 18 years of Tory mismanagement and lack of imagination.
  Before I outline why we need a new direction and vision for welfare reform, we should remind ourselves—it is important to continue to do so during the debate—what the Conservatives contributed to the welfare system when they were in government. While the Conservatives were in government, taxpayers picked up the bill for mass dependency on benefit, persistent unemployment, huge subsidies for low pay and widespread fraud. It was truly a nation on benefit.
  Under the Conservatives, overall benefit expenditure rose by £40 billion in real terms. The proportion of the Department of Social Security budget spent on means-tested benefits more than doubled from 17 per cent. to 36 per cent. The number of people dependent on such benefits doubled from one in 12 of the population to one in six. The proportion of total public spending accounted for by the DSS went up from one fifth to one third.
  What was there to show for all the increases in social security expenditure? Did more people move from welfare into work? No. One fifth of all households had no one earning a wage. Was there a reduction in benefit fraud? No. Up to £2 billion was being lost every year through housing benefit fraud alone, while expenditure on housing benefit doubled in five years. Were there any increases in the basic rate of pay among the low-paid? No. Under the Conservatives, low pay cost the taxpayer almost £4 billion annually in benefits to top up income—the equivalent of 2p on the basic rate of income tax.
  Did Conservative policies lift more people out of poverty? No. The bottom 10th of the population were 13 per cent. worse off in absolute terms and the proportion of households living in poverty more than trebled from one in 14 to one in four. As the climate of insecurity and social failure moved on apace, so Britain's crime industry had its boom years under the Conservatives.
  What was the great pensions achievement of the Conservative years? Pensions mis-selling soared to new heights, which damaged living standards—and it was left to the new Labour Government to rectify a problem that they should never have inherited. Let us be very clear: the Tories' record increase in social security spending was not an explosion of generosity: it was purely the cost of social failure.
  Under the Conservatives, secure employment was undermined; traditional industries were savaged; the unemployed were blamed and lone parents were made the scapegoats; there was under-investment in young

  59
  people; and people were removed from the unemployment register and put on disability benefits, thereby consigning them to a workless life. I remind the House that I have direct experience of the previous Government's policies and how they affected people working for Remploy, the Government's sheltered employment scheme for disabled people. I know only too well that compulsory competitive tendering had a huge effect on the employment of people with disabilities in that sector, so forgive me if I decline to take a tutorial in compassion from Conservative Members.
  I shall now consider some principles on which we should all agree. First, parents are financially responsible for their children. That principle has been recognised whenever the House has discussed child support legislation. It would have even wider support if the operation of the Child Support Agency was seen to be fair and efficient. I am pleased that my hon. Friends have pledged to tackle that problem through a widespread review.
  Secondly, the best form of welfare, and the one preferred by the great majority of people, is work. That principle has only been undermined by the inability of the Conservative party to reform the tax and benefits system to remove poverty traps and to ensure that work pays. Finally, the welfare system must help people through hard times and, where possible, help them support themselves independently once more. It should help people to contribute to and prosper in their retirement, so reaping the benefit of a lifetime in work. Let us not forget that our benefit system was created to help people through short-term hardship. It was only the Conservatives' lack of vision that consigned people to a lifetime of dependency.
  Mr. Gibb: How does the hon. Lady envisage the abolition of tax credits for dividends paid to pension funds, which will extract £5 billion a year from our nation's private sector pension funds, helping people to enjoy their retirement?
  Caroline Flint: I believe that that fiscal reform helps to reform the corporate tax system. We are setting out to ensure that the many people with private and personal pensions are protected by safeguards that guarantee that their pensions are in the hands of those who will invest them wisely. That will sit nicely alongside a number of reviews that will take the pension arrangements for everyone into the 21st century.
  I am proud that new Labour is beginning to prioritise work over welfare and opportunity over waste. I am proud that we will give effect to our principles in the face of enormous social change. This Government will face up to the growing number of women who need and want to work, to the changing nature of family life and to the consequences of family breakdown. There are few jobs for life, and the tax and benefits system must meet the challenge of changing work patterns and frequent movements from job to job.
  I have heard Opposition Members suggest that the Government should be embarrassed that we opposed Conservative benefit cuts in opposition, but are accepting them now we are in government. That taunt is nothing but
  60
  hypocrisy of the highest order. As the previous Government offered nothing to lone parents—no job opportunities, no help, no new deal—but just blamed them for society's problems, it is quite right that they should now stand charged by Labour as offering nothing but increased child poverty.
  If the Conservative Government had offered active support for lone parents, if they had offered a national minimum wage, if they had offered a new deal financed from a windfall levy, if they had offered a national child care strategy, they may have deserved Labour support, but Britain's lone parents and their children have had to wait too long for a Labour Government who will begin to support them in overcoming the obstacles to work and help them to do better for their families.
  New Labour never said that social security cuts would be restored. In the past few days I have made it my business to check all the daily briefs that I received when I was a candidate, as well as our policy handbook and guide, and none of them contained that commitment. It was not contained in the manifesto on which our candidates fought and won the general election. Our pledge was to stay within spending limits rather than raise income tax and to begin a thorough reform of the welfare state.
  I should remind hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that we should have restored the cuts that a long line of people who come to my surgeries saw their living standards cut during the Tory years and would like help today if the public purse were deep enough. What we offered the public was to use the country's taxes better. We promised lone parents new pathways to work, a national child care strategy, better training and a proactive employment service. There have been many comments today—
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Caroline Flint: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is rising to say something.
  There have been many comments today about our pilot schemes and how succesful or otherwise they have been. As one who has been working hard on the new deal this summer, I know that we are fighting against a backlog of cynicism and mistrust because our employment services have not been used effectively over the past 18 years. It is therefore no wonder that there may be a slow move forward, but it is important that the people who have come forward have gained something from the service. I am confident that they will spread the word to other people who have yet to come forward.
  Mr. Letwin: As the hon. Lady develops her interesting line of argument, will she explain how the imposition of a national minimum wage, which will exclude from work some of the lone parents of whom she talks by pricing them out of it, will assist them?
  Caroline Flint: There is no evidence that a national minimum wage, which will be set at a reasonable rate by the Low Pay Commission, will put people out of work. Conservatives argued that equal pay legislation would lead to women not taking up jobs, but that did not come to pass. As has been recognised by employers, the national minimum wage will raise the floor on wages so that

  61
  employers can be seen to offer a decent wage for a decent job. During the general election campaign, many employers, from both small and medium businesses, told me that they wanted to offer a decent wage, but were being undercut by other employers who thought that, if they provided poverty pay so that the Government could bail them out with family credit, that would be a nice little earner. We have moved on from that discussion.
  Mr. Letwin: In the light of that interesting answer, will the hon. Lady explain the Deputy Prime Minister's views on the matter?
  Caroline Flint: The Deputy Prime Minister supports my policy and I am sure that he will be able to answer any question that the hon. Gentleman may like to put. I am here to represent Back Benchers today—I might like to represent the Front Bench in the near future.
  I believe strongly that the new Government deserve support and praise for their Budget to reform tax and benefits, their policy to reduce taxation for those on the lowest incomes and the proposed national minimum wage. Those measures will make a difference.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that some of the jobs on offer to lone parents are not very attractive. Many people, particularly when they return to the job market after a long break, do not move into jobs that are the best paid, the most satisfactory or the most in keeping with their skills or experience. Many of my constituents do jobs that few in this House or, dare I say it, in the Press Gallery have experienced. They work for the sake of their families. In work, even lone parents will be, on average, £50 a week better off. Once in work, their chances of moving to better paid or more satisfying jobs, to find work with more suitable hours or to have training, will improve dramatically.
  Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the £50 figure that has been supplied to her is based on a sample of lone parents who are already working, not those who are not working? By definition, it was worth those lone parents' while working; if that were not true, they would not have had those jobs in the first place. As a group, they have, on average, lower child care costs and higher maintenance costs than other lone parents. Can the hon. Lady confirm that a lone parent who is currently unwaged would not, on average, receive £50 a week?
  Caroline Flint: That is why we need a national minimum wage. It would seem strange to promote a policy that suggests that someone should not be better off in work than on benefit.
  Others have argued that in lone parent families it is detrimental to the child's welfare for the only parent to move into work, but the evidence is clear: when asked, lone parents place child care at the top of their list of demands. They do so because they know that, with work, comes a better standard of living than would ever be provided on benefits, now or in the future. The feeling of self-worth that comes with work not only benefits the mother, but provides a role model for the child.
  As we move into the next century, today's and tomorrow's lone parents have better prospects of a decent quality of life than they would ever have had under a Tory Government. In four years' time, this Government will
  62
  stand judged by their record of support for lone parents, by the impact of the new deal and by the revolution that we shall see in the working of our social security system. I have every faith that the new Labour Government will pass that test.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I am looking forward to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) joining the Government Front Bench, as is her wish. I believe that there will be a vacancy there shortly.
  The Prime Minister has said:
  "A strong society cannot be built on soft choices. It means fundamental reform of our welfare state, of the deal between citizen and society."
  The Secretary of State's speech gave no sign of any such fundamental reform. It was an inadequate speech, designed to save her from the claws of many of her Back Benchers, but it failed to achieve even that. The Government will be unable to pass through the House any significant welfare reform because of the views of their Back Benchers.
  The Government's welfare policy and welfare reforms have become all spin and hype and no substance. One such example involves the Taylor review of the merger—the integration—of tax and benefits. When that review was announced back in June, the press lauded it. The Times of 19 June stated:
  "The commission, established under Martin Taylor by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, to look at reforming tax and benefits, may well examine the integration of tax and NIC."
  The Sunday Times of 18 May stated:
  "The aim will be to save billions in administration costs, cut down on people simultaneously paying tax with one hand and receiving benefits in the other…Tony Blair has agreed that Brown should `consider all options' for reform, including ultimately merging the separate tax and benefit operations into a new streamlined system."
  The Financial Times of 20 May stated:
  "Mr. Taylor's appointment was welcomed by business, with tax experts predicting that the Barclays chief could recommend radical reform, including full-scale merger of the tax and benefit systems.
  Mr. Taylor did little to dampen expectations".
  Are the Government proposing the full-scale merger of the tax and benefit systems? Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister of State could respond to that point at the end of the debate.
  On 20 May the Financial Times stated:
  "As head of the government's taskforce, his job"—
  Mr. Taylor's—
  "appears 'almost infinite in scope'".
  In reality, the review will be minuscule in scope. The truth is that the merging of the tax and benefits systems is an extremely difficult proposition and already signs are emerging that the Government are back-tracking on those over-hyped optimistic hopes about what would emerge from the Taylor review.
  The 1986 social security reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), did a great deal to smooth the passage from benefits into tax and removed almost all the marginal withdrawal rates in excess of 100 per cent. However, to go further than that and to attempt to integrate the tax and benefits systems is a huge task and

  63
  the Chancellor was wrong to announce the review in the way that he did. Patrick Minford says that to have a smooth transition from benefit into tax, one needs a personal allowance of about £10,000. Such a personal allowance would require a rise in income tax of about lop in the pound, enormously increasing marginal tax rates in this country.
  Earlier this year, Chris Kelly, the head of policy at the Department of Social Security, told the Select Committee on Social Security:
  "it is quite important to realise that the fact there are two systems is not an accident. It is because it reflects the fact that they are pursuing different objectives to some extent".
  Even Chris Kelly accepts that the two systems are totally incompatible: the benefits system requires detailed information about individuals' expenditure and needs, but the tax system requires little information—only details of income. The benefits system is measured on a weekly basis, whereas the tax system is assessed annually. The benefits system looks at families as a whole, whereas the tax system looks at individuals' income. How can the two systems be merged?
  In the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) asked Chris Kelly:
  "Is the option of a full integration"—
  of the tax and benefits systems—
  "being considered seriously by the Taylor Committee?"
  The answer from the head of the DSS policy group was
  "A complete integration, no."
  Contrast that answer with all the hype surrounding the announcement of the Taylor review back in May. The Government have announced review after review, but no real policy initiatives.
  Mr. Letwin: In the course of his speech, has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister of State—until leaving the Chamber—was saying "Hear, hear" from a sedentary position and appearing to agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend's views?
  Mr. Gibb: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It is true that there are members of the Government who would like to see a fundamental review of the tax and benefits system and radical reforms emanating from the Government, but the fact is that the Government are beginning to recognise that they will not get any radical reforms through the House because of Labour Back Benchers.
  The report that came out with the green Budget last week, "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System", contained 44 pages of nothing new. All the report does is repeat the usual mantras of stability, flexible labour markets, education and welfare to work—all of which are important points, but we have heard them before. Only on page 43 of the report are Taylor and his review even mentioned. It is all hype and no reality. Even last Tuesday, the Chancellor was still hyping the report, saying:
  "We have concluded that, to help people move from benefits to wages, nothing less than a comprehensive tax and benefit reform and the modernisation of the welfare state are now required."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997: Vol. 301, c. 776.]
  64
  That is not what Chris Kelly thinks; nor is it the impression given by the documents.
  There was hope in some quarters that the Government might be able to achieve some of the harder, more difficult, reforms that Conservative Governments had been unable to implement; but the reality is that nothing like that will happen because the Government cannot and will not be able to get their policy through the House.
  If the Government cave in on the lone parent premium, or if they delay its abolition by a few months, it will be clear to the House and to the country that the Government are incapable of tackling the problems that they say they are intent on tackling, simply because their Back Benchers will not let them. They will be a lame duck Government in respect of welfare reform and the Secretary of State will be a lame duck Minister. They will trumpet and hype success, but the reality will be failure and inaction—failure in their new deal for lone parents.
  Mr. Letwin: Would my hon. Friend care to join me in a speculative inquiry into whether being a lame duck is better or worse than being a drowning duck?
  Mr. Gibb: I shall leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions on that question.
  Policies on the lone parent premium and the new deal have failed, with only one in 20 people responding to the letters. The Government have failed in their over-hyped policy to integrate tax and benefits and their proposed working families tax credit. After seven months in office, the Government have achieved nothing in welfare reform—it is all hype and no policy. With Labour Back Benchers beginning to emerge, Rip Van Winkle-like, from their deep slumber, it is highly unlikely that the Government will achieve anything in future.
  6.15 pm
  Jacqui Smith: I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members can contribute to the debate.
  When I saw that the Opposition had decided on a debate on welfare reform, pensions and disability, I asked myself what possible reason there might be for the Conservative party doing that. I thought that it might be so that Conservative Members could come to the House and apologise for the mess in which they left the country. Perhaps they wanted to apologise for the doubling of the number of those on means-tested benefits from one in 12 to one in six. Perhaps they wanted to apologise for the fact that now one in five households are workless. Perhaps they wanted to apologise for the fact that inequality has increased faster in this country than in any other major industrialised country. Perhaps they wanted to apologise for their failure to reform a complicated and slow system of benefits that encourages dependency, not work, and that traps people—
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No, I will not take an intervention from the hon. Lady, because she has only just turned up and I am short of time.
  I thought that perhaps Conservative Members wanted to apologise for their fundamental failure to get to grips with the pension system that they implemented during

  65
  their 18 years in government, but that left current and future pensioners insecure. Perhaps they intended to come and apologise for imposing value added tax on fuel and thereby making many pensioners fear that they could not afford to pay their bills.
  Perhaps they intended to apologise for having significantly failed to introduce comprehensive disability rights legislation and for having assumed consistently throughout their period in government that those with disabilities could not and did not want to work. Perhaps they intended to apologise for the fact that there are now 1 million lone parents supporting 2 million children on income support; and for the fact that the Conservative Government stigmatised those lone parents and stranded them on benefits that can never be the long-term alternative to the higher incomes that those lone parents want. However, as we have discovered today, the Opposition do not intend to apologise for any of the mess in which they left the country.
  When thinking about the problems to be debated, I went back to my casework and looked at the examples that have come up in my constituency over the past seven months. I was looking for some idea of the problems that people face and the solutions that the Government can implement. The first point I recognised was that no problem is solely about benefits—we cannot think of anybody as being simply a benefits claimant. All the difficulties faced by those on benefits stem from a variety of causes and it is crucial that the Government adopt a multi-departmental approach to tackling those difficulties.
  That is why I welcome the introduction of the social exclusion unit and the way in which it will work through several Departments to solve problems.
  One such problem relates to young unemployed people in my constituency. There is the young unemployed man who cannot get a job because he lacks the reading and writing skills necessary for a job. He is also trapped in inadequate housing on housing benefit. I appreciate what the Government have already done in terms of the new deal, which has been enthusiastically received by the Employment Service in Worcestershire, which in turn is grateful for the opportunity to put people back to work instead of having to act as benefits police—as the service did under the former Government.
  I also welcome the education White Paper, because it will tackle educational under-achievement. Welcome, too, is the release of capital receipts which will begin to solve the difficulties with housing encountered by so many people.
  One unemployed man who came to see me said that he could not afford to take a job for £3 an hour because he would lose too much benefit to make that worth doing. The only way to solve that is to get rid of the benefit and tax traps by introducing a minimum wage and—dare I suggest it?—by looking to introduce a lop starting rate of tax, so as to get away from the punitive marginal rates of tax that such people face.
  Mr. Webb rose—
  Jacqui Smith: No, I am short of time.
  Then there is the lone parent who wants to work but who cannot because the CSA has unsuccessfully chased up the absent parent for support. This lone parent cannot receive the child care that she needs or get the training
  66
  that she wants. But the Government have clearly shown their commitment to helping such lone parents, through their review of the Child Support Agency and through the extra money that they have put into child care and training.
  It is obvious that there is a great deal of work to be done still, and in a variety of Departments. It is, however, politically opportunistic of the Opposition to suggest all of a sudden that they have the answers and that they are compassionate. As we have seen today, they have no answers; they simply want to make cheap party political points at the expense of the unemployed, the lone parents, the pensioners and the disabled in my constituency. It is the current Government who are providing the answers and whom I trust to give these people hope for the future.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: The essence of this debate can be rapidly summed up. There are many Conservatives who welcomed the radicalism with which we believed the Government were entering on these matters, and who whole-heartedly accepted the good intent behind much that the Government are trying to do. Probably all of us welcome the idea of people moving back into work—of people moving off welfare—and the idea of finding suitable long-term pension arrangements. These are all common aims in our parties.
  The question we are debating today, however, is whether the programme that the Government have so far brought before the public shows the least sign of achieving any of these admirable aims; or whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) suggested, it is all a mess and a muddle.
  We have heard much from Labour today about the problems that they attribute to the previous Government, but little in defence of the progress that they ought to believe has so far been made by this Government. There are essentially two strands in the present Government's efforts: one relates to non-contributory and income-related benefits, the other to pensions.
  In relation to the first class, there has been a devastatingly accurate critique of the Government's efforts to move lone parents back into work—efforts on which the whole of the rest of their arguments depend. That critique was not made by an opportunistic Conservative Member; it was not made with any political intent. It was made out of deep conviction and real knowledge by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on the basis of her real understanding of the problems that her constituents face in moving back to work.
  It is no answer to the hon. Lady's critique to talk about out-of-school child care, because, as she pointed out devastatingly enough, it is often the period outside school terms that causes the problem. It is no answer to talk about the amount of child care on offer because, as she pointed out devastatingly enough, in many of our inner cities the costs of child care far exceed the money on offer. It is no surprise to Conservative Members to find that the evidence so far available to the British public about how well the lone parent welfare-to-work system is working shows that it is not working. Ninety-five per cent. of those to whom letters were written have not found a job, and there is not a shred of evidence that the 5 per cent. who have would not have found one in any case.

  67
  I should like to turn briefly to pensions, where a great opportunity has surely been sadly missed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) introduced, shortly before the election, proposals that would have led to the long-term funding of the basic state pension.
  In place of that, after several months of this Government, we have so far had a set of 65 questions about a so-called stakeholder pension, none of whose details have been developed. Nor is there the least sign of how those stakeholder pensions will be developed in a way that exceeds the expectations that people legitimately hold of the private sector pension schemes which already provide people in Britain with £750 billion-worth of private pensions.
  In short, there is no funding of the state pension, and no alternate system sketched in sufficient detail to be worthy of the name "system". What there has been in its place is a raid on private sector pensions and a pushing of vast numbers of people back into the unfunded SERPS scheme, which the Government now tell us they intend to keep.
  So whether it concerns the move from welfare to work and lone parents, or income-related and non-contributory benefits, or pensions, the Government's sole achievement has been to move a large proportion of the population back into unfunded state pensions, thereby wholly missing the opportunity to save this country from a future liability that it will not be able to bear. Wonderful though the Government's ambitions may be, the reality of their programme to date has been mess and muddle, nothing more.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Andy King: I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life as I have listened to for the past three hours from those hypocrites opposite me—
  Mr. Burns: Withdraw!
  Mr. King: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not unparliamentary language. Indeed, I am only quoting a previous Conservative Prime Minister, who referred to you as "organised hypocrisy". That is what we have witnessed this afternoon again. It is what we witnessed time and again when you were in power during the past 18 years. You did nothing for disabled people or for lone parents; you certainly did nothing for pensioners. Over the past six months, however, the nation has been asked to believe in a Damascene conversion of your party: you are now the friends of the pensioner and of the lone parent—
  Hon. Members: You?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  Mr. King: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not addressing you directly. I was of course referring to Conservative Members. I shall try not to fall into that trap again.
  Let us look at what we inherited from the Conservatives. We said from the start that we would operate within the constrictions of the Budget bequeathed
  68
  to us by the Conservatives for the first two years—a Budget that included £395 million worth of social security cuts, which we also undertook to see through. The difference between us and the Tories is that we are putting in place a host of positive measures to help the groups of people who will be affected and to bring about a responsible and responsive welfare state that assists people back into work. That was, after all, the whole point of the welfare state in the first place.
  Our positive strategy comprises help and advice for people searching for jobs. It will also help those seeking work to receive training, if necessary, to prepare them for the first step back into employment.
  We are putting in place a proper child care strategy that will enable the £300 million for lone parents—
  Mr. Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman was not asleep during my speech, perhaps he would like to answer the question: does he deny the critique offered by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has suggested that it is not a proper child care strategy but one that will fail?
  Mr. King: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I fell asleep while Opposition Members were speaking. They certainly tried the patience of all of us this afternoon, but I tried to stay awake, and yes I do agree with my hon. Friend on this side, thank you very much. [Interruption.] I agree on this side, that we are going to make these proposals work. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but we have been in government for seven months. The proposals are still very much in their infancy—they do not come into full play until next year—and already Opposition Members are undermining, or trying to undermine, a positive strategy to help people who are trapped in poverty by their cynical manoeuvring and scaremongering today. It is scandalous for a responsible Opposition to behave so irresponsibly.
  I will go back to—
  Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: No; I am sorry. We are running out of time.
  We are actually going to assist lone parents with child care after school. A million places will be available, not just during term time, but during the holiday period, when those parents need that sort of assistance. The system will be flexible. At the moment, there are slightly more than 3,000 such schemes. We shall provide 30,000 such schemes, to give lone parents a true choice: a choice of participating in the job market, a choice of leading fulfilling lives in which they can hold their head up and provide for their children instead of being driven into poverty by the Conservatives' failed policies. It is disingenuous of Conservative Members to speak about our failed policies after only seven months, when they had 18 years in which they totally failed the groups that I am referring to.
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) heralded the fact that we have the best funded system of private pensions in Europe. Well, we ended up with that marvellously funded system of private pensions because the Conservatives failed state pensioners by reducing their benefit by £20 a week,

  69
  and those people were driven to seek privately funded pensions—and, sadly, the Conservatives even let them down then.
  6.31 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: The debate has focused primarily on lone parents and pensions. People with disabilities have also been mentioned, and, as the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on disability, I shall focus my comments on disability.
  Before I do so, I remind the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked the Secretary of State a range of specific questions, to most of which we have not received answers.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will ensure that we receive specific answers to those questions. They are not posed because only we are interested in the answers. People outside the House are also interested.
  Let me refresh the Secretary of State's memory. She would not answer the question when she was asked why she was implementing a policy regarding lone parents that she does not agree with and is on the record as saying that she does not agree with. She would not give a categorical answer to the question about the professionalism and the training of those who will be trained in child care. We should like to know exactly what the age group will be and what training those people will undergo.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green posed four specific questions about disability. He asked whether those who have been awarded disability living allowance for life will be able to assume that that means just what it says—for life. In the review of disability benefits, will the Minister put at rest the minds of those people who currently receive those benefits, by telling them that the Government do not intend to tax benefits that are currently not taxed?
  Will the Minister give information about the 40 organisations that the Secretary of State has claimed from the Dispatch Box that she has consulted? If I understood her reply to the House today, she was referring to organisations that she has consulted about welfare-to-work measures, when the specific question that she was asked—a very similar question to the question asked to the Prime Minister last Wednesday—was not about who had been consulted about welfare-to-work measures, but about who had been consulted about the review of disability benefits. That is the question which we want answered.
  Before I continue, it may be pertinent to declare three non-remunerated interests. I serve on the council of the National Autistic Society, I am national vice-president of the Alzheimer's Disease Society and I have a dependent relative in receipt of disability living allowance for life.
  The Labour party manifesto has been waved about a lot during the debate, especially from the Treasury Bench. Labour Back Benchers have referred to it, and I want to quote a few passages, because if this is to be our bible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that I have a captive audience. If you are sitting quietly, then I will begin.
  70
  On page 5, in the section at the start of the manifesto, which bears the signature of the Prime Minister, he says of the contract with the people:
  "There will be no increase in the basic or top rates of…tax."
  Will the Minister confirm tonight that that means just what it says, and that the tax of people in receipt of disability benefits will not be increased because non-taxed benefits become taxed?
  The Prime Minister also says:
  "I pledge to Britain a government which shares their hopes, which understands their fears"
  in reference to vulnerable people. I should like to share with Ministers tonight some of the hopes and fears expressed in correspondence that I have received from throughout the country from people who are in receipt of disability benefits.
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I will in a second. I want to make progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) quoted from a letter that he had received. I shall quote briefly from some of the letters that I have received in the past week or two.
  A retired teacher in Mid Glamorgan says:
  "I…refer to the stopping of the Disability Living Allowance, this money is a lifeline to disabled persons such as myself. I really believe that if this Bill is passed it will cause vast problems for disabled people".
  From my constituency, a person who retired last year writes:
  "There can be no doubt that the peace of mind of millions of disabled people will have been seriously threatened by the government's proposals.
  "I have…been a member of the Labour party for over fourteen years. I have to say that I feel a sense of betrayal by the party over this issue, as do, I am sure, many other disabled and chronically sick people."
  I received a copy of a letter sent to the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with a little handwritten note to me attached, which says:
  "Will you please read this letter. I have written to express my hurt and sense of betrayal".
  The letter concludes:
  "I choose to use my benefits to employ a private cleaning firm to blitz my Home every few weeks and to make a relative an allowance to wash my hair, cut my nails etc. My Husband resigned a highly responsible job and took less hours and pay to be more available to me and I have a very supportive Daughter. I will not have strangers attending to my personal needs. My body may not be of much use but my brain still functions and above all I still have my pride."
  I spent most of this morning dealing with a constituency case. A constituent from Honiton in Devon had just had the higher component of disability living allowance removed; it included the mobility component. That means that he expects that this week someone will collect the car that he uses to get about, because the payment of that benefit pays for his car.
  Caroline Flint: That is not the Government's fault. We all have such cases.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady may mouth all she likes. I am determined to fight this on behalf of my

  71
  constituent, because the removal of disability living allowance and the mobility component is something which the Government—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The hon. Lady has no idea.
  Mrs. Browning: I have every idea, and I say to the hon. Gentleman, as a carer for someone with this benefit, I will fight it, fight it and fight it on behalf of people who are vulnerable and who depend on that benefit. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady may say that I did not fight it, but I assure her that I did. Anyone who looks at my track record on what I have said and fought for in the House will see that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one speaker at a time.
  Mrs. Browning: Those benefits are there now. Labour Members should take a careful look at the benefits that were introduced and secured up until 1 May. Now, we are receiving letter after letter from worried, frightened people—[Interruption.] I invite the Minister to put the record straight tonight. The Secretary of State refused to give assurances today, as did the Prime Minister during Question Time last Wednesday. If what I am saying is wrong, if it is all based on rumour, tonight is the Government's opportunity to say clearly that disability living allowance for life means just that; that such benefits will not be means-tested or taxed; and that people can go to sleep tonight feeling much more comfortable than they do now.
  Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Lady has raised the tone of the debate considerably during the last minute or two. Does she agree that the Opposition made a mistake in framing their motion by criticising the Government for reneging on their policies? Surely the thrust of the Opposition's argument should be that, from their point of view, the Labour Government are adopting Tory policies. If the Opposition had adopted the advice of the Bible and taken joy in a sinner that repenteth, they might have attracted more interest in the debate among Conservative Back Benchers.
  Mrs. Browning: We will support Labour policies such as the move to enable more people with disabilities to get back into work. However, the Government are promising to do that while also threatening to remove the mobility component of the DLA—
  Mr. Andy King: The hon. Lady is scaremongering.
  Mrs. Browning: If I am scaremongering, when I sit down in four minutes' time the Minister will have the opportunity to say categorically that what I have said is wrong and that the Government will not do it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head—I hope that his hon. Friend the Minister will not disappoint him tonight.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: What evidence does the hon. Lady have?
  Mrs. Browning: My answer is to quote from correspondence I have received from organisations that
  72
  have been involved in the so-called consultation on disability benefits. The Disability Benefits Consortium represents the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People; Disability Alliance; Disablement Income Group: and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. The consortium writes:
  "Disability organisations are concerned about the lack of clarity and openness about consultation and decision-making processes around these reviews. On disability benefits, there will not be any Green Paper or formal consultation before key decisions are likely to be made. A series of seminars to discuss options on 'managing' expenditure on disability benefits have been arranged by some disability organisations at the request of Baroness Hollis. It is important to note that the disability organisations attending these seminars do not regard them in any way as part of a formal consultation process."
  The Royal National Institute for the Blind wrote to me only today saying:
  "RNIB have never before sent out a briefing to MPs containing this level of detail. This reflects the seriousness with which we regard the threat to benefits which provide a vital lifeline to those who are often amongst your poorest constituents, and those who seldom make their feelings known to their Member of Parliament."
  The benefit integrity project involves people—we would welcome information on their training and experience—knocking on the doors of those who currently receive the higher componentof disability living allowance and mobility allowance. RADAR writes—
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): This is unbelievable.
  Mrs. Browning: It certainly is unbelievable that so many organisations are so concerned that they feel they have to write to Members of Parliament.
  RADAR, an organisation well known to many hon. Members, writes:
  "Organisations which had met the Department in May"—
  to talk about the benefit integrity project—
  "believed they would be discussing findings from the…review."
  Instead, they were informed that the project was already under way. The organisations that went to the Department included Action for Blind People, Disability Alliance, Mencap, RADAR and the RNIB. Those organisations went to the Department believing that they were part of a consultation, only to find that the decision had already been made and their views were not required, but that they could have an input into some sort of management.
  To cap it all, the Lord Chancellor's Department is considering proposals to abolish legal aid for personal injury claims—another move by the Government which will clearly have an effect on people with disabilities and will cause them a great deal of distress.
  Having heard from those organisations and having read out a small sample of letters from, I remind the Government, the people—not the people's banquet or the people's lottery, but the real people who have very real needs—I will conclude with some final words from the Labour manifesto. It claims:
  "Britain will be better with new Labour."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] And the band played, "Believe it if you like." The manifesto said:
  "New Labour is the political arm of none other than the British people as a whole. Our values are the same: the equal worth of all, with no one cast aside; fairness and justice within strong communities."

  73
  There is nothing fair or just about the way that this Government treat the most vulnerable people in our society.
  6.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): This has been a valuable debate, albeit all too short. I especially welcome the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King). The commitment of my hon. Friends to social justice and to an intelligent and humane modernisation of the welfare state contrasts with the absence of commitment to that project and the absence of ideas that have been apparent on the Conservative Benches.
  Is it really surprising if I recall that the Rowntree inquiry into the distribution of income and wealth said that between 1979 and 1992, the poorest 20 to 30 per cent. of families failed to share in the growth of prosperity in the nation? Between 1975 and 1992, the hourly wages of the lowest paid fell. Society was increasingly polarised between work-rich and work-poor households. Society was polarised in housing tenure so that by the end of the life of the Conservative Government, 75 per cent. of people in local authority or housing association housing were among the poorest 20 per cent. of the population. That failure to enable the most disadvantaged in our society to share in the growth in the nation's wealth was a central dereliction.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley reminded us, the figures for households below average income show that whereas the top 10 per cent. of income earners increased their wealth by two thirds, the bottom 10 per cent. saw their income fall by 13 per cent. Under the Conservative Government, the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.
  No one could seriously argue that it is not appropriate for a new Government taking office after 18 years in opposition to ask searching questions about the patterns of spending and administration that they have inherited. During the past 18 years, the previous Government denied that the state had a constructive and responsible role to play in welfare.
  In the last declining years of the Conservative Administration, welfare policy was driven by a devastating triple combination of emergency surgery to the economy, a desperate attempt to create fiscal headroom to make it possible to reduce taxes for those already comfortably off, in a futile attempt to win an election, and a wholesale dismantling of agencies of the state, again not driven by an intelligent or humane analysis, but hypnotised by a mantra that said, "Public bad; private good."
  Ministers in the previous Administration were apt to characterise the welfare state's clients as feckless, but surely it was those Ministers who, holding high office in an elected Government, yet repudiating the responsibility to create an enabling state, were feckless, which had the vast and destructive consequence of humiliating and demoralising some of society's most vulnerable members.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. I will not give way to him.
  74
  Conservative Members put their faith, or perhaps found a comfortable retreat, in the trickle-down theory of wealth. The theory did not work. In the centenary year of Aneurin Bevan's birth, it has never been more important for the welfare state truly to meet the aims that it should have. The new deal for unemployed people is among our major undertakings in the reform and modernisation of the welfare state. I will not detail the new deal's arrangements because they are well known, but I shall draw to the House's attention certain characteristics of the new deal.
  The Conservative party preens itself on the falls in unemployment in recent years and, of course, we all welcome those. Perhaps it is a matter of relative indifference that they occurred not by design but by accident. A previous Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer avowed that unemployment was a price worth paying, and it began to fall only because the previous Government were hurled out of the exchange rate mechanism.
  If Conservative Members think that there are grounds for complacency, that we do not need the new deal and that it will do simply to allow economic and social events to take their course, they ignore the fact that unemployment is still 50 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. It is 50 per cent. higher among young people than among other people. Male unemployment is two thirds higher than it was when the Conservative party came into office, and long-term unemployment is more than two thirds higher. Unemployment among members of ethnic minorities is particularly shaming, running at twice the rate of other communities—or even more.
  Whatever the phase of the economic cycle and however strong the economic recovery, too many people and communities are never floated off the rocks. It is only right and responsible, both on the ground of humanity and in terms of the economy—enabling us to have the benefit of the contribution that those people could make to the economy and saving the economic and social costs of exclusion—that we should make this big undertaking through the new deal, which is qualitatively and quantitatively different, and better than anything that the previous Government ever did.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made available £3.5 billion from the windfall levy, a redistribution of windfall gains to people who have been the victims of economic change. It is eminently justified. With those resources, we shall be able to provide better, more sustained and more effective help to people who are most at risk in our society than has ever been given before.
  Two features of the new deal are particularly important and encouraging. One is the principle that everyone should be served by a personal adviser, a member of the Employment Service staff. Under the previous Government, the service was required to be bureaucratic, formulaic and procedure driven. Its staff were not allowed to relate as individual human beings to clients or to give the imaginative and practical help that unemployed people need. There has been an immense welcome among the service's staff for our proposals. There has been an enormous release of energy in the service and among those with whom it develops the partnerships of the new deal.
  That principle of partnership is the second feature to which I draw the House's attention. The Employment Service has enormous strengths. It is the only organisation

  75
  with the reach and presence throughout the country to be able to deliver the new deal, but the service needs to work in partnership with other organisations—with local authorities, training and enterprise councils, voluntary organisations and employers' organisations—whose strengths complement those of the service.
  That is happening. We are not being prescriptive from the centre about the nature of the partnerships that should be formed locally, but we are insisting on that principle of partnership. There will be far-reaching consequences from the application of those two principles: case working and partnership.
  Labour Members are proud of the welfare state, but we acknowledge that if there has been a besetting inadequacy, it has been that the person in poverty—the unemployed or disabled person—has been required to do what is convenient to the administration, rather than the administration serving the welfare state's client.
  The typical experience is that the person in need has to embark on a melancholy trudge around different agencies at different addresses, with different rules, different accountabilities, different jargon and different procedures. It has been a bleak and perplexing experience. If we can achieve a better integration of services—a more holistic approach to the activity of the welfare state and to the service of people who should be its beneficiaries—we will have learnt much and developed in important respects.
  Mrs. May: The Minister has said much about the new deal, about which we also heard from the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women. Is he going to answer the questions that were posed by my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) relating to disability benefits? In doing so, perhaps the Minister could explain how it will help people if the Government pay disability benefits to local authorities and not to individuals with disabilities.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady and too many other Conservative Members have been guilty of recycling and putting into more emphatic currency a series of rumours that they know are distressing to disabled people. I do not for one second doubt the strong personal commitment to disabled people's interests of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). She and I have, from time to time, fought shoulder to shoulder in certain causes on behalf of disabled people.
  As I have said, any Government who come into office after 18 years in opposition and find a system that is such a muddle and a hotch-potch, and which so grievously fails to support the people whom we all wish it to support, are not only entitled, but have a duty, to ask searching questions.
  The comprehensive spending reviews that are being conducted throughout government are designed to ensure that the Labour Government achieve the purposes that they have set themselves: to modernise Britain and to create a more just society. Hon. Members can be assured that those will be our criteria. Those factors will be paramount in any decision that is eventually taken.
  As and when there are propositions for reform of the benefits system or of other aspects of the welfare state, we will consider what sort of consultation on which to
  76
  embark. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton can be assured that we are not going to do the sort of terrible things that are being rumoured and which she has put into renewed circulation.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I have very little time. I am not prepared to have my speech hijacked by Conservative Members who want me to dance to their tune by answering a series of questions that they want to ask for political advantage. I will not play that game.
  Our policy goes well beyond what the previous Administration achieved in establishing proper civil rights for disabled people. Our manifesto commitment is to comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. We shall fulfil that commitment.
  Why are the Conservatives sitting there? They have no idea what they are there to do. They have suffered their worst electoral defeat ever, but they are heading further and further towards the wilder shores of xenophobia, isolationist nationalism and social disintegration in the name of the free market. Apparently, that is to be known as Conservative populism. I hardly think that it is popular.
  The British people like their leaders to appeal to their better nature and to their more responsible selves. Have the Tories not learnt that they do not have the remotest chance of governing unless they place themselves somewhere near the centre of the political spectrum, connect with the mainstream of national life and remember the deep desire of the British people for fairness and that we should be one nation?
  The affectation and opportunism that we have seen from the Conservatives will not persuade any unemployed person, any pensioner, any disabled person or any lone parent that the Tories care or have rethought their policies and would act differently if they came to office.
  The self-indulgent pursuit of dogma ends up hurting innocent people. It ill becomes the Conservatives to wail for the plight of the welfare state when they all but destroyed it. The new Labour Government will re-create it as a modern welfare state, fit for a just and thriving society. I ask my hon. Friends to reject the motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 336.

  Division No. 101]

  [7.1 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Collins, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Duncan smith, Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  77

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Faber, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Flight, Howard

  Maples, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gale, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gray, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ruffley, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Tredinnick, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Letwin, Oliver

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lidington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Willetts, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Loughton, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  MacKay, Andrew

  Mr. John Whittingdale and

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Benton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Best, Harold

  Alexander, Douglas

  Betts, Clive

  Allan, Richard

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Borrow, David

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Brake, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Bayley, Hugh

  Breed, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burden, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Burstow, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  78

  Byers, Stephen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cabom, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godman, Norman A

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gorrie, Donald

  Cann, Jamie

  Grant, Bernie

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Chidgey, David

  Gunnell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Cranston, Ross

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzpatnck, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes Mike

  Levitt, Tom

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  79

  Love, Andrew

  Pollard, Kerry

  McAllion, John

  Pope, Greg

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pound, Stephen

  McCabe, Steve

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Macdonald, Calum

  Purchase, Ken

  McDonnell, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McIsaac, Shona

  Radice, Giles

  MacShane, Denis

  Rapson, Syd

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Raynsford, Nick

  McWalter, Tony

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McWilliam, John

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rendel, David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Marek, Dr John

  Rogers, Allan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Martlew, Eric

  Rooney, Terry

  Maxton, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Meale, Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  Michael, Alun

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Milbum, Alan

  Satter, Martin

  Miller, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mitchell, Austin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sawford, Phil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Morley, Elliot

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Singh, Marsha

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Norris, Dan

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Spellar, John

  Olner, Bill

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Öpik, Lembit

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stevenson, George

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter L

  Stott, Roger

  80

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wallace, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Webb, Steve

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Willis, Phil

  Todd, Mark

  Wills, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Winnick, David

  Touhig, Don

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wise, Audrey

  Wood, Mike

  Truswell, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. John McFall and

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government for the progress that has already been made on reforming the welfare state to tackle social exclusion and welfare dependency; backs the Government's strategy of offering hope, opportunity and a better standard of living for people through its welfare to work programmes for lone parents, disabled people and those with long-standing illness, young unemployed people and the long-term unemployed, and the National Childcare Strategy, in contrast to the previous Government's approach of writing millions of people off to a life dependent on benefit; welcomes the Government's determination to ensure security in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners through the pensions review and the action the Government has already taken to get help to Britain's pensioners, particularly the poorest pensioners, by cutting VAT on fuel and through the £20 winter fuel payment to pensioner households and the £50 winter fuel payment to pensioner households on Income Support; and congratulates the Government for keeping its promises and delivering its manifesto commitments to the British people.

Burdens on Business
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the damage to business and jobs represented by the actions and inactions of this Government; condemns the broken promises to the coal industry, the lack of clarity over ministerial duties, the persistent tax raids on business and the threats posed by new legislation; and urges the President of the Board of Trade to set out a clear energy, competition and business policy that is in the interests of British companies.
Labour is bad for business. So far, the Government have overtaxed and over-regulated business. They now threaten it with much damaging legislation. The Department of Trade and Industry, under the President of the Board of Trade, meddles, muddles and prevaricates on every issue. What a pleasure it is to see the right hon. Lady for once in her place. I have waited many a long week for the opportunity to debate, at last, something with her.
While the DTI meddles, the Treasury goes stealthily about its business, taking money away from the successful and the hard-working.
I love that work of fiction, the Labour party manifesto. I remind the House of what it said about taxations:
"New Labour will establish a new trust on tax with the British people."
I am delighted that Labour used the words "new trust", because lots of trusts have been set up by Labour Members and Ministers. Some of them, we are told, do not avoid taxes. They are in Jersey and Guernsey for the sake of the sea air.
The manifesto continues—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not stray from the motion before us.
Mr. Redwood: Perish the thought. I wish to talk about taxation as one of the principal burdens on business.
The Labour manifesto says:
"The principles that will underpin our tax policy are clear: to encourage employment … to promote savings and investment".
It goes on to say that new Labour is not about high taxes.
Mr. Andrew Miller: While the right hon. Gentleman is referring to manifestos, I ask him to cast his mind back to his own manifesto when he ran for the Tory party leadership. The words "trade and industry" did not appear in his manifesto. Why should we take him seriously tonight?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should listen to my powerful case about the way in which the Government are letting down business. He might like to remember that, before I came to the House, I chaired an industrial company and was a director of a merchant bank. I had
82
substantial commercial and industrial interests in those days, which gave me considerable experience. When I became a Minister, I gave them all up.
Mr. David Hanson: I note that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the tax policy in the Labour party manifesto. Does he agree with the Labour party's proposed cut in corporation tax? Will he vote against it?
Mr. Redwood: As I shall demonstrate, the Labour party is not proposing to reduce the corporation tax burden on companies in the next four years; it is proposing a swingeing increase in corporation tax during this Parliament. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework on the Budget arithmetic, as he walked straight into that one in a rather unfortunate way. I suggest that he sends it back to the spin doctor for rewriting.
The glorious summer of Conservative economic success that Labour inherited is quickly being made winter by the Government. The business trees are bring stripped of their leaves and buds in the hurricane of measures coming before us. The Chancellor plunders and blunders on in the name of converging with high-unemployment continental Europe. The Government should listen. My hon. Friends know that this is true. The outgoing Conservative Government forecast total taxes this year of £282,100 million. Labour told us that there was no need to change Conservative tax and spending plans, apart from introducing the windfall tax. I am sure that Labour Members said that in debates that took place during the general election.
Last week, in the Budget forecast made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we were told that we would pay £10,100 million more this year in taxation than that set out in the Conservative plans. A massive back-door smash-and-grab raid has been carried out in just seven months, and much of the ensuing burden will fall on the business community.
Worse is to come. Next year, the country will be expected to pay £12,500 million more than it would have paid under the outgoing Conservative plans for that year. Over the next four years, business will be required to pay five years' worth of corporation tax. That is an increase of almost £2,000 million a year. Meanwhile, business will also be paying the pensions tax, the utilities tax, the telephone tax and the renewable energy tax while bracing itself for more taxes on the business motorist, on lorry transport, on sand and gravel extraction, on oil production and on much else besides.
At this point in the economic cycle, with a lot of money around and with job shortages in the most prosperous parts of the country, the Government should be encouraging savings and investment. Savings reduce the spending and inflation pressures on individuals, while investment would expand our capacity to make the goods that people want. After all, that was the promise included in the Labour party's manifesto.
Instead, the Government are penalising both savings and investment. Pension savings are taxed and tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans are to be abolished. Industrial businesses are to see their cash flows reduced by the avaricious Treasury, which will cut the moneys that they have available to spend on new equipment.

83
Meanwhile, there have been five interest rate rises from the party that said that it would keep interest rates as low as possible. The art of the possible is not a good one for the new Labour Government. It is no wonder that the interest rate rises were needed when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so busy taxing savings. The right hon. Gentleman had to mop up the money in another way.
As a result, exporters face an uphill struggle. It is difficult exporting anything at current exchange rates. Industry is locked in a vice of higher interest rates and a higher value of sterling. It appears that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), thinks that it is a good idea to yawn at this point. The hon. Gentleman should talk to British businesses, which are suffering as a result of the measures to which I have referred. He might learn a great deal if he talked to some real business men instead of being locked into his Department worrying about the next spin doctor attack.
Last Friday, I visited an exporter at Milton Keynes. He told me that, to stay in foreign markets, 70 per cent. of the components that he had to use were imported. Two years ago, 90 per cent. of his components were British.
I visited a textile plant recently. I was told that it was operating at half-capacity for want of overseas orders. The Government do not care and they do not know what to do. They merely press on with their high interest rates and a high-value sterling policy.
We have already read that United States investors may pull the plug on our electricity industry following the utilities tax and the regulatory threats that the President of the Board of Trade is making. Labour Members will learn that one company's grant is another company's tax increase and that taxing the successful is not the best way to produce growth in the economy and to increase employment.
Most businesses are suffering, but a favoured few do a little better from the Government. For example, BP has been granted a new 1,200 MW gas power station without any explanation. When did Labour drop its policy of saying, "No new gas power stations"? Rolls-Royce in Derby has been quickly granted £100 million of launch aid. I am delighted that the constituency of the President of the Board of Trade is to be looked after, but may we know what representations the right hon. Lady made and whether other companies will receive equal treatment?
Formula one, with 8,000 jobs at risk, is qualifying for help. It has policy reversed in its favour while the coal industry, with 50,000 jobs at risk, has policy changed against its interests. May we know what has happened to the six-point plan of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—when he was in opposition—to save the industry?
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did not take the decision to award Rolls-Royce not £100 million in launch aid, but £200 million. I have a Rolls-Royce plant in my constituency, and I know for a fact that my right hon. Friend had nothing to do with the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Redwood: I did not allege that the right hon. Lady took the decision. I know that she would not do that.
84
I said that I wa nted to know what representations she would have made as a constituency Member, and whether other companies would receive the same treatment and opportunity as the company concerned. I welcome the success of that Derby business, but we in the House must ensure that things are fairly and properly done, and the Government have not been following fair and proper process in all too many cases.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to be extremely sensitive on this issue? When I tabled a question to ask why the grant was given, the President of the Board of Trade replied that she had not been involved in the grant. That did not answer the question. Was not the right hon. Lady over-defensive before an allegation was even made?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. As Ministers are so secretive about all their doings, it is only natural that they become jumpy when we ask questions. If they were more open, they would avoid many more problems. The more secretive they are, the more suspicions build up and the more questions we shall table.
Those who want to know why we are worried about process could well study the question of formula one. We are told that the £1 million given by Mr. Ecclestone to Labour was unconnected with Mr. Ecclestone seeing the Prime Minister. We are told that that was not why the Prime Minister personally intervened to break a manifesto promise to save some jobs.
I contrast that position with that of the coal industry, which I think has not given £1 million to Labour. Its representatives have found it extremely difficult to see the Prime Minister. We now see Labour breaking its pre-election promises on better treatment for the coal industry and destroying jobs.
Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would like to explain why two industries are treated in such a way. Let us have a system whereby anyone with a reasonable grievance may get to see the responsible Minister or Prime Minister, whoever may be dealing with the matter, without any suggestion of any impropriety occurring. We need a fair and open system. I had to intervene on the Minister without Portfolio in a television programme, to enable representatives of sports other than formula one to see the Prime Minister, who had not been able to see him on the formula one issue.
We are fortunate in having a Department of Trade and Industry memorandum in circulation, which speaks volumes about the Government's way of handling the coal industry issue and many others, which I am sure are the subject of similar memorandums. The memorandum does not tell us anything about what the President of the Board of Trade could do to save the coal industry. Instead, it tells us how the right hon. Lady could handle the presentation of the impending disaster under her policy.
The memorandum takes as given the depressing idea that the entire coal industry will be shut down within the next 10 years. It then goes on to propose how the media might be persuaded that that is a good idea. To do that would take more than an army of the finest spin consultants in the land. The Government will discover the painful way that there are some things that even spinning cannot make palatable.

85
The memorandum tells the President of the Board of Trade:
"There is an expectation that deep mined coal will effectively end within ten years unless the government intervenes to protect it by changing its environmental and energy policies."
I look forward to hearing the right hon. Lady's remarks on that view of herself and her Department.
Instead of discussing how policies might be changed to help the industry, the memorandum then discusses how the existing bad policies can be presented to the public and press as inevitable. The idea is ventured that a low-profile reaction could work. It is proposed that the argument be left to the generators and mining companies. We are told:
"We have also found these arguments on commercial negotiations between companies useful when declining bids for ministerial interviews, so preventing the 'we asked the minister to appear but he declined' statement."
That is not the only way in which Ministers have refused interviews or have refused to debate this and other subjects.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that under the previous Government, the coal industry was emasculated, decimated and destroyed? As Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Gentleman did nothing to defend Welsh jobs. Is it not a disgrace that he has the audacity to come to the House and to make such suggestions?
Mr. Redwood: That is another failure by the spin doctors; the hon. Gentleman should do his homework. He would then discover that I fought hard to allow the miners and the employees of the Tower colliery to buy their pit. I, like them, thought that they could make a success of it. I am pleased to say that, through their efforts, that is exactly what they did. I confess that I intervened in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that they had that opportunity, and I am proud of having done so. It is a lot more than the President of the Board of Trade has done for the industry since she has been in her post.
Fortunately, the newspapers are much wiser than the DTI gives them credit for being. They have seen that the Government have options and have some responsibility. It is a pity that the BBC played into the hands of the DTI's cynical media manipulation. It turned down the coal story for the "Today" programme when I first offered it last Monday. It then failed to ask the President of the Board of Trade a single question on this most important of issues when she was interviewed at an exhibition for the "The World at One" later in the week.
All that the President of the Board of Trade has managed to do while the coal controversy has raged is to go to a caravan exhibition and to mislead the public about my views. Instead of telling us what she would do for the coal industry—she has been as quiet as the grave on that—she claimed in the interview that I was hostile to caravans and the caravan industry. I insist today that she apologises to the House for misleading people in that way. There is no quotation, no comment and no shred of evidence to show that I am hostile to caravans and the caravan industry. I wish to put that firmly on the record.
There is, however, plenty of evidence to show that I think that the President of the Board of Trade has spent a little too much time in her caravan this summer; that was the point of
86
my criticism. I do not begrudge her a good holiday—I had one myself—but I think that she should have spent more time in her office sorting out the problems of business that the Government are creating and producing an energy policy with more chance of working.
From the wonderful memorandum, it is clear that the DTI strongly believed that, if it briefed a few journalists, they would write "what we say". If only. That breathtaking cynicism was compounded one page further on by the comment:
"Since the government could be portrayed as driving the nails in the coal industry's coffin, these points deliberately do not highlight the government's environmental targets for Kyoto."
Of course they do not, because the famous hard choices that the Prime Minister has said we have to make have been ducked. The Government have not resolved the question whether it is more important to stop burning coal for environmental reasons or to encourage the burning of coal for energy policy and mining reasons. Today, the President of the Board of Trade must not be allowed out of the House without explaining how she will resolve that dilemma and without setting out an energy policy.
While the right hon. Lady is about it, will she now complete the review of electricity prices urgently? Does she know that the coal industry's case is that it can generate more power at a lower cost than the new gas stations if she comes to the right conclusion in her review? Why will she not tell us what her policy is on those new gas power stations? Is the BP station to be the only big one permitted, or will she license more from the 27 applications sitting on her desk? If so, how many more mines will have to close? When does she expect to stop importing electricity from France? Every extra megawatt imported means more British jobs lost.
The President of the Board of Trade has plenty of options. Instead of spending her days thinking about how to duck interviews and debates, she should start doing some real work on the issues facing the miners.
Mr. David Prior: Would my right hon. Friend be surprised to know that one of the largest users of electricity in this country cites one of the reasons for increases in the market price of electricity as being that generators are treating the windfall tax as a business cost and recovering it through their prices?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point, and I am grateful to him. The windfall tax is, indeed, a cost that gets passed on, and it is another reason why the Government's energy policy is in such a mess.
The President of the Board of Trade also owes the House an explanation of why she misled us on more than one occasion concerning the shareholding of her ministerial colleagues. On 4 July, the right hon. Lady told us that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, had undertaken not to trade his holdings in BP before January 1998. Subsequently, we were told that Lord Simon planned to sell them this summer. On 4 July, she told us—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the President of the Board of Trade deliberately withheld information from the House?
Mr. Redwood: I am going on to make my case and to offer two possible explanations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must assure me that there is no suggestion that there was deliberate withholding of information by the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Redwood: I need your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the right hon. Lady answered questions wrongly. Either she did that because she was misinformed or she did it because she wished to mislead us—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must withdraw his remark. The right hon. Lady is not guilty of misleading the House, as far as I know. The right hon. Gentleman must not make that suggestion.
Mr. Redwood: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought, however, that I had asked a perfectly civil question. I think that the right hon. Lady owes us an explanation of why she told us certain things and we then discovered that something else happened. It is a convention of the House—
Mr. Hanson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell the House what the shareholding of Lord Simon has to do with burdens on business?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that.
Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) checks the motion, he will see that it is widely enough couched to include the important matter of how Ministers take decisions and which decisions they are allowed to take. We have had great difficulty in finding out from the President of the Board of Trade and her right hon. and hon. Friends what they are and are not allowed to do. We should like some simple, straight answers to our questions.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What about the right hon. Gentleman's wife?
Mr. Redwood: I am happy to take on the hon. Gentleman. Does he want to intervene? He asked about my wife; I shall tell him. My wife works for British Airways. I told everyone that when I first entered a Department of State. I said that I wanted nothing to do with anything concerning British Airways because of that, although the rules at the time did not require that degree of caution. Wives and husbands were not mentioned in the rules at the time. I told people in advance; I am asking for the same courtesy from these Ministers.
Why cannot Ministers tell us in advance what their interests are and what they can and cannot do? Why are they so touchy and so secretive? Of course, people will be suspicious until the President of the Board of Trade stands at the Dispatch Box and tells us what Ministers can and cannot do and how they have protected themselves from any allegation of a conflict of interest. This is a serious matter, and the right hon. Lady should tell us now
88
why her answers did not work out as she thought they would and how she came either to be misinformed or to misinform the House.
The Government are no better at working out competition policy than at working out their energy policy. The President of the Board of Trade has proposed a radical change. Now that she is told of the problems of this policy, she is trying to wash her hands of it. The new Competition Bill will leave open the question whether the pub-brewer tie is legal or whether pubs will have to close. It will leave unanswered the question whether retail price maintenance is to go, damaging or closing many a community pharmacy. It leaves it unclear whether recommended prices for books and newspapers are acceptable. Many big and small businesses are faced with large legal bills as they check that out, and they are then faced with a couple of years or more of uncertainty. The President of the Board of Trade has decided, on reflection, not to answer, but to palm the problem off to her new quango, the Competition Authority. Labour is bad for business.
The Newspaper Society said:
"The Society endorses the concern which has been widely expressed by the business community in general about the 'chilling effect' of the prohibition approach to competition law. The Article 86 prohibition will have the combined effect of deterring legitimate business activities."
In other words, the society thinks that it is very bad news. The Community Pharmacy Group said that the Competition Bill
"poses a threat to the long term survival of community pharmacies".
Many hon. Members represent such pharmacies and want them to continue, not to be threatened by legislation.
The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association said that if the beer tie is banned—and there is uncertainty about whether that is the intention—it
"would close thousands of pubs and destroy tens of thousands of jobs".
Tonight, we need to know more about the Government's intention on company taxation and tax reliefs. The Chancellor stated clearly before he gained office:
"A Labour Chancellor will not permit tax reliefs to millionaires in offshore tax havens."
We need to know the truth—my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has tabled some questions today to get at the truth—of the Guernsey trust and how the Paymaster General will benefit from it. Why was it not declared earlier? Will the President of the Board of Trade tell us whether it is now Government policy to encourage Jersey and Guernsey trusts, or whether it is still their policy to take measures against them in a future Budget, to prevent people taking advantage of them?
We have no worries about people using Jersey and Guernsey trusts for sensible tax management, and we made no moves against those devices when in office. However, we do have worries about Ministers saying in their personal lives that such devices are fine, but signing up to the Chancellor's view in public that they are not. It is time that this humbug was sorted out and we should be told how the tension will be resolved.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why have Ministers of the Crown and other right hon. and hon. Members routinely declared in the Register of Members'

89
Interests things such as pubs, woodland, farms and other things to which they have title, which they own or from which they benefit, yet the Paymaster General does not declare the Orion trust? I find that extraordinarily strange.
Mr. Redwood: It is a question that I hope the Government will be answering, because it is important to get at the seeming tension between some members of the Government's attitude in private and the stated public position, which does not seem to have been reversed so far, that Jersey and Guernsey trusts are not a good idea because of the tax losses that can, but do not always, occur to UK residents or UK companies.
The President of the Board of Trade still enjoys a blind trust arrangement, while all her Cabinet colleagues wound them up when they joined the Government—how wise they were. I see nothing wrong with a blind trust in principle for a Back Bencher or a political party, but it is difficult to see why a Minister should need one. The President has all the officials in the Department of Trade and Industry to give her advice on specific and general Government matters and she, like the rest of us, has a parliamentary allowance for her constituency affairs.
Has she read "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"? Does she agree that there are dangers for a Minister in a blind trust arrangement, when the Minister is in such a sensitive Department? I believe that her husband knows who the donors are; how can she be sure that she does not find out inadvertently who they are? Would it not be in her own interest and for her own protection for the trust to be wound up?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me speak, please; I do not speak that often. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) seems to be getting into the realms of conflict of interest, which has nothing to do with the motion.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You have just made a ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the extent that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was able to make a statement, I think that I might be able to intervene and ask a question. A Mr. David Steene gave £20,000 to the leadership campaign of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. David Steene was the managing director of a company called J and J Securities, which is a subsidiary of the City Mortgage Corporation, which—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. We are definitely straying from the motion and getting into personalities, which I do not want to do. We must return to the motion, and that goes for both sides of the House.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful again for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) does not seem to have accepted the distinction that I am making between the rules that apply to Ministers who are, rightly, subject to tighter rules than others and who are governed by "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and its replacement, and the
90
rules that apply to others. We are interested in making sure that the rules are not only obeyed but seen to be obeyed. I do not know why Labour Members are so sensitive when we ask questions about that. Assuming that all is well, the Government have only to say so and all will be fine.
I am interested in the views of Henry Drucker, a senior Labour fund raiser in 1995, who has recently written of the relationship between business and Government. He said:
"One has to wonder why people give to a blind trust when they could give—as Ecclestone did—to the party."
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, it is rather curious that I should be blocked for raising a matter that is relevant to competition policy and loan interest on mortgages charged by a London shark who gives to the Tory party, while the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to continue talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate in any way, shape or form. It seems to me that I am in order and he is out of order, yet—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that the hon. Gentleman was out of order; I also told the right hon. Gentleman that he was out of order and must return to the motion.
Mr. Redwood: I am very happy to do that. The hon. Gentleman seems unaware of the crucial difference between a Leader-elect of the Opposition and a Minister.
The President of the Board of Trade has one important new duty. She would perhaps say that it is to help British business, but I fear that it might not be—she sits on the "Abolish the Pound" committee with the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. I wonder how easy it has been for the right hon. Lady to complete her U-turn on that important matter. In 1980, she said:
"none of the arguments for staying in the EEC can be sustained."
Much more recently, in 1990, she described as pathetic the idea that we would lose all influence if we were outside the Common Market. Now she wishes to abolish the pound.
I hope that she will tonight explain to the business community why it should commit its moneys to this project when the Chancellor's manifesto for it is so flimsy, and how she has been able to show such flexibility of view in moving from outright hostility to the Common Market, let alone the single market and the single currency, to being in favour of it in principle and working closely with her colleagues on that committee, but rather secretively so far, to abolish this currency of ours. I hope that she will spare us some time over the next few months to debate the issue.
I am told that the right hon. Lady would welcome a public debate on whether we should abolish the pound, and I tonight offer my services to debate against her in any reasonable place and at any reasonable time. I am sure that any radio or television station would be interested, and I should be happy to join her. I look forward to her tabling a suitable motion. I make this offer because I have heard that she commented, in another context, that she would value such a debate, which is why I am sure she will find the time. Business might be better informed if she and I could have a sensible debate. She

91
could have the pleasure of setting out why she wishes to abolish the pound, and I could set out the reasons why at this stage, at this exchange rate and on current terms, it would be damaging to business.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On the euro and the single currency, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we lose control of our currency, we lose control of our economy, and if we lose control of our economy, we lose control of our country? Bearing in mind the fact that our interests in the United Kingdom are not always those of the rest of Europe, would not we be surrendering any right or ability to influence policy in respect of the UK's interests?
Mr. Redwood: The principal objection that our party shares is that we cannot have a successful single currency until all economies are performing as if they were one. We Conservatives do not foresee such circumstances. My hon. Friend is right. All the time that the economies are not performing in line or as one, we need separate economic policies in order to steer them in the right direction, in the national interest.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, given that our economy performed under Conservative management so much better than France and Germany's—a trend that is carrying on for a bit even under this Government, before their problems catch up with them—it would be very foolish to rush into a premature currency union. We would lose the right to set our own interest rates, we would lose the ability to influence our own exchange rate and we would lose all the other things that are necessary to secure the prosperity of the British people.
Mr. Miller: Like the exchange rate mechanism.
Mr. Redwood: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his party would want to apologise for that. My party has apologised for it. The Labour party recommended the ERM, supported it, never criticised it and never said that we should come out of it. Will the Labour party now join us in apologising to the British people over that issue?
Mr. Miller: While we are on monetary union, was it the right hon. Gentleman who said in 1995 that monetary union would "break Europe asunder"? Is that still his view, and is it the united view of the Conservative party?
Mr. Redwood: I said that monetary union could break the economies of western Europe if people entered it on the wrong terms and the wrong basis. I still believe that that is true. Yes, my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with me. If we have a bungled monetary union, when the economies are not working together, which is what is on offer at the moment, it will be very damaging to economies entering it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Before the Minister leaves the point—
Mr. Redwood: "The Minister"—I am grateful. I give way.
Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman against the euro in principle? Is there a constitutional bar to joining
92
a single currency, or is he just being pragmatic? In year 10, if he were in a position to influence events, might he recommend that Britain ditched the pound?
Mr. Redwood: I am against, for this and the next Parliament, the substantial sacrifice of sovereignty that the single currency entails, because we do not see economic benefits flowing from it and the conditions are not right. We would not therefore recommend to the British people the sacrifice of sovereignty that it entails.
Mr. Prentice indicated dissent
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is disappointed because I have given a good answer, which he cannot exploit.
The DTI and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are locked in mortal battle for power and influence over regional policy. When the coal strategy went wrong, the Prime Minister called on the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and the Minister for the Environment to find an answer. Where, I wonder, was the President of the Board of Trade and why was the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, who is notably absent from this debate, overruled and given new bosses? When jobs were at risk in the motor industry, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Public Health decided to sort it out in their inimitable fashion.
There remains a row over who should control regional grants. The President of the Board of Trade is in dispute with her colleagues in Scotland and Wales over how to run grants to inward investors. We are being told both that she is in overall charge of the policy and that Wales and Scotland retain their freedom of manoeuvre. Both those propositions cannot be right. It is part of new Labour spin that we have one proposition on one day and a different one the next day, to keep the media interested. Meanwhile, as the row goes on, the United Kingdom is the loser. I predict that, over the next year, inward investment will decline as a result of the muddle that the Government are creating.
At the DTI, the season of mists has moved on to the winter of dark fogs. We cannot be told which Ministers are on duty over a holiday period or when Ministers are taking a break. Worse still, we cannot be told which specific issues which Ministers can and cannot handle. The British people elected this Government because some of them thought that they would be open and honest in their dealings and because the Labour party said that it had no need to raise taxes apart from the utilities tax. The British people have been sorely cheated. They have already been taxed an extra £10 billion.
As for openness, the long delay in telling us about a Minister's £2 million-worth of shares in BP was just the beginning. A BP gas station was given a licence ahead of 27 others, without proper explanation and against previous party policy. A grant of £200 million was given to Rolls-Royce in the constituency of the President of the Board of Trade, when scope for it in the budget was not clear. There was a U-turn on formula one without other sports with an interest being consulted. The Minister for

93
Competition and Consumer Affairs was taken off inquiries on Travel Trade, ICI and P and O because of shareholdings and prejudices that he revealed.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths)indicated dissent.
Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me why he was taken off those inquiries, I should be delighted to give him the Floor.
Despite the taxpayer paying for more than 500 political advisers at a cost of £2.6 million, the President of the Board of Trade is still operating a blind trust in order to give her more staff.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend has been remiss in not mentioning the minimum wage. Last week, I went to hear a Minister tell lawyers about the minimum wage, only to find that a civil servant had been sent. Does not such Government unwillingness to get up in public occur all the time these days?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. I reassure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) will be referring to the minimum wage, so that we cover that vital issue as well.
Mr. John Bercow: Far be it from me to stop my right hon. Friend when he is in full and spectacular flow, but does he think that, in failing to secure general exemptions from the national minimum wage, the Minister without Portfolio has been utterly humiliated by the President of the Board of Trade, to the detriment of British industry and commerce?
Mr. Redwood: That seems to be the current position, but I warn my hon. Friend that the Minister without Portfolio has considerable guile. The President of the Board of Trade should watch out for a counter-attack. The hon. Gentleman has ways of influencing members of the Government.
Every one of the matters that I have mentioned has had to be dragged out of the Government. We have been misled, and there have been misrepresentations. We still do not know which Ministers handle which matters. The Government are as open as a locked safe, with the combination known to only a few who have privileged access. They make a mockery of democracy and the House. They prove that Labour is bad for business.
7.57 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the speedy action taken by Her Majesty's Government to foster an environment in which business can flourish, with macro-economic stability, low rates of corporation tax, a clear new competition policy, and a review of utility regulation; contrasts this with the boom and bust policies of the previous administration which led to the collapse of thousands of firms and unemployment for millions; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's partnership with business to improve UK competitiveness.
The title of this debate—although one would not have thought so from the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—is "Burdens on Business". Of course, the biggest of burden on British business was lifted on 1 May.
94
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wokingham on his recent success in being named Front Bench questioner of the year—and against such stiff competition. I agree with the judges: I think that he is doing a magnificent job—for us, that is. He is not, of course, doing it quite unaided: the Conservative party's record in government is a big help. The reputation that it has cherished and built up over the decades—the claim to be the only party with which British business can work to advance Britain's interests—is vanishing before our very eyes. The right hon. Gentleman is making a unique and, from my point of view, hugely valuable contribution. It is not all due to his approach or his manners—although they help. It is the way in which he repudiates, even scorns, the experience and opinions of much of British business—and even of my predecessors in office from his own party.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham has repudiated the need for reform of competition law, which was so much common ground as to be uncontroversial before he came along and which has been widely demanded by British business. He has rejected as unnecessary and damaging the new approach to spectrum management, which was also previously uncontroversial, supported by the vast bulk of those consulted and included in the very manifesto on which he and others fought the general election.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mrs. Beckett: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to repudiate that policy?
Mr. Bercow: I am sure that the right hon. Lady, with her long experience in the House, recognises that it is her duty to answer questions rather than to ask them. She refers to the views of business and claims to respect those views. Will she therefore ensure that small businesses are exempted from the minimum wage out of deference to the judgment of the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business—yes or no?
Mrs. Beckett: No. We have made it clear from the beginning that the minimum wage will apply across British business, and that remains the case. I see that the hon. Gentleman has adopted from the right hon. Member for Wokingham the policy of asking questions to which the answers are already plain.
We have all noticed the visible yearning of the right hon. Member for Wokingham to see our relationship with our European partners based not on a mutual respect which is healthy, but on a knee-jerk opposition which is actively hostile.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall come back to the subject, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I make some progress.
The problem of the right hon. Member for Wokingham is that in almost every way he is living in the past. His behaviour towards my team—here and in the other place—has been spiteful as well as silly, but its underlying purpose seems to be to demonstrate, as the Conservative party repeatedly tried to do before the election, that

95
somehow Labour cannot govern and that Labour Front Benchers just cannot be Ministers. Forget it—it is too late, it is over; we are the Government, and most people still think that we are doing a better job.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham still rejects any action by the Government as automatically being a burden on business—even when business is calling for such action—just as his party did before the last election. He normally churns out the same stuff about the burdens of the social chapter or the minimum wage, but today he was so intent on personal unpleasantness that he forgot about them. He repeats one of the Conservatives' biggest mistakes—openly to put the interests of their party before the interests of their country.
For example, the right hon. Member for Wokingham put out a press release during the week of the motor show calling on me to announce forthwith the award of a substantial grant to Ford to build a new car here. The project was so much in its infancy that no decision of any kind had been made—not even an application by Ford to seek support. Lest we think the right hon. Gentleman merely incompetent rather than crassly irresponsible, he suggested that the grant should be higher because of the policies of this Government. Whose interests were served by such second guessing of negotiations and by such a raising of the stakes? Not Britain's.
In fact, the right hon. Member for Wokingham takes the tactic further. Just as he and his colleagues put party before country, so his behaviour and statements clearly put his own leadership bid before the interests of his party. His motto seems to be, "Never mind the quality, feel the width". So one day he condemns my hon Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry for pursuing the interests of industry to the detriment of those of the environment. The next day the right hon. Gentleman condemns my hon Friend for putting the interests of the environment ahead of those of industry.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham is a kind of political catherine wheel, frantically hurling off sparks in all directions. It is fast, it is noisy and it contributes nothing but a little light entertainment.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: And we are going to ban them.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful sedentary intervention.
Mr. Redwood: Comparing me to a catherine wheel is the nicest thing that the right hon. Lady has said about me all day. However, she has missed the point of my press releases. The point is simple: there is a possible conflict between environmental imperatives and the needs of British industry. I have not told her how the balance should be struck, but I am asking her again today to tell the nation how it will be struck. The specific issue is whether more coal or more gas power stations will be used regularly. That is a good test of whether the Government are greener or more industrial.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall come to the issue of energy policy in a few moments. If the right hon. Gentleman feels then that I have not answered his question adequately, he may return to it. I do not disagree with absolutely
96
every word in the Opposition motion. It urges a clear energy, competition and business policy, which I agree that we need. Such a policy certainly was not part of our inheritance from the previous Government. Baroness Thatcher, the former Prime Minister, told us that manufacturing did not matter.
Mr. Bercow: Rubbish.
Mrs. Beckett: That is not rubbish and I have heard many Conservative Members regret the former Prime Minister's statement, including one whom I will not name but he knows who he is. Under the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), we were supposed to get intervention before breakfast, tea and dinner. Under my predecessor, we never knew what to expect and we do not know now. Such a clear policy was not apparently in the Conservative manifesto, because the right hon. Member for Wokingham says that it was not much good. We can agree on that. A clear policy apparently does not involve more competitive markets—the right hon. Gentleman opposes change—and it certainly does not involve the United Kingdom being at the heart of Europe.
The motion accuses me—as the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly does—of inaction. On what basis? First, he cited the delay in announcing a decision on the P and O merger. It might have suited him to have an earlier announcement, without co-operation from and agreement with the European Union as the other regulatory authority, but it would not have been in the interests of the company or of the work force. In fact, Lord Sterling, the company chairman, said that the decision was "worth waiting for".
Today, the right hon. Member for Wokingham calls my work on the issue "sloppy", because I did not cap freight prices. However, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission found no competition issues in freight, so I could not have acted unless I stopped the whole merger. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants? He is always bragging about his experience as a competition Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, so why did he not know that I could not act? Is he sloppy, or just incompetent?
The right hon. Member for Wokingham attacked me for doing nothing to prepare industry for the millennium bug, when in fact we continued the programme that we inherited from his Government. As it happens, we were already planning to step up that programme and announced the move forward to Action 2000, chaired by Don Cruickshank, as soon as we were able to publish that information. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set up a Cabinet committee, which I shall chair, to pursue the issue.
Mr. Ian Bruce: We all acknowledge the difficulties of tackling the millennium bug in the time available, but will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government have slipped on the targets that were set for the civil service? Why has she appointed Don Cruickshank to that post when the Government ignored him when he wrote to them about the Wireless Telegraphy Bill and said that it should protect the consumer?
Mrs. Beckett: That has nothing to do with Action 2000. It is an interesting point and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt pursue it in Committee, but it has no relevance to the point that I was making.

97
The right hon. Member for Wokingham complains constantly—he did so again tonight—about my parliamentary record. He attacked me for not speaking in the debate on the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, but it is commonplace for other Ministers to handle more minor legislation without a Cabinet colleague. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the former Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, did so last year, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham did so himself as a Minister of State.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham keeps saying, somewhat stridently, that he has had the chance to question me only three times in four months and has had no opportunity to debate. Diddums! It is called being in opposition. Did the right hon. Gentleman not notice when in government that parliamentary questions happen only once a month? The rules have not been changed to penalise him. Incidentally, a shorter time has elapsed between the two most recent Trade and Industry Question Times in this Parliament than in a similar period in 1992. As for debates, between May and November this year there were no general industry debates in Government time, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said—nor were there in the same period in May to November 1992.
The right hon. Gentleman has sought to make much of my unavoidable absence at our recent Question Time, claiming that I went to Australia to avoid his questioning. I did enjoy it. As he knows perfectly well, because I gave him advance notice, I went in fulfilment of an engagement made by my Conservative predecessor to promote British business—the culmination of a year's worth of activity—to open jointly with the Premier of Victoria the biggest trade fair that Britain has ever staged in Australia. More than 400 United Kingdom companies competed to take part and 90 did so, many of them small and medium-sized enterprises. No one regrets more than I the unforeseen clash with my duties in this House, which I have never neglected, but to suggest that I should let all those companies down smacks more of the right hon. Gentleman's conceit than of common sense. Incidentally, that visit was one of three major overseas visits that I have undertaken since May.
The right hon. Gentleman also alleges that I do not answer questions and letters. Up to the end of July, he had asked 46 questions about the personal finances, behaviour and duties of Ministers, compared with 28 about the entire area of science, industrial, and energy policy. Up to today, he has just about managed to even the score. Yet all those questions and his extensive correspondence—six letters about the personal finances of my noble Friend Lord Simon, eight letters about the financial consequences of personal tragedy in the family of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs—have been answered, albeit not to his satisfaction.
You know the feeling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sooner or later, every hon. Member has one of those correspondents who writes or telephones every second or third day. They always say you have not answered their questions, no matter how hard you try. They always say that they are going to take it up with higher authority or they take it to the press. We all get them. You just do not expect it to be the shadow Secretary of State.
Most recently, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of inaction about coal. The Conservative party's only energy policy was to close half Britain's coalfields and leave the
98
other half to wither on the vine, having removed all the levers of Government policy. The Conservatives left the coal industry freewheeling downhill like a car without brakes or steering and now they stand at the side of the road shouting to us to stop the runaway vehicle. We found an energy playing field massively tilted against coal and in seven short months we have levelled that playing field, tilted by the Conservative Government over more than seven years.
Inaction and broken promises were the hallmark of the Administration we replaced. Nearly 10 years were spent discussing the reform of competition law. They even got as far as a draft Bill, which we would not have opposed, but they just never got around to doing it. Some may applaud and some oppose my decisions on merger policy, but no one but the right hon. Gentleman has ever suggested that they are not clear. In fact, a recent article in The Daily Telegraph said:
"competition she said, and competition she meant".
The Opposition prepared the legislation on spectrum pricing, but they never found time for that, either. Users and industry believe almost universally that our proposals, far from being a burden on business, will make for sensible spectrum management.
In the two years during which I shadowed this Department, no major piece of legislation came to this House. This Government have overseen the introduction of eight bills in seven months, including the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, the Competition Bill and the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill. We are also backing four private Members' Bills—the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill, the Fireworks Bill, the Public Interest Disclosure Bill and the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill—and we have just published the National Minimum Wage Bill. We have published a report from the business and Government export forum and we have already taken the steps called for by exporters to recast trade support policy.
We are undertaking consultation on a fair payments Bill at the request of small businesses and in the new year we shall be publishing a White Paper on fairness at work and a Green Paper for consultation on utility regulation.
We are preparing proposals to give the Post Office commercial freedom and we are working in partnership with business under the umbrella of Competitiveness UK to prepare a White Paper on competitiveness next year.
We are forcing the pace on getting issues of competitiveness and employability on to the agenda of the European Union and again seeking to ensure the participation of and a voice for business representatives from across the EU.
Mr.Oliver Letwin: The right hon. Lady mentioned that the Government are preparing a paper on the Post Office. Can she tell the House what her hon. Friend the Minister of State failed to tell the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recently—whether the Post Office will have the capacity, as a normal company would, to give its stockholders dividends rather than being subject to a negative external financing limit?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that he was not asked that, but in any case I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be happy to discuss those issues with him at length when our proposals for the Post Office are published.

99
Moreover, all that activity—not inactivity—has its underlying themes. Strong markets, modern companies, looking to the future—those are the themes that bind all the activities of my Department to the pursuit of competitiveness, and against which we shall measure the worth and relevance of our activities.
First, on strong markets, I am absolutely clear that a strong competition policy is fundamental to competitiveness. That is why one of this Government's earliest actions was to find parliamentary time for a Competition Bill, which will replace an outdated regime with a modern, effective system. A competition law that creates a more transparent and consistent regime will be a big improvement on the slow-moving and ineffective structures that we have today and will benefit all firms, large and small. Our review of regulation for the utilities is driven by the same desire to see more transparency and consistency in regulation.
The second pillar is modern companies. Only modern companies can address modern challenges. We need modern companies succeeding in new markets with new products—companies that innovate and compete on our strengths in design, science and ideas. It is not a sustainable strategy to compete on price alone. In the increasingly global marketplace, firms need to compete on quality in all its dimensions.
Our third theme is the need to look to the future. What we as the Government do today will make a real difference to the industries and citizens of the future. It is clear that we must embrace the industries of the future and, in particular, we must deal with the specific needs of smaller firms—hence our proposals to enhance the work of business links and drive them, too, towards higher quality: hence our decision to take forward the work of the foresight groups.
Outside my own Department, the Government as a whole are attacking those issues on which business has sought action for so long—and under our predecessors sought in vain—such as the pursuit of economic and policy stability and of policies to set the right framework for the long term, an attack on skill shortages and on the neglect of infrastructure, and action to tackle tax avoidance, to simplify and to cut corporation tax and to offer temporary capital allowances to small business. Those are just a few among the 10 tax cuts that this Government have made.[Interruption.] No doubt the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is about to welcome them.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: No, I am not. I am rising to invite the President of the Board of Trade to tell us a little more about the foresight action programme. She said that the Government are taking the matter forward, but she made no proposal regarding the grave concern of the Society of British Aerospace Companies that the investment under past Conservative Governments, which has led to the £5 billion of inward income into this country arising out of exports, will dry up because Government investment is not being made available. What is the right hon. Lady doing on the foresight action programme in regard to the aerospace industry?
Mrs. Beckett: That does not arise from the foresight action programme. The Government have not yet made any announcement on proposals from the aerospace industry.
Mr. Redwood: I enjoyed the right hon. Lady's point about correspondence. I have a little advice for her: if she does not want so many letters, all that she has to do is to answer a few questions—then we shall not need to ask so many. I have a question now. The right hon. Lady has tried to present the case that the Government are cutting taxes on business. The Conservative forecast is that the measures announced so far will cost British business £25 billion extra over the lifetime of this Parliament. Does the right hon. Lady agree? What impact will that have on jobs, investment and new ideas?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not had a chance to study the precise figure cited by the right hon. Gentleman, but if it were true it would be the first time ever. I have had long experience of shadowing the Treasury team: previous figures promulgated by the Conservative party were never accurate and I see no reason to suppose that they ever will be.
We have made 10 tax cuts, none of which the Conservative party has either recognised or welcomed. We may take some steps about which the business community may have reservations—all Governments do—but we shall always listen and strive to ease those concerns if we can.
Before the general election, our extensive consultation revealed a business desire for economic and policy stability, for investment in skills and infrastructure, for a constructive attitude to Europe, and for a partnership in which Government and business each play their separate but complementary role to advance the interests of our country. That is what business wants from Government, and all the right hon. Gentleman's sound and fury cannot disguise the fact that that is what they are getting.
In government, the Conservative party displayed to the full their arrogance, incompetence and dishonesty. In opposition, they seem to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. That is what put them where they are today and that is what will keep them there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I call Mr. David Ruffley.
Mr. David Ruffley: I had not stood up, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is not prepared, I call Mr. John Bercow.
8.21 pm
Mr. John Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me when I was not expecting it.
I richly enjoyed the invective of the President of the Board of Trade, but in all candour it was downmarket drivel. I very much hope that, after due practice and several rehearsals, she will be capable of producing something better for the consumption of the House.

101
She slavishly adhered to a prepared text and gave not the slightest indication that she had seen or read it in advance, let alone written a word of it.
I want to focus on what I shall call the triple torture of British industry and commerce, but first I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), as he seems extremely eager to intervene.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend listens to speeches much more attentively than I do, but I thought that we heard a list of what business wanted. Did not the Secretary of State say that a high pound was one of the complaints of business? Or has she not been listening to business at all?
Mr. Bercow: There was not the slightest evidence that she had listened to the representations of business on the subject. The most curious feature of her oration was when she listed with glowing pride a series of measures that she and the Government had introduced. She did that to justify the claim that she was working for British business. If she had been so courteous as to take my intervention, I would have asked her whether she thinks that size of Government and quantity of legislation are equivalent to quality of administration.
What makes the President of the Board of Trade think that having many laws, issuing many guidelines and making many speeches about commercial and industrial policy is what small or large business wants? It wants a climate in which it can thrive and prosper, but the Department is delivering no such thing.
I want to focus on the triple torture of British industry and commerce: the minimum wage; the European employment chapter, to which the Government have naively signed up; and the strikers' charter. I shall deal, as lain Macleod would have said, briefly but with relish, with each of the three.
First, I want to deal with the national minimum wage. I use the word national advisedly. The Government published the Bill last Thursday, and the glimmer of hope that had existed in the House and among the business community—that good sense might have prevailed over dogma—was extinguished.
We all know about the deep and alarming split within the Government. The President of the Board of Trade—a left-wing firebrand and adherent of old-fashioned socialist ideology, steeped in the religion of bashing business—wanted a national minimum wage with no exemptions by region, by sector, or for small companies. The Minister without Portfolio took a different view. Far be it from me to accuse him of having objections based on principle. The word principle has not yet featured in his lexicon. He objected simply because good sense had occurred to him.
The Minister without Portfolio recognised that, without widespread exemptions, an horrific toll of unemployment would result. No doubt he had observed that in his region—the north-east—on the basis of a 50 per cent. restoration of differentials, a national minimum wage would eliminate 78,316 jobs. No doubt he charitably pointed out to the President of the Board of Trade that, on the same basis, in her region—the east midlands—88,037 jobs would be lost.
The Minister without Portfolio sought, in kindly fashion, to steer the President of the Board of Trade away from the path of madness to a course of sanity.
102
She rebuffed and spurned him and neglected his entreaties, choosing instead to proceed with the outstandingly foolish policy of a national minimum wage.
In her brief, scripted speech, the President of the Board of Trade appeared unconscious of her self-contradiction. She told us with great pride that the Government listened to business. Immediately, and entirely logically, I inquired whether she recognised the views of small business organisations on the national minimum wage and would defer to their wish for general exemptions for small companies. With equal pride, she immediately said no. The great listener to business ignores business's views if they happen in any way to diverge from her stated intention and the dogma that informs it.
The national minimum wage will be a calamity. I do not expect the President of the Board of Trade to accept that from me or from my right hon. Friend the shadow President of the Board of Trade, and I understand that she is sore and writhing from the wounds inflicted by my right hon. Friend—although I urge her to respond with marginally greater grace in future—but I challenge her to accept it from other sources, including the Confederation of British Industry.
Mr. Frank Doran: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday Stan Mendham of the Federation of Small Businesses said that the FSB now accepted the principle of the minimum wage and was anxious to work with the Government? He has not mentioned that.
Mr. Bercow: I am interested to hear that. I have had discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses and its position remains absolutely clear: it is against a national minimum wage, but now that it is to be introduced it will seek to minimise its impact. That is simply good business sense. The federation would rather that the minimum wage had never come on the agenda in the first place.
The CBI reckons that a national minimum wage could cost British business £4.5 billion, the Institute of Directors has dismissed it as a crazy notion and the Employment Policy Institute, no less, a left-of-centre organisation, condemned the policy, saying that small firms would come under severe pressure to survive if the plan went ahead unamended. That is the reality of the matter—as distinct from the distorted interpretation of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran).
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is it not the case that small firms are not universally payers of low wages and the ladder upon which very many unskilled and young people get their first opportunity of a job? It is those groups, which the Labour party makes such a fuss about helping, that will be damaged by the minimum wage policy.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The President of the Board of Trade is proposing to kick the ladder away from those who might have had the chance to get their feet upon its first rungs. That is disgraceful. It is an exploitation of her position in favour of the strong and to the detriment of the weak. She is culpable and she will be held responsible in due course.
It is regrettable that the head of the Low Pay Commission, Professor George Bain, has said that he believes that jobs will be lost, but wonders whether it is

103
rather a good thing that those jobs will be lost. It is all very well for him, in his ivory tower, unconcerned by the impact on him—for there will be none—to say that other people's jobs can safely be destroyed; he will not bear the burden and he will not pick up the bill.
In May 1996, under the previous Government, the Department of Trade and Industry published an estimate of 1 million job losses on the strength of the half restoration of differentials. Curiously, the President of the Board of Trade has been struck down by silence. Very rarely is she reticent—on this occasion she has been. The Department of Trade and Industry has had since 1 May to issue its own prognosis of the effect of a national minimum wage, but it has studiously avoided doing so. If the right hon. Lady disagrees with our prediction, we would be fascinated to hear hers.
The truth is that a national minimum wage will not create jobs, but destroy them. It will not improve competitiveness, but erode it. It will not strengthen our economy, but weaken it. Why do not the Government say what they think the effect will be upon jobs? Is it again a case of, "Can't say, won't say"? Of one fact we are certain; British industry and commerce will have to pay for the ideological folly of this Administration.
Mr. David Borrow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at its most recent conference, the Federation of Small Businesses voted in favour of a sensibly negotiated minimum wage? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware, as I am from speaking to small businesses, that many would welcome a minimum wage because that would stop their being undercut by rogue firms that seek to pay poverty wages? Those small firms want to employ well-trained work forces and pay them a decent wage.
Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman would not secure a post as a researcher in this place because his research is deficient. The simple fact is that the Federation of Small Businesses is opposed to a statutory minimum wage. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that important fact, frankly it is high time that he became so.
I should like to move on from the subject of the national minimum wage about which one can tell that Labour Members are deeply embarrassed—witness the departure from the Chamber of the Minister of State. [Interruption.] I am happy to see that he has returned.
I should like now to focus on the subject of the European employment chapter. Under that chapter, we shall move in the direction of a common European employment policy. We are now told under that chapter that it is a matter of common concern which employment policies member states in the European Union pursue. It is said that they must respect that fact in the formulation of policies.
Qualified majority voting will lead to the production of guidelines for employment policies to be pursued by member states. In case the President of the Board of Trade is in any doubt about the potency of that arrangement, she ought to be aware that we are told that those guidelines shall direct employment policy. Note the use of the word "shall", not "might", "could", "would" or
104
"should". The great and the good, the motley collection of the European Parliament, the Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Employment and Social Affairs Committee will favour us with their wisdom on the policies to be pursued throughout the Community.
If the right hon. Lady is so naive as to suppose that for ever and a day those will be entirely matters of voluntary persuasion by the European Union, frankly she needs to think again. She must recognise that over the years the tendency of the Community has been to pursue policies initially by an attempt at persuasion and, ultimately, by a resort to coercion. That is the track record. If the President of the Board of Trade thinks that different principles will apply in this case, she ought to explain what they are and why the situation will not be a re-run of past disasters and betrayals.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making a cogent case about the dangers of the employment chapter to which the Government have signed up by virtue of the Amsterdam treaty. Would he care to turn his attention even wider, to the question of structural funds? Is it not the case that far from securing influence in the councils of the European Union, Her Majesty's Government are likely to lose grade 1 status for the highlands and islands of Scotland and for Northern Ireland as recipients of structural funds? Furthermore, while we are being disadvantaged, more and more British taxpayers' money is being dispersed to other parts of the European Union. In other words, their employment is being aided whereas ours is being gravely disadvantaged.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. What is more, that trend will be exacerbated if the policies of this Administration are pursued. If we go into a single European currency and if, as a consequence of so doing, unemployment in parts of Europe increases, so will our contribution to the cohesion funds. We will not be the beneficiaries of those increased payments. Transfer payments to other member states in the European Union will be enormous, and the British taxpayer will pick up the bill.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Could the hon. Gentleman possibly remind us who signed the Single European Act and what consequences it had for the British economy? Were there any provisions in it for the regulation of employment in Europe?
Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman is getting rather confused about different treaties. He is entirely correct that the Conservative Administration signed the Single European Act. Its principal provisions, as I would have hoped the hon. Gentleman is conscious, were to do with completion of the single market. For that purpose, we accepted some qualified majority voting. The employment chapter to which I am referring is a feature of the treaty of Amsterdam. If the hon. Gentleman is able to propel his mind forward 11 years, that would greatly aid our debate.
Dr. Whitehead rose—
Mr. Bercow: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, for the simple reason that I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I am about to make my final point about the strikers' charter.

105
There is a pernicious provision that the Government are about to set in train of which the country should be aware and which all right-minded people should condemn: the provision for the recognition of trade unions. What is intended by the Government will be deeply damaging to British business. They say in their proposals that 50 per cent. of the relevant work force, although that is not defined, will suffice for the recognition of trade unions and their entitlement to be granted the status of official bargaining agents on behalf of the work force. That can spread like a contagion right across British industry and commerce.
I do not suggest that it is the intention to return to the dark days of the winter of discontent of the late 1970s, but that could be the outcome. We could return to those grim days, when the streets went unswept, the sick went untended and the dead went unburied. [Interruption.] It is all very well for uninformed right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches to sneer. Their responsibility is to provide a foolproof guarantee that that will not be the outcome of the legislation that the President of the Board of Trade is to introduce to the House. Unless and until they are able to provide that categorical assurance, a policy of silence, not sneering, would be more appropriate.
Mr. Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I shall not give way as I am coming to a conclusion—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be greatly reassured by that.
What the Government have in mind is greater trade union power—power that did not exist even in the days when Michael Foot was Employment Secretary. As a result, we are faced with an enormous threat of industrial unrest. If that is what the Government intend, they should admit it; if they do not wish it, they have a responsibility to take steps to avert it.
I shall now observe a self-denying ordinance as I am anxious to hear my hon. Friends' speeches. I am also waiting to learn whether one Labour Member can provide half an answer to some of the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in his opening speech.
8.40 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: This is an extremely important debate. Anyone who has listened to the Opposition contributions, especially to that of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), will have been left with the clear impression that the Conservatives are seeking to rerun the past. Listening to their contributions so far, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the only arguments that they have advanced are the stale, old ones that we heard during the election campaign, which the Conservatives lost.
The Conservatives lost the election for many reasons, but one of them was because business lost confidence in them owing to the actions that they took during their 18 years in power. Unless the contributions from Conservative Members improve during the rest of the debate, I do not expect that they will regain that confidence.
It was a pity that of the 45 minutes or so that the right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke, 30 minutes was spent on a personal diatribe. We heard such earth-shattering revelations as the fact that he was worried about
106
why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had not agreed to support the Ford motor company, when that company had not even asked for any such support. The other earth-shattering revelation that seemed, for 30 minutes, to form the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech involved him wondering why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had spent some of her holiday in her caravan. The businesses in my constituency are not worried about that and I suspect that they will not be impressed by what we have heard from the Conservative Benches.
If the arguments advanced in this debate were about Government policy, how relevant that was and how it would affect business, that would be perfectly legitimate; it would be right and proper. But a reference to Europe had to be dragged out of the right hon. Member for Wokingham by one of his hon. Friends mentioning the exchange rate mechanism. In view of that, Labour Members are entitled to be suspicious about why, in a speech of 45 minutes, the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned the biggest burden imposed on industry in 1992, when the previous Government's policy ignominiously and incompetently collapsed.
We may argue about the effect of that collapse on industry and I am prepared to debate that legitimate point. But if we are talking about Government credibility, is it not strange that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of Conservative Members, never mentioned the total and fundamental collapse of his Government's policy in 1992? What are we to read into that? Is he ashamed of it? The party has apologised for joining the ERM, but is he ashamed of it? He never mentioned the subject, which had to be dragged out of him by one of his hon. Friends.
Mr. Howard Flight: May I suggest to you that, rather than being a huge problem, it was the greatest boon to industry when the United Kingdom left the ERM?
Mr. Stevenson: So, what you are saying is that another ignominious collapse of Government policy is good for British policy. Is that what you are arguing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both hon. Members are referring to me. I am not responsible for these matters.
Mr. Stevenson: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is interventions of that nature that mean that we sometimes slip up over parliamentary protocol—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a general point to the House? The conventions exist precisely so that we do not lose our tempers and get carried away.
Mr. Stevenson: I am extremely grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The ignominious policy of the previous Government, which we now seem to be being urged to repeat—we shall not—came after two of the worst recessions that this country has ever witnessed.
There was no reference in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham to the other burden on business inflicted by 18 years of the previous Government's rule: their complete and utter isolation in Europe. Time after time, businesses in my constituency asked me why the

107
then Government did not put forward what they wanted to hear in a positive fashion and why the Government were, instead, left completely isolated. Business representatives asked me, "Don't the Government know that they are not working in our interests, but against them?" That argument fell on stony ground with the previous Government. For 18 years that massive burden was imposed on industry.
I accept that the previous Government did not have a policy of imposing burdens on the coal industry; their policy was to destroy it. They did not need to put unnecessary burdens on the coal industry because they wanted to see it destroyed; they certainly achieved that very effectively in my constituency. Future generations in this country will scarcely believe that any Government could have embarked on such a policy.
Another important area of business involves small and medium businesses. My experience—and I suspect that it is shared by many Members of the House—is that small and medium businesses have given a clear message. They are worried about the business rate that was imposed by the previous Government. In my constituency it went up 30 per cent. in less than three years. Businesses are worried about late payment, about investment and about a chronic lack of skills, which I think was referred to by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). They are also worried about the burden of regulation. I shall briefly refer to each of those issues.
The uniform business rate was imposed by the previous Government because they were not prepared, in any way, shape or form, to trust local authorities. They thought that Whitehall knew best the consequences that have been suffered by businesses in my area and elsewhere.
Mrs. Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the reason the previous Government introduced the uniform business rate was that Labour councils all over the country were doubling or trebling business rates year by year and using them as a milch cow to fund the introduction of their extravagant general policies?
Mr. Stevenson: I am prepared to debate that point with the hon. Lady at any time she chooses, but I would say now that her general comment would not stand up to scrutiny. What she describes was certainly not the case in my local authority area—I have had the figures checked. Increases in business rates have far outstripped increases in general rates.
Mr. Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, had the previous Tory Government not neglected the quinquennial revaluation of business properties, the disparity between different regions of the United Kingdom would not have grown to the extent that, in 1990, many of the points raised about high business rates became true? It was the Conservative Government's failure to address the problem through revaluation and the fact that comments made by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) stopped the revaluation in 1979 that created many of the problems.
Mr. Stevenson: My hon. Friend is obviously correct, and I am grateful for that intervention.
Late payment is another burden on businesses. They say that they are not getting paid quick enough and that something needs to be done about the problem. Why did
108
the previous Government do nothing? If they were so interested in lifting the burdens on businesses, especially small businesses, why did they ignore the problem for 18 years?
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman asks a question and I may be able to provide an answer. I was at the Association of British Chambers of Commerce at the time and I well recall that, in 1988, the then Secretary of State for Employment conducted a consultation on statutory interest on late payments. Industry, for which I spoke, said that it did not want it, just as industry is now saying that it is the wrong way to proceed.
Mr. Stevenson: That is more a comment on the effectiveness of the previous Government's consultation processes than a statement of the truth of the matter. All hon. Members, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), would accept without much equivocation that late payment is a real problem for small businesses. Why did the previous Government not act? Why did they ignore the problem throughout their period in office? The Labour Government will act to lift that burden from small businesses.
Skills are extremely important to businesses, especially small businesses. It would be useful for Conservative Members to look at the 1995 report from the European Union Court of Auditors. It makes interesting reading: it contains an entire section on training programmes for small and medium businesses and one section refers particularly the previous Government. Why did the court refer to the previous Government? The report states clearly that less than 1 per cent. of the programmes available to support training for small and medium businesses in the United Kingdom had been implemented by the previous Government—less than 1 per cent. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is an expert on research, but some of us Labour Members have done our research as well, and the figures are damning.
European Union objective 4 funding relates to submissions for retraining those who need new skills to re-enter the job market. That is an essential activity, but in 1995–96 there was not a single bid from the previous Government—not one. When I questioned that in European Standing Committee B, I was told by the Conservative Minister that there was no need for such retraining programmes—a staggering reply. When we talk about burdens on business we should consider the previous Government's record—lamentable, not by accident but by design. The Conservative Government did not believe in public intervention in training and retraining and certainly did not believe that such intervention should come from the European Union.
Deregulation is fine in respect of burdensome regulations that are unnecessary, out of date or counterproductive. There is general consensus that we want to see such regulations out of the way, so we support the Select Committee on Deregulation that was set up by the right hon. Member for Henley in 1994. However, there are two problems with that Committee: first, although it abolished between 800 and 900 regulations, between 1994 and the time they left office the previous Government introduced 10,000 regulations. That cannot have fulfilled the objectives of the exercise. It is no good Conservative

109
Members shaking their heads—it is true; the figures derive from answers to parliamentary questions. Secondly, as I understand it, the Committee does not contain representatives from small and medium businesses—what a lamentable omission from such an important activity.
Conservative contributions to the debate have tried to rerun the stale, lost arguments that were put forward during the general election. We have heard nothing positive from the Conservatives, whereas the Labour agenda is about skills, investment, economic stability, sustainable growth and a Government who, in complete contrast to the Conservatives, are determined to work in partnership with business.
8.56 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I came to the debate with feelings of curiosity and disbelief. I was curious because Conservative Members did not take the opportunity to apologise to the House for the damage that their policies caused to business and jobs when they were in office; and I experienced a sense of disbelief when I saw that they had failed to recognise the verdict of the voters who, having suffered the consequences of their policies, threw them out of office and inflicted the heaviest defeat on the Conservative party since 1906. What does it take before they get the message? What we heard instead was 45 minutes of auto-rant, which is hardly entertaining and certainly not interesting.
Just look at the record left us by the Tory party. In the 1990s under the Tories the national debt more than doubled. It took 300 years to accumulate a national debt of £160 billion. It took the Tories five years to more than double it, to £350 billion. Under the Tories, public sector debt per income taxpayer rose from less than £7,000 to more than £13,000. An independent report by Coopers and Lybrand, a well respected firm, stated that high borrowing and the rundown of state assets had left the public sector technically bankrupt. In 1989, the public sector had a net worth of £243 billion; by 1995, the Tories had reduced it to £36 billion. If they had stayed in office, it would now be zero.
Despite selling off public assets and screwing down public investment, the Tories failed to reduce public-sector borrowing. Let us look at their record on taxation: 22 tax rises since 1992, the biggest ever peacetime increase. The Library has calculated that the average family would need a cut in income tax of over 6p in the pound just to get back to where they were in 1992 at the time of the general election.
Of course, the Tory average family is not average at all. The definition of a family used in Conservative statistics is a family with two children under the age of 11, a male earner on full-time average wages and a non-working wife. That applies to fewer than 2 per cent. of all families. What about all the rest?
Under the Conservatives, the poorest became worse off than ever, and the gap between rich and poor widened. Consider the record on unemployment. The Conservative motion this evening mentions damage to jobs, but unemployment under the Tories rose from 1.26 million in 1979 to more than 2 million in the last Parliament. Consider, too, the damage Conservative policies have done to business and industry. In the year before the Tories left office, investment in manufacturing was lower
110
in real terms than in 1970, a quarter of a century before. Investment in the UK was the fourth lowest in the EU as a percentage of GDP. When they left office, inflation was the third highest in the EU, and short-term interest rates were the second highest—only Greece's were higher.
So on public debt, taxation, poverty and unemployment, investment, inflation and interest rates the Tories' record is one of failure. No wonder the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) adopted the slogan, "No change, no chance". No wonder, either, that the public took his sound advice and voted his party out of office.
Only now do we hear the hint of an apology—not in the House but in an interview reported in the Sunday Times this weekend. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) in her place; I do not like to speak ill of the absent. She reportedly told the Federation of Small Businesses:
"Mea culpa, we did not get it right in all areas".
That prompts the question—how many areas were there left to get it wrong in? Admitting that the Conservative Government did not respond to the needs of small firms, she went on to say:
"We did not listen but perhaps we did not always receive the right message".
The killer point came next:
"There will be little policy coming from the Conservative Party in these initial stages, as is understandable, because we got it wrong."
I am still waiting to hear a formal apology—
Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman paints an appalling picture of the alleged state in which we left the economy. What does he make of the fact that 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment overseas is placed in Britain; that German motor car manufacturers have moved here because of our better labour relations and stable currency; and that even the French are moving their high-tech industries across the channel—
Mr. Chidgey: Yes, I have got the message. I had always thought the hon. Lady was a Eurosceptic, yet now she seems to welcome the benefits of our membership of the EU. She might care to ponder why United Kingdom finance is never seen to be invested in this country—it is always being invested elsewhere.
Given the damning Conservative record of destruction to businesses and jobs, the lack of a policy from the party of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will not be missed, in the House or anywhere else. Now we have an opportunity to repair the damage and reverse the broken promises—
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chidgey: I think the hon. Gentleman has already entertained the House enough for one night with a lengthy speech and several interventions. I am sure that other hon. Members would welcome the chance to make short speeches in the little time that is left.
There is certainly an urgent need to lighten the load on business and to shift taxation away from employment. We need to simplify bureaucracy and encourage the growth of small to medium firms by promoting competition.
As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said, there is an urgent need to tackle the growing skills shortage. If we do not do so, there will be

111
inflationary pressure on wages and the drives for greater efficiency and for greater productivity will be held back. The skills shortage can be tackled only by investment in education and training.
Above all, there is an urgent need to provide proper support for business, to prepare it for the conversion of information technology for the year 2000.
I shall now discuss taxation. We need to simplify taxation by standardising employers' national insurance contributions. We need to consider switching taxes from employment to the consumption of finite resources of fossil fuels. I urge the Government to examine again the idea of raising the threshold for VAT for small and medium enterprises.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the long-overdue Competition Bill. It is time to tackle the anti-competitive practices that are still rife in the economy. We should look again at the recent mergers of international accountants, reducing competition by decreasing their number from seven major firms to five, and the apparently planned merger of two of the major clearing banks, which will reduce competition by decreasing their number from five to three.
Mr. Lansley: I understand the hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that there should be a large-scale energy tax—[Interruption.]
Mr. Chidgey: There is so much coughing from the Front Bench that I cannot hear.
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting a large-scale energy tax. How would such an energy tax be implemented without undermining the competitiveness of many industries for which energy is an important input cost?
Mr. Chidgey: I take the point. I have tried not to go into too much detail because I appreciate that time is short. We believe that tax should be switched from the good things—employment—to the things that consume our finite energy resources. The latter form of tax is commonly called the carbon tax. The whole thrust of that taxation policy is that it is a neutral tax. When national insurance contributions are cut, taxation is switched from employment to the use of finite energy resources. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I must press on, because otherwise we shall not hear the valuable contribution from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) later.
This week, it was reported that electricians had ignored the recommendations of their union and rejected a 30 per cent. increase over three years, because there is an incredible shortage of skilled technicians in the construction industry, which provides a bargaining tool. We must overcome the skills shortage if we are not to create wage instability.
Employers in my constituency tell me that they are worried, not about the minimum wage, but about the shortage of skilled labour. Key workers are being poached by rivals offering higher wages, fuelling the wages spiral, increasing costs and reducing competitiveness. That is a legacy of decades of under-investment in education and
112
training. It is time to stop the rot. We cannot meet this country's skills needs unless we broaden the base of those entering higher education and training.
The increase in student numbers can come only from the families who, for too long, have been excluded from higher education and vocational training. The Government are sending out the wrong message by introducing tuition fees for students. Already there are signs that university applications for the next academic year are dropping dramatically.
It is time to break down the barriers of training for those seeking to improve their skills and for those whose low skills have led to long-term unemployment. Welfare to work can become a reality only if it does not deny access to quality skills training because the individual is deemed to be no longer available for work. We must break the treadmill that means that a person cannot sign up for decent skills training because, if they do so, they lose their unemployment benefit because they are not available for work. The aim must be for that person to gain the skills that will get them out of unemployment and into decent work, which will enable them to contribute to society by earning wages and by paying income tax.
All—not just some—young people should have the right to education and vocational training. If we are to bridge the skills gap, if we are to turn the country round by creating a highly skilled work force that adds value to our economy, we cannot ignore the seedcorn of our young people. That is why the Liberal Democrats are committed to everyone under the age of 18 having the right to two days a week education or quality vocational training.
I want finally to discuss the millennium bug. It is now crystal clear that, as the millennium approaches, solving the problem of the computer time bomb will be expensive and will cause severe disruption to many firms. A survey of more than 1,000 firms about to be published by PA Consultants shows that 50 per cent. do not even have a millennium programme in place. About half the manpower that industry and commerce will need to deal with the problem will have to come from specialist consultants—but there are not enough information technology consultants to go around. At the very least, firms face a huge hike in the cost of IT support. Small firms face a disaster; even the largest face huge problems.
It is estimated that companies representing one third of our gross domestic product will not complete the conversion on time, so 29 per cent. of our GDP is at risk. The Government must start to take the problem seriously. Smooth words from spin doctors are not enough while the head of Action 2000 can afford to spend only one day a week at his desk.
While it is clear that the Opposition motion serves only to highlight their lamentable performance in Government and to confirm how thoroughly they deserved to be thrown out of office, the new Government have yet to convince us that they are taking the actions and pursuing the policies that are vital to this country's recovery. They have been given a mandate based on promise and expectation; the country has the right to demand that they deliver.
9.11 pm
Mr. Geraint Davies: I want to respond to the right hon. Member for Wokingham—Mr. Deadwood, as he is known—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Davies: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. Will he please refer to hon. Members in the correct way?
Mr. Davies: I want to respond to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I will not make any jokes about him, other than to say that he seemed to think of himself as old king coal, Arthur's friend. After 18 years of Conservative rule under which the coal industry was destroyed, it was a bit rich to hear the shadow Minister standing on his hind legs talking as though he was the champion of coal. He suddenly asserted that gas was more expensive than coal—a basic insight which, apparently, he did not have when he was a Minister in the previous Government.
The right hon. Gentleman spent half his time making various smears about Ministers, responding to the simple fact that his wife worked for British Airways when he was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry and British Airways was doing all sorts of things. However, those are not the issues in the debate.
The debate is about the simple fact that the economic legacy of the previous Administration is an appalling mess. We are falling down the skills league. We inherited £410 billion of debt, escalating at an enormous rate and costing us almost £30 billion a year in interest charges. Interest rates and inflation rates went through the hurly burly of boom and bust, hitting 16, 17 and 18 per cent. We had multi-million unemployment, more repossessions than during the highland clearances and two recessions that stripped the heart out of manufacturing. At the same time, small businesses went bust at an unprecedented rate. The legacy was one of hopelessness.
It was a great victory for Britain when the new Labour Government were elected. If the shambles of the Conservative party were running Britain, what sort of future would we have? We would have a myopic approach to a new Europe—a Canute-type Conservatism in which the Opposition dismiss the prospect of monetary union, which is inevitable.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham asked us to join him in apologising to Britain's people for the farce over the exchange rate mechanism. We will not join the Opposition in any apology for the despicable mess that was their legacy.
The official Opposition profess the economics of isolationism, of little England and of chip shop England in an emergent Europe. That is not the future for this country. The Opposition cannot even decide among themselves. The views of the old and new Opposition Front-Bench team diverge massively on the convergence criteria. Contrast that—because that is what the motion is about—with the new Labour Government, who heralded a new era of macro-stability with that bold and courageous move by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Lansley: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, how does he explain the Government's own
114
figures, which suggest that growth of 3.5per cent. in 1997 is to be turned into growth of about 2.5 per cent. next year and 1.75 per cent. the year after? It is hardly a new era.
Mr. Davies: We have been in government for only seven months and already we are seeing the first blossoms of economic success, with employment growing. The single move by the Chancellor to delegate responsibility for setting interest rates to the Bank of England reduced overnight the cost of borrowing on gilts by 0.29 per cent. In the first year, that will save the taxpayer £50 million and, as those bonds mature, the saving will be about £750 million per year to the taxpayer. That is just one move.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I will give way later.
We have the lowest corporation tax in Europe: the second major reduction was announced last week. It is good for business and for Britain.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Davies: I am provoking a lot of Conservative Members now. I have to take one intervention.
Mr. Letwin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the cash flow effects of the Government's change in corporation tax? Does he deny the analysis that the change will cost the whole of British industry about £2 billion?
Mr. Davies: As always, the Government have the long-term interest of business in mind. I am of course aware of the position in relation to cash flow management in the next few years, but, in sharp contrast with the previous Government, we are looking towards the long term.
We have embarked on the new deal, funded by a one-off levy. Business likes that. In Croydon, a major economic engine for south London, we are already persuading the business community to take on the idea of the new deal, which gives new people new opportunities for new business success. Much play was made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about small business.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who is Buckingham?
Mr. Davies: It is that chap over there. My hon. Friend probably does not know him. He is not very famous.
Small business can take on the long-term unemployed at a reduction of £75 a week for the over-25s, or £60 a week for the under-25s. That is a major reduction in labour costs. It enables small business to make one-off, critical mass growth, and a breakthrough in terms of size and prosperity. That is why the proposal has been welcomed so widely.
The advent of regional development agencies is cherished by the business community. Only the other evening, I was having dinner with senior members of the Confederation of British Industry in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that Conservative Members were not invited, but that is a sign of the times. Those CBI

115
representatives welcomed the new, planned, coherent approach to economic development on a regional basis, and the Labour party's initiatives.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Did the hon. Gentleman have an opportunity, during that dinner with senior members of the CBI, to discuss their outright opposition to the minimum wage?
Mr. Davies: No, I did not. We were too busy talking about the need for British business to prepare for economic and monetary union, which the Conservatives completely overlooked. It was pointed out to me at that dinner that having the old Tories still in power, arguing among themselves, would have been a hopeless catastrophe for businesses trying to prepare for the emerging Europe. The minimum wage did not feature in the discussions, partly because it is not a serious issue for the main players in the CBI. The idea of the minimum wage is to encourage skilling, added value and productivity. In a modern economy, our ambition is not to become the new China.
Moving on to more serious points than those raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), the new Labour Government have inherited an economy characterised by millions of people on the dole, unable to pay tax, and the rest paying higher taxes simply to keep people on the dole.
Now there is a new opportunities culture. We are giving thousands and thousands of people a new opportunity to add value to the economy, to contribute and to become stakeholders. That new deal, that welfare to work, that investment in macro-economic stability, with help for small and medium-sized enterprises and all economic stakeholders in a planned and strategic way marks the rebirth of a new Britain for a new millennium. The name of the game is partnership. We are the friend of business, and prosperity is on the way.
9.21 pm
Mr. David Ruffley: The motion refers to action and inaction on the part of Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) gave a distinguished explanation of the Government's damaging actions on wider union powers, a statutory minimum wage and the social chapter. I should like to draw attention to the inaction of Ministers on the important subject of business rates.
I am disappointed that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry is not here, because she was very vocal before and during the election campaign in her alleged support for small business. Not a week went by at any of the main London business forums without a visit from her, talking about how she would reduce the burden on small businesses. She spent a lot of time talking a great game. That has been proved to be full of hollow words.
Let us examine the pledge on business rates that the Labour party has broken. We all know why business rates are important. They comprise a large proportion of the turnover and profit of many small businesses in my part of Suffolk as elsewhere. That is why the Labour manifesto said:
"we will make no change to the present system…without full consultation with business."
116
A press release on 25 July said that Labour would take a look at Government finance and business rates,
"consulting with business fully about returning the business rate to local control."
I have news for Labour Members. Local chambers of trade in my part of East Anglia have not had one piece of paper from the Government on the reform of business rates and how the burden of business rates may be reduced. You have said that you would consult, but you have patently failed to do so. In failing to consult, Labour has broken yet another pledge.
Let us examine the burden that local businesses face. It is clear that small businesses face a disproportionate burden as a result of business rates. The Government have said that they will do something about it, but are failing to do so. The Conservatives had a concrete proposal to give businesses a tax-free allowance for the first £1,000 of rateable value. That was in our manifesto. We had concrete proposals that the Government have not even attempted to follow. You have not consulted when you said that you would.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It ought to be possible for hon. Members to remember for a little while what I said.
Mr. Ruffley: The Government have singularly failed to live up to their manifesto pledges since 1 May.
Many small businesses in my part of Suffolk are particularly concerned about the Government's commitment to remove the universal council tax cap in due course. Their manifesto says absolutely nothing about a capping mechanism in respect of business rates.
In the absence of any details on that important subject from any Ministers in any Department, particularly the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, there is a great deal of speculation, which is worrying the small business community, particularly in the provinces. In particular, it is worried about the gossip and the spin that is being applied by Government advisers to the effect that the local business rate, if returned to council control, would be linked to domestic council tax levels.
That is what Ministers' advisers are putting around. That is not a great comfort to local businesses, because they know that, if local businesses are tied to local council tax levels, there is only one way in which business rates can go—up. A report, which I am sure is right, shows that an increase of up to 10 per cent. in domestic council tax is winging its way to council tax payers in the next financial year.
Mr. Borrow: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many businesses foresee a return to a closer relationship and partnership with local government, but would welcome a link between a local business rate and the council tax, so that any increase for council tax payers is matched by the increase for business rate payers rather than divorcing one from the other, as that would risk local government increasing the council tax by a different percentage from that applied to the business rate? Or is he saying that a central, nationalised business rate should remain?
Mr. Ruffley: I wish that such erudition on the subject of local government finance was shown by Government

117
Front Benchers. They say nothing on this subject, which is precisely why local business men complain to me about an absence of consultation and understanding.
The whole basis on which local council tax business rate setting is returned to local authorities, and the linking of it to the domestic council tax, will inevitably shift the gearing downwards. As we all know, at present a 5 per cent. increase in council tax will have an upward impact of only 1 per cent. on local authority budgets. At the moment, that provides a disincentive for local politicians to jack up rates. The change that the Government propose would reduce the gearing, making it very much more attractive to raise local finance—not just the domestic council tax, but local business rate tax. That is what the Government's manifesto proposals mean.
Mr. Loughton: I was entirely confused by what the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) said. He missed one fundamental point. One reason why businesses would not, perhaps, welcome a return to the link with local rates is that business men do not get a vote. Businesses have no power or authority over local authorities, whereas local voters do. That is the fundamental difference.
Mr. Ruffley: I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable and important contribution.
The logic of the Government's proposals is bad for business. The inaction of Ministers and Departments is a disgrace. They have made promises and failed to keep them. The Government's inaction is something which local businesses will not take lightly.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ruffley: As I am bringing my remarks to an end, I shall not give way.
The motion goes to the core of Ministers' inaction, which is damaging jobs and business and leading especially to uncertainty in the small business sector.
9.29 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: We have had a useful debate. What a contrast is to be drawn between the contributions of my hon. Friends and those of the two Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), in an eloquent speech, highlighted the fallacy of the case for the minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) reminded the Government of their complete inactivity on the business rate.
The contributions of Labour Members reflected old Labour in all its manifestations. We heard from the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies).
In seven lean months, the Government's business policy has become clear. There are favours for their friends—for example, special treatment for formula one and a huge new gas-fired power plant for BP while for the rest there are higher taxes. There is more regulation for everyone. In business, the Government are partisan, expensive and burdensome. I shall focus especially on the burdens that are being imposed by the Government.
118
Before I refer to the burdens, what has happened to deregulation? The Conservative Government produced about 30 deregulation orders a year. I checked, and in the past seven months the Labour Government have produced only one such order. They have made it easier to deduct trade union subscriptions from employees' pay without written authorisation.
What has happened to the deregulation task force? The answer is that it has been renamed. It is now the better regulation task force. Even so, it seems to have sunk without trace in the Cabinet Office bureaucracy. It has become the Humphrey of Government quangos. We have not heard from it and we have seen no proposals from it. That gives the lie to the Labour party's promises before the general election that it would continue with the process of deregulation.
New burdens are being imposed. British business faces a wave of new legislation. There will be an increase in rules, bureaucracy and costs on a scale not seen since the mid-1970s. The President of the Board of Trade boasted about the weight of legislation that she would inflict on business. The right hon. Lady took responsibility for 10 Bills this evening, including the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill and a Competition Bill, proposing draconian new powers of search and entry and retrospective fines of up to 10 per cent. turnover. These proposals have been opposed in detail by all major employers' operations.
There is the National Minimum Wage Bill, which will increase the cost of labour for not only low-paying businesses but all businesses. That is why employers' organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation oppose it. That is not because member companies pay badly but because of the impact that the Bill will have on differential pay rates. The Bill will interfere with the freedom of employers to reward performance and skills. It will also price younger people out of jobs.
Mr. Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fallon: I shall not give way, because there is very little time.
A week ago, the Prime Minister prayed in aid the minimum wage in the United States of America. In the USA, however, small firms are exempted. Firms with a turnover of less than $500,000 are exempted. Seasonal workers are exempted. A catalogue of other workers are also exempted. After the National Minimum Wage Bill, there will be further legislation on compulsory union recognition, on the right to statutory interests and on strikers' rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham reminded us.
The biggest and heaviest burden of all comes in the form of the social chapter. It is proposed that we should have European works councils which are expensive, bureaucratic and unnecessary. They are welcomed by one trade union leader, who said:
"It is tempting to see European works councils as a threat to trade union organisation. But that would be a recipe for inactivity. Our objective should be to do what the German trade unions do and take over these works councils in multinational companies."
That was Mr. Dromey just two years ago.

119
That directive is followed by the parental leave directive. The Department of Trade and Industry estimates the cost of the directive at £200 million a year for British business. That is a burden on business. There is also the part-time and temporary workers directive which gives new statutory and contractual rights to part-time workers. There is the sex discrimination and—
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to disturb the peroration by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). Have you been informed, Madam Speaker, that the President of the Board of Trade will not be here? My hon. Friend is presenting a damning indictment of the right hon. Lady's speech, yet she is not here to hear it; nor is—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Government have collective responsibility. The Minister of State is present on the Front Bench waiting to respond.
Mr. Fallon: Further measures are proposed on sex discrimination and sexual harassment which not only run directly counter to the principle of United Kingdom civil law that people bringing a claim must prove their case, but flatly contradict Labour's Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fallon: No, because I do not have time.
Another proposal is for national works councils. Firms with as few as 50 employees will now face the same statutory obligations as the multinationals because proposals introduced under the social chapter will be subject to qualified majority voting. We read that, when the idea was first mooted last June, Downing street said:
"We are not in favour of new regulation in this area."
By November, we read that the Prime Minister
"has been urging European Union leaders to refrain from using the social chapter to pass new laws that could intlict more red tape on business."
That is what happens if one gives away vetoes. This country ends up begging its fellow European leaders not to legislate against it.
We put that point to the Prime Minister at Question Time, but he did not answer it. Happily, the question was then put to the President of the Board of Trade, not in the House, but by Mr. John Humphrys in "On The Record" on Sunday 9 November. He pushed the right hon. Lady on the point that if she wanted exemptions for small firms from the national works council directive, she would not be able to secure them. Mr. Humphrys said:
"You will resist but you can't actually stop it happening."
The right hon. Lady answered with what may be a summary of her industrial policy. She said:
"Well, er, we shall see how things go."
The Government do not have an answer.
The Government do, however, pay attention to some industries. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) explained, formula one gets attention. The Prime Minister and his children attend Silverstone, Bernie puts in a million and somehow, there is immediate access to Ministers.There are fewer jobs in
120
formula one than there are in the coalfields, but the miners have not yet been to No. 10. The miners' leaders have not yet been to see the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, but they have been to see us. The reason is that Ministers have broken their promises on preventing gas-fired generation.
Ministers are happy to preside over the disintegration of the coal industry—indeed, they have accelerated closures with the additional money they have taken out of the power industry. They have £250 million from National Power, £200 million from PowerGen and £100 million from Eastern Electricity, precisely the companies which are negotiating with the coalfields and precisely the companies which are buying coal from our collieries. Coal is not in safe hands.
Where has the President of the Board of Trade been over the past few weeks? We read that coal policy is now in the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister, a Minister with responsibility for the environment, a Minister with responsibility for the regions or the Minister without Portfolio—everywhere except in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. She does not have a coal policy, but we know where she was last week. She was opening the caravan show at Earl's Court. Caravans are quite a metaphor for this Government—they are slow moving, they sway from side to side and they block the way ahead.
What about the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, who is the Minister with responsibility for coal? Where was he last week when all the meetings were taking place in Downing street? He has not even attended this debate. I can tell my hon. Friends that we tracked him down last week. The headlines read, "Battle Acts to Stop Bad Hair Days". He was promising not help for the coalfields but
"a government-funded study of problems with products used in hairdressing".
He said that his proposals
"represent a genuine package of positive steps that will help to engender confidence in this important sector of the economy".
He is the Minister for blow waves.
I have to tell Ministers that we have rumbled their business policy—it is formula one, it is caravans, it is hairdressing. We have been raising the issues that matter to British business—competition policy, costs, the minimum wage and the new wave of 10 Bills of which the President of the Board of Trade boasts and which will impose new costs right across the British business sector.
The Labour party claimed to favour stability when it consulted business before the election, but it now boasts about introducing 10 new Bills, thus creating a wave of uncertainty and instability right across industry. The Government claim to have cut business taxes; instead, they have increased them in every sector. By introducing the windfall tax and increasing corporation tax and taxes on the technology industries, they have increased the burden on British business.
Finally, and most outrageous of all, the Government claim, laughably, to be business's friend, but their policies have already been rejected in detail by business. The national minimum wage is opposed by employers' organisations, the windfall tax has been opposed, and the proposals for statutory recognition have been opposed. It is nonsense to say that Labour supports British business. In the past seven months, it has done everything possible to undermine the inheritance that we bequeathed them.
9.44pm
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has been out of politics for five years, and his speech showed it. He is the same old Tory with the same old story. He has nothing new to say, so he simply attacks. He attacks the right of home workers to be paid 50p an hour. He supports the principle and concept of low pay, but opposes the right of workers whose children fall ill to take time off to visit them in hospital. He opposes the right of 2 million low-paid workers to have paid holidays for the first time in their life. He is opposed to employers and employees sitting down in works councils to discuss matters of interest and agreement—despite the fact that, when the Tory Government opted out, employers opted in.
What else does the hon. Member for Sevenoaks oppose? He opposes fairness at work and the right of individuals to be treated fairly by their employers. He is still opposed to people being protected from being forced to work 60, 70 or 80 hours a week, despite the fact that, in government, the Tories lost a European Court decision, which said that they were acting illegally in preventing people from being protected from working unsocial hours. That is the sum total of what the Tories have learnt—or not—since 2 May.
What about the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the mouthpiece of Jonathan Aitken? He learned his trade—no more, no less—supporting or promoting Jonathan Aitken. He spent 45 minutes in the House denying other hon. Members the opportunity to speak positively on how we need to take the United Kingdom economy forward. When it came down to it, the hon. Gentleman had only one simple thing to say: he believes in poverty pay. His simple premise is no pay or low pay. At the end of 45 minutes of diatribe, he showed himself for all he is: a person who defends the few against the many in the workplace who have been undermined by low pay for the past 30 years.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney: Sit down.
What an apologist the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is for a Tory Government who, for 18 years, hammered small business rates. He came to the debate to attack a Labour Government, despite that—
Mr.Bruce rose—
Mr. McCartney: Wait a minute.
All that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds had to do was to apologise for 18 years of Tory government, during which the Conservatives undermined small businesses.
Only yesterday, in The Sunday Times, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) apologised—or attempted to—for how the Tories treated small businesses during 18 years of government. It is too late to apologise. Tens of thousands of businesses have gone out of business, and gone with them are valuable jobs in local communities. The hon. Lady said that the Government have done nothing for business and taxation. We have been in power for about 220 days. The Tories were in
122
power for 18 years—during which there were 22 tax rises, two recessions and 3 million people unemployed. That was their record.
What have we done in the first seven months? We abolished advance corporation tax, reduced VAT on fuel and power from 8 percent. to 5 per cent., reduced VAT for approved insulation schemes, cut corporation tax from 33 percent. to 30 percent., cut small companies corporation tax by 2 percent.—
Mr. Bruce rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way?
Mr. McCartney: No.
Madam Speaker: That being the case, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) should resume his seat.
Mr.McCartney: We introduced a 10p increase in capital allowances for small firms, reduced vehicle excise duty for low-emission lorries, reduced the gas levy, increased tax allowances for film production and simplified gilt interest. Goodness, I am tired out—and that is only in the first seven months of a Labour Government.
What did we find when we came to power on 2 May? We found the social and economic effects of two recessions and record bankruptcies. We found that 250,000 companies had been forced to the wall since 1979 and a business had gone bust every three minutes of every working day since 1992. The Conservative party was not a party of business; it was a party of funny business. The Tories fiddled while the economy burned. They protected Asil Nadir when tens of thousands of small businesses went to the wall because of their economic incompetence.
In one in five working-age households in Britain, no one works. What was the Tories' answer? They fiddled the figures. A generation of young people and older workers were abandoned to the dole queue and social exclusion. The Tories created a sweatshop capital of Europe instead of an enterprise capital of Europe. They introduced a hire-and-fire culture: if someone was not willing to work for £1 or £1.20 an hour, there was always somebody else among the 3 million on the dole queue who would. Low pay or no pay was the Tories' cry. They created fat-cattery and took extra jobs themselves. Part-time Members of Parliament had two, three, four, five and even six directorships—because they claimed that they could not live on a Member of Parliament's salary—but they forced a million people in Britain to live on less than £2.50 an hour. Those are the double standards and hypocrisy of the Opposition.
The Tories raised interest rates to record levels. There was a recession in the construction industry and record low investment. Under the Tories, we had a record low share of world trade. They put up taxes for small businesses and increased regulation when they promised to cut it. Then they refused to help small and medium-sized enterprises that were crippled by late payments. The former Deputy Prime Minister boasted that that was how to do business. He said that he became a multi-millionaire by screwing small businesses into the ground. His attitude was, "I succeeded—to hell with them." That is what the Tories did in 18 years, and then

123
they left us £350 billion of debt—£6,000 for every citizen in the United Kingdom. The Tories were not economists: they were spivs and Arthur Daleys.
On 2 May, we took power and set about modernising this country. We are committed to strong, open and fair markets; economic and social renewal; partnership replacing conflict; and modern companies building a new country and a new Europe. Those are the consequences of the first seven months of a Labour Government. This Government believe in partnership and a valued role for employees and their trade unions. We are committed to the aims, roles and shared values of business. We support improved company cultures; performance and skill enhancement; the development of personal potential; the retention of skills and talent; the development of new skills and talent; investing in the work force; investing in research and development; the provision of minimum standards in the workplace; and training adaptable workers for flexible working environments. That is the difference between us and the Tories. What a contrast.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the former Secretary of State for Wales, is the wannabe of British politics. He said, "I wannabe the leader of the Tory party," but when he first tried, he got 27 per cent. of the vote of the parliamentary party. He lost, but he tried again. He got 16 per cent. of the vote. After his performance tonight, I doubt that he would even get off the starting line. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not want to be reminded of the shambles for which he and his colleagues were responsible over the past 18 years. The Labour Government have tried to start the process of change.
What does the Tory party find obnoxious about a Government policy which, in partnership with industry, will ensure positive effects in the labour market? We shall reject negative proposals that will hinder employment. We shall expand the mobility of the labour market by investing in skills. The problem under the Tories was that they refused to invest in skills. As a consequence, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) pointed out, this country suffers from a skill shortage. This Government will invest in skills and opportunity.
This Government introduced a £3.5 billion Budget that will be the biggest investment in skills and opportunity that this country has ever seen. Some 250,000 people will be taken off the dole and given an opportunity, and £200 million will be invested in giving single parents employment opportunities. The Tories simply sneer. They do not give a damn. They are unconcerned about the future of young people in Britain. The Tories sneer at investment of £3.5 billion, but employers do not sneer. Record numbers of employers are joining the new deal to ensure, when it is introduced in January next year, that it will be the most successful job creation programme in this country's history.
Why do the Opposition oppose employers sitting down with their employees and this Government, to work out new policies to sustain small and medium-sized enterprises? Why are the Opposition so opposed to partnership? They believe simply in conflict, when this country needs a sense of stability and economic commitment—for people to be able to find work
124
throughout their working lives and to do the jobs on offer. Why is it that the Conservatives just cannot find the capacity—
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your guidance. Is it in order for a Minister at the Dispatch Box who has referred to an hon. Member to refuse to take an intervention from that Member?
Madam Speaker: It is possible for any hon. Member to do that. The Member who has the Floor has discretion as to whether to give way. The Minister seems to be in full flow, and he is not going to give way.
Mr. McCartney: In the past 10 years, Conservative Members have always thought that they could put me off by shouting at me, even when they were on Government Benches. Some day, they will learn their lesson. There is no possibility of Opposition Members putting me off, on any subject at any time, and they should learn that. Nor will I ever give way to right hon. and hon. Members who preach double standards and hypocrisy in this House. The hon. Member for Buckingham had three quarters of an hour to put his case, and he failed abysmally. I will not give way to him, when Labour Members who should have been able to speak were not allowed to. In fact, this is a first. I have never known an Opposition to filibuster their own motion as much as Conservative Members have done, but they did.
The former Secretary of State for Wales—I have to keep saying former Secretary of State, because I just love it—has become the No. 1 stalker of Ministers. He can be seen early in the morning at the back of the Department of Trade and Industry, scraping around in the bins looking for something that will get him a quick headline. I am getting a little concerned for him as the winter weather comes on. May I suggest this to him? Do not hang around the back, but come in the front. We shall give him a cup of tea and, as we have always done since day one of this Government, we shall answer every question that he puts to us.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the Minister would not want to mislead the House. I have just checked the record of the Doorkeeper, and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) spoke for 20 minutes. Clearly, the Minister cannot count that far. If he thinks that 20 minutes is 45, he should not be in that office.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) spoke for 20 minutes. I have it here. I also know how many points of order the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has raised—too many.
Mr. McCartney: To return to the issues at stake, Opposition Members spent a great deal of time on their favourite subject—attacking Europe. As we reach the close of the debate, perhaps I can help them. We are considering a new directive, protecting endangered species living out of their natural habitats. What could be more relevant to Conservative Members who, on 1 May, were driven out of Scotland and out of Wales, and were recently driven out of Winchester? To make things a little easier for themselves, they drove themselves out of Leominster.

125
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, said that the Conservatives were the party of business. I can remember the Moms Minor—The Austin Morris. Last week, the Tories created a new model, the Temple-Morris. No matter how hard one tries to steer it, it just will not turn right, and neither will we.
We reject the Opposition motion. We ask hon. Members to vote for modernisation, renewal and partnership. Let us rebuild this country and give young people job opportunities. Let us get the long-term unemployed off the dole. Let us work in partnership with business to invest in training and education, research and development. Let us give Britain a major voice in Europe.
What people need in Europe is a Labour Government committed to employability, getting unemployment down and improving social justice, so that everyone has an opportunity to participate. We won the general election on the basis that we were the party of the many and the Tories were the party of the few. Today's debate showed that in spades. We remain the party of the many, and they remain the party of the few.
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 326.

Division No 102]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Fallon, Michael

Amess, David

Flight, Howard

Arbuthnot, James

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fox, Dr Liam

Baldry, Tony

Gale, Roger

Bercow, John

Garnier, Edward

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gibb, Nick

Blunt, Crispin

Gill, Christopher

Body, Sir Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Boswell, Tim

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gray, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Green, Damian

Brady, Graham

Greenway, John

Brazier, Julian

Grieve, Dominic

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Burns, Simon

Hammond, Philip

Butterfill, John

Hawkins, Nick

Cash, William

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Chope, Christopher

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Horam, John

Collins, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

Curry, Rt Hon David

Jenkin, Bernard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Day, Stephen

Key, Robert

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Duncan, Alan

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Evans, Nigel

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Faber, David

Lansley, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Letwin, Oliver

126

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Shepherd, Richard

Lidington, David

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Loughton, Tim

Spicer, Sir Michael

Luff, Peter

Spring, Richard

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Streeter, Gary

MacKay, Andrew

Swayne, Desmond

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Syms, Robert

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Madel, Sir David

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Maples, John

Tredinnick, David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tyrie, Andrew

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Viggers, Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Walter, Robert

Moss, Malcolm

Waterson, Nigel

Ottaway, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Paice, James

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Whittingdale, John

Paterson, Owen

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Prior, David

Wilkinson, John

Randall, John

Willetts, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robathan, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Yeo, Tim

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Ruffley, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

St Aubyn, Nick

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mr. Oliver Heald.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Alexander, Douglas

Cann, Jamie

Allan, Richard

Caplin, Ivor

Allen, Graham

Casale, Roger

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Caton, Martin

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ashton, Joe

Chaytor, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Chidgey, David

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Chisholm, Malcolm

Banks, Tony

Clapham, Michael

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Beard, Nigel

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clelland, David

Benton, Joe

Clwyd, Ann

Berry, Roger

Coaker, Vernon

Best, Harold

Coffey, Ms Ann

Betts, Clive

Coleman, Iain

Blears, Ms Hazel

Colman, Tony

Blizzard, Bob

Connarty, Michael

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Boateng, Paul

Cooper, Yvette

Borrow, David

Corbett, Robin:

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cotter, Brian

Bradshaw, Ben

Cousins, Jim

Brand, Dr Peter

Cranston, Ross

Breed, Colin

Crausby, David

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cummings, John

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burden, Richard

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dafis, Cynog

Byers, Stephen

Dalyell, Tam

Caborn, Richard

Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

127

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Davidson, Ian

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Doran, Frank

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Keeble, Ms Sally

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Edwards, Huw

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kemp, Fraser

Ennis, Jeff

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Fatchett, Derek

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Fearn, Ronnie

Khabra, Piara S

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Fisher, Mark

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Flint, Caroline

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Follett, Barbara

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Leslie, Christopher

Foulkes, George

Levitt, Tom

Gapes, Mike

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gardiner, Barry

Linton, Martin

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Gerrard, Neil

Love, Andrew

Gibson, Dr Ian

McAllion, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McAvoy, Thomas

Godsiff, Roger

McCabe, Steve

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gorrie, Donald

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Grant, Bernie

McDonagh, Siobhain

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Macdonald, Calum

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McFall, John

Grocott, Bruce

Mclsaac, Shona

Grogan, John

MacShane, Denis

Gunnell, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McWalter, Tony

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McWilliam, John

Hanson, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harris, Dr Evan

Mallaber, Judy

Harvey, Nick

Mandelson, Peter

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Marek, Dr John

Healey, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Martlew, Eric

Hepburn, Stephen

Maxton, John

Heppell, John

Meale, Alan

Hesford, Stephen

Michael, Alun

Hill, Keith

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hoey, Kate

Milburn, Alan

Hood, Jimmy

Miller, Andrew

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mitchell, Austin

Hope, Phil

Moffatt, Laura

Hopkins, Kelvin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Howells, Dr Kim

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Moriey, Elliot

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hurst, Alan

Mudie, George

Hutton, John

Mullin, Chris

Iddon, Dr Brian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Illsley, Eric

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Ingram, Adam

Norris, Dan

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Olner, Bill

128

O'Neill, Martin

Southworth, Ms Helen

Öpik, Lembit

Spellar, John

Organ, Mrs Diana

Squire, Ms Rachel

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Palmer, Dr Nick

Steinberg, Gerry

Pearson, Ian

Stevenson, George

Pendry, Tom

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pickthall, Colin

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pike, Peter L

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pollard, Kerry

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pope, Greg

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Pound, Stephen

Stringer, Graham

Powell, Sir Raymond

Stunell, Andrew

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Primarolo, Dawn

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Purchase, Ken

Timms, Stephen

Quin, Ms Joyce

Tipping, Paddy

Radice, Giles

Todd, Mark

Rapson, Syd

Touhig, Don

Raynsford, Nick

Trickett, Jon

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Truswell, Paul

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rendel, David

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rogers, Allan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rooker, Jeff

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tyler, Paul

Rooney, Terry

Wallace, James

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ward, Ms Claire

Rowlands, Ted

Wareing, Robert N

Ruane, Chris

Watts, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Webb, Steve

Ryan, Ms Joan

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Salter, Martin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sanders, Adrian

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sawford, Phil

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Sedgemore, Brian

Willis, Phil

Shaw, Jonathan

Wills, Michael

Sheerman, Barry

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wise, Audrey

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wood, Mike

Singh, Marsha

Woolas, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mr. Jim Dowd and

Soley, Clive

Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the speedy action taken by Her Majesty's Government to foster an environment in which business can flourish, with macro-economic stability, low rates of corporation tax, a clear new competition policy, and a review of utility regulation; contrasts this with the boom and bust policies of the previous administration which led to the collapse of thousands of firms and unemployment for millions; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's partnership with business to improve UK competitiveness.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (Sittings)),
That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 16th December at half-past Ten o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of government expenditure in Wales in 1998–99 under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Pope.]
Question agreed to.

Education (Hackney)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
10.14 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please move away from the Bar as there is an hon. Member who wishes to speak.
Mr. Sedgemore: I should like to begin this debate by congratulating children and teachers in Hackney on their sustained and steady improvement in achievement in the 1990s. Whereas in 1990 only 14 per cent. of pupils obtained more than five GCSE grades A to C, in 1996 that figure had risen to 31 percent. This year, the improvement in the grades was one of the best in the country. Better still, The Observer showed in a comprehensive survey that two Hackney schools, Clapton school and Haggerston school, were in the top 10 schools when value added was measured. I say well done to everyone concerned.
There is no contradiction between praise for those achievements and a recognition that the Office for Standards in Education report earlier this year was right to say that there were too many schools in Hackney that were performing badly—after all, one badly performing school is one too many. The Ofsted report was also right to say that the administration of education in Hackney was in a state of turmoil that could only be characterised as chaos. It was also right to report that things had become much more chaotic since the Liberal Democrats and Tories had taken control of the council, 18 months earlier. The blame lies with Councillor Kevin Daws, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Councillor Joe Lobenstein, the leader of the Tories. Those two councillors are living proof of George Villiers's aphorism:
"The world is made up for the most part of fools and knaves."
Faced with that situation, I have no hesitation in saying that the only course open to the Government was to intervene directly, despite their limited legal powers, to help Hackney's schoolchildren. The Government's intervention was welcomed by teachers, parents and school governors. It is the considered view of most people—myself included—that the Minister for School Standards, who will reply to the debate, handled the intervention with great skill and sensitivity. I was present when he met head teachers in Hackney and can therefore pay tribute to his understanding, knowledge and professionalism. We were all impressed.
The improvement team that was sent in came up with some good suggestions. One of its members, Pat Collarbone, the former head teacher of Haggerston school for girls, is known to me, and I have the greatest respect for her ability. The team produced an education structure that valued the work of teachers and recognised that providing a service for education cannot be carried out in the same way as providing a service for refuse collection—there is a qualitative difference.
However, the alarm bells rang in Hackney, Whitehall and Westminster when Tony Elliston, Hackney council's chief executive, announced on the radio that he was

131
prepared to go to war with the Government over the future of Hackney's education services. Tony Elliston is an unelected bureaucrat, yet here he was entering the political arena and declaring war on the most popular Government in history, without consulting the council's education committee or the full council.
In acting as a politician and usurping the role of elected politicians, he made a mockery of the notion of the public service ethos; he was also clearly in breach of the express and/or implied terms of his contract and in breach of the Widdecombe rules, which forbid senior local government officers to enter the political arena publicly. He let the people of Hackney down and lost their confidence. In his startling broadcast, he sounded like a man who had just had electro-shock therapy that had gone wrong—as though his brain was about to explode.
Ministers were right to respond by insisting that, whatever the chief executive thought, the council should employ a new director of education on the salary recommended by the improvement team. However, that still leaves open two questions: why did the chief executive allow chaos to develop in the education department and why was he unwilling to put it right? Why did the first, second and third-tier officers leave the education department during Elliston's reign of chaos? Was it only because he became obsessed with vacuous sociological jargon that was described by the National Union of Teachers' representative, Mark Lushington, as
"the toxic waste of American management theory circa 1975"
which
"reads like a menu for a Harvester restaurant"
and which was viewed by head teachers as plain idiotic?
Or was it because Tony Elliston, Hackney's chief executive, is a public school bully masquerading as an East End barrow boy who has nowhere to go but Hackney because he has exposed himself as unemployable elsewhere? He seems to believe that he can bully and threaten people into accepting his crude solutions to problems. Chief executives from other boroughs have told me that he has not tried to adapt his new management structure to Hackney's needs. I have written to him about Hackney's education services, but all I get in reply is that sinful pride which Alexander Pope characterised as
"the never failing vice of fools".
It is my considered view that bullies and fools such as Mr. Elliston have to be faced down. Just as the bully boy in the playground has to be excluded if he does not mend his ways, so the bully boy in charge of Hackney council should, if he does not change his ways, be excluded from public life.
It is deeply regrettable that when talking about education the chief executive should have demonstrated a vulgar streak which debased and demeaned our borough and brought it into hatred, ridicule and contempt. You probably will not believe this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but last week I was browsing in the Library through a magazine called "PR Week", of which I have a copy with me. Speaking of what he described as "maverick teachers" in Hackney, Tony Elliston, at a meeting of the Institute of Public Relations, said:
"Hackney is always in the said. It's just a question of how deep it is'.
132
Speaking, furthermore, about Ms Lorraine Langham, an executive director of the council, he said:
"Lorraine's approach to the media is that you can't polish a turd."
Where else in Britain is there a chief executive who refers to his council staff as shit? Does his executive director really use the schoolboy language of bodily functions when she speaks to the chief executive? And how does any of this help our schoolchildren who get only one chance in life? Perhaps Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Daws and Tory leader Joe Lobenstein, who support the chief executive in his filth, can tell us.
When the chaos was at its height in Hackney's education department I went to see one of the officers, Mohamed Mehmet. By then, the director of education, Gus John, had been driven out of his post, all the second-tier officers had gone, and Mohamed, who was about to leave, was the last of the third tier officers. It was like being on a beachhead where the battle plan had gone wrong. All around was desolation, and as the bright Byronic sun of the beachhead disappeared behind the clouds, the wind withered in the stagnant air, the waves died, the tides returned to their graves, and darkness became the universe. A whole department had been destroyed, morale had been sapped and Mohamed was getting out before he took the hit for everything that was wrong.
The new management structure prepared for Hackney by the chief executive is based on the dumbing down of intelligence, professionalism and specialist expertise. It was rejected by head teachers, governors, the National Union of Teachers and Labour councillors. Amazingly, for the first time in history the head teachers and the NUT found themselves on the same side of an industrial dispute—between the chief executive and the Government.
The great virtue of the work of the improvement team was that, for the first time in the history of Hackney education, everyone was consulted and everyone agreed—except for the chief executive and a couple of political parties motivated by malice.
I ask the Minister of State to make it clear in the immediate future that the work of the improvement team has his full confidence, and that it should not be deflected from its task of doing the best that it can for the future of Hackney's children. Everything that the local education authority does must be geared to that end, and that end only. Any help and resources that the Government can give to meeting that goal will be much appreciated. More resources really are needed.
Unfortunately, some of the administrative and political problems will not be overcome until the local elections in May 1998, when Labour will be returned to power. Political stability combined with common sense will then return. I suspect that, come May 1998, the advice of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be sought on the proper method of getting rid of a recalcitrant chief executive.
For too long, too many people have played politics with the lives of Hackney's schoolchildren. It now behoves us all to raise our expectations and our performance in relation to their needs.
10.24 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and especially with his closing remark that for too long people have played politics with Hackney schoolchildren. However, the main thing that I want to do in the few minutes available to me is to emphasise the amount of positive work going on in Hackney schools and the fact that very many teachers and very many children are still achieving, still doing their best in difficult circumstances.
When I first read in the newspaper that a hit squad was coming into Hackney schools, I was a little worried, because although those of us who are familiar with the position now know that the hit squad was coming to address problems at the centre, the press coverage at the time gave the sad impression that all schools in Hackney were failing. That was very unfortunate. One of the problems that we have in Hackney is a flight of parents once their children reach the age of 11 because of the poor reputation—undeserved, I believe—of secondary schools in Hackney.
Like many parents, I have difficulty with the policy of naming and shaming because, ultimately, we are naming and shaming not the school but the children. Not so long ago, I visited Morningside school in Hackney. Teachers told me that, the day after Morningside was plastered all over The Evening Standard as one of the worst schools in the country, the atmosphere in the school was like a morgue. We must have a care with policy, because the people who bear the burden of the stigma are the children in the schools.
The hit squad is at work now, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is right to say that it has the support of teachers, councillors and parents in playing its part to improve education in Hackney. However, in a borough like Hackney, with the fourth highest unemployment in the country, with the one of the highest numbers of single parents in the country and with some of the worst housing in the country, education and achievement can never be satisfactorily addressed unless issues of poverty are also addressed and unless a policy of redistributing wealth is also considered.
I am not a class determinist when it comes to education; I do not believe that working-class children cannot achieve because they are working-class. I come from a working-class immigrant background and went to Cambridge university—a rather politically incorrect thing to admit nowadays. If children in Hackney are to achieve all that I know they can achieve, Hackney will need more resources and support and it will need policies to tackle the poverty and poor housing that we have in Hackney.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch mentioned Clapton school for girls. It is actually one of the most improving schools in the country. I am very sad that the council is now talking about turning it into a mixed school. There is a history of educating girls on that site dating from the 19th century. I realise the difficulties in Hackney and I realise the pressures for more mixed-sex schools, but Clapton school for girls has an important history of educating girls. There are not that many schools in Hackney with a positive history. It is a good school.
134
Clapton school for girls educates substantial numbers of Muslim girls; a mosque has been built a stone's throw from it precisely because the community wants the girls to attend that school. I fear that, if the school is turned into a mixed-sex school, Muslim parents will withdraw their girls and there will be pressure for a single-sex Muslim girls' school in Hackney, which would be a backward step.
It is to the credit of schools in Hackney that they are able to educate so many children from so many different creeds and backgrounds together in one system. The decision to turn Clapton school for girls into a mixed-sex school is wrong. It will be detrimental and I believe that it will give rise to pressure for single-sex Muslim schools. Clapton school for girls should continue to be a school for girls.
As I have said, with all the politics and media hype we must remember that children, parents and teachers in Hackney are doing their level best. I should like that to be acknowledged in the House today.
10.29 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I am glad to have the opportunity to deal with the question of education in the London borough of Hackney. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on securing the opportunity to debate the issue this evening. I also congratulate him on being a constant supporter of the Government's decision to establish the improvement team and on being an assiduous attender at the various meetings that have been held to consider the way forward for education in Hackney in these most difficult times.
I noted the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), especially towards the end of her speech. I guarantee that we will take her concerns into account should the Government be in a position to respond to any reorganisation proposals from Hackney.
As both my hon. Friends said clearly, the Government are concerned about the 30,000 children who get only once chance of a good education. I want to take this opportunity to say, on behalf of the Government, that many schools in Hackney are doing good work, often under difficult circumstances. I am pleased to put that on the record.
When I met the head teachers of Hackney—all 69 of them—just a week or two after we established the improvement team, I was struck by their commitment and motivation. As I come from a local government background myself, I thought of how much more they could do if they had the support and assistance of a good local education authority. They have been denied that. I happen to believe—I know that the Opposition disagree with this—that a local education authority that works well adds value to what its schools can do. It is a great shame that the schools in Hackney have not had that support.
I reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington: there are difficult circumstances in Hackney. It is one of the most impoverished urban areas in western Europe. In 1993, one third of all Hackney households had a gross income of under £5,000. Two thirds of households have no car; two thirds of children in Hackney secondary

135
schools take free school meals, the highest number in the country; and Hackney has the highest rate of unemployment in London.
The Government believe that children of unemployed or impoverished parents do not have to do badly in school—education should be their ladder of opportunity into work and off welfare, the wage slip replacing the giro cheque. Poverty should not be an excuse for failure, but a reason for targeted support and assistance. Children in Hackney, perhaps above children in all other parts of the country, deserve the highest-quality teaching, just as their teachers deserve the best possible support.
I acknowledge that the LEA in Hackney faces an immense challenge, but the magnitude of that challenge does not and will not excuse the provision of an inadequate service. On taking office in May, I asked for an analysis of the performance of all LEAs. That was an exercise distinct from the review of the performance of individual schools.
One LEA above all others gave us cause for concern—Hackney. As a result, we invited the Office for Standards in Education to inspect the authority. It agreed, and Hackney accepted. Ofsted was originally due to report at the end of this year, but it was so concerned at what it discovered that it brought its report forward and published it on 18 September. The report's conclusions were damning. Ofsted said:
"The current position is unacceptable. Some significant statutory duties are not being met.
What needs to be done is, in fact, very clear. If Hackney children are to realise their potential, then the Authority must, above all else, act to raise standards in literacy and numeracy and focus on the needs of those pupils whose first language is not English".
It concluded by saying:
"The LEA is in a state of disarray."
The Government would have failed in their responsibilities if they had not acted on the basis of those clear recommendations. We were not going to stand to one side, turn our backs on the children of Hackney and see them made the innocent victims of administrative and political failure, so the Secretary of State for Education and Employment established an improvement team under the leadership of Richard Painter.
There were concerns about the establishment of that team and, given some of the press reports before it was even appointed, I understand why. It has sought throughout to bring parties together, particularly governors, teachers and head teachers, in the interests of the children of Hackney. It has succeeded in doing that.
We gave the improvement team a remit, first, to ensure that Hackney met its statutory responsibilities; secondly, to work with head teachers and officers of the authority to prepare an education development plan; thirdly, to review urgently the LEA's management structure. We had no power to force the team on Hackney, as we had no power to require an inspection of the LEA by Ofsted. At all stages, the co-operation and agreement of Hackney has been necessary.
It is regrettable that the previous Government failed to provide legal backing to efforts to raise standards, particularly in relation to LEAs. This Government are prepared to take action to give themselves those legal
136
powers, which is why, later this week, we will publish a measure to allow us to intervene directly in LEAs that are failing to provide an adequate education for the children for which they have responsibility. Next year, Ofsted will begin a regime of LEA inspection, starting with 12 LEAs that will be inspected during 1998.
There is no doubt that, over the past few weeks, there have been periods of frustration for the improvement team and for all of us who are concerned about the education of children in Hackney, but I am pleased that the Hackney LEA has now accepted the team's recommendation of the appointment of a director of education at a salary that should attract quality applicants. The post was advertised last week and the appointment should be made by the middle of January 1998. At the request of the team, head teachers and chairs of governors will be involved in the recruitment process.
That is a vital breakthrough, ensuring that those who have responsibility for the day-to-day delivery of a quality education—the teachers, head teachers and chairs of governors—are involved in the appointment of a director of education for Hackney, but it is not enough. The team will vet all shortlisted applicants. For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, we do not have confidence in the present administration making a suitable appointment, which is why the Secretary of State will approve the final shortlist. We need that power. I am pleased that Hackney has agreed that we should have the final say.
We have been pleased by the high level of co-operation throughout between the improvement team, many local education authority staff, head teachers, chairs of governors and the unions—not just the teacher unions, but those representing non-teaching staff. It is a long time since there has been liaison in Hackney at that level with the single aim of securing a better education for the young people of the borough.
A good example of that working together has been the discussions about the uses for the Government's £1.25 million of new capital money to be spent between now and March 1998 as part of our new deal for schools. Some head teachers have accepted that their schools will not benefit this time because there are other more pressing cases. That says a lot about co-operation among Hackney head teachers. The money will improve the condition of buildings to create an environment for quality education. I look forward to working with the head teachers and the improvement team to ensure that Hackney will benefit again from round two of the new deal for schools capital money in 1998–99.
Those are positive developments. The improvement team is to be congratulated on sticking to its task, often in the face of resistance and hostility. However, it tells me of its concern about the projected deficit of approximately £3 million in Hackney's education budget for the current financial year. That follows a substantial deficit in 1996–97. The improvement team has raised the matter directly with the elected members of the local education authority. Later this week, a joint meeting will be held to determine what action needs to be taken.
The district auditor is also concerned about overspend in other service areas. We shall monitor the situation closely. We expect elected councillors to take positive action to discharge their responsibilities.

137
There were 30,000 reasons why the Government set up the improvement team—the 30,000 schoolchildren in Hackney. We would have intervened more directly and more strongly if we had had the legal powers. When we have those powers, we shall use them in similar situations. Working with councillors, being prepared to put old dogmas and prejudice to one side and putting the children of Hackney first, the improvement team, with the Government's support, will seek quality
138
education. Next time we debate Hackney and its education service, I hope that it will be to celebrate the success of its schools—as we have done this evening—supported by a regenerated local education authority and assisted by a Government that regard education as the top priority.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Indemnity Undertakings
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given by departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six month period ended 30 September; and what was the value of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remain outstanding as at 30 September, (b) non-statutory government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remain outstanding as at 30 September and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remain outstanding at 30 September. [18872]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects and bringing into the public domain the conclusions of any study.

  In the six month period ended 30 September 1997, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Numbers

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  579

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  82

  Welsh Office Education Department

  75

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  22

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1997 is:

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1,504,907,510

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  123,023,100

  Welsh Office Education Department

  69,000,000

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  5,460,674

  2
  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1997 is £9,000,000.

  The value of non-statutory undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1997 is £202,538,452.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his policy on(a) exemptions and (b) derogations from the national minimum wage for employees in (i) the tourist industry and (ii) leisure and related industries. [17614]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government's intention is to introduce a single national minimum rate. We will set the rate in the light of advice from the Independent Low Pay Commission appointed earlier this year, and taking account of prevailing economic circumstances. Many organisations representing the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors are invited to submit written evidence to the Commission.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public appointments he has made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these(a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin. [16774]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have made 60 appointments and reappointments since 1 May. Of these 11 are remunerated (18 per cent.)

  The information about ethnic origin cannot be provided since to do so would risk identifying individuals without their consent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has provided information for all Departments in an aggregated form.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what steps he is taking to secure a lasting legacy from the Millennium Experience at Greenwich; and if he will make a statement. [18923]

  Mr. Mandelson
  When the Government announced in June its decision to go ahead with the Millennium Experience at Greenwich, it was on the basis of 5 clear commitments. One of these was that there would be a lasting legacy. The Government remains determined to secure long-term benefits for the nation from the Millennium Experience, and has sought outside advice on how to maximise these legacies. Earlier this year the Government invited Mr. Dennis Stevenson to assess the prospects. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Stevenson for the advice which he has now provided, and am pleased to place in the Library of both Houses a copy of a letter to me summarising his conclusions. His analysis, which the Government accepts, shows first that a number of valuable legacies can already be identified. Specifically,
  3
  the Millennium Experience is acting as the catalyst for English Partnerships' reclamation of derelict and polluted riverside land at Greenwich—a site of a size and potential unique in Western Europe; providing the platform for the pioneering Millennium Village launched by the Deputy Prime Minister in July; stimulating improvements in public transport, Thames river services, roads, and pedestrian walkways on the Peninsula; and using the Dome to promote national awareness and long-term taking-up of IT based learning, for example through the University for Industry and the National Grid for Learning.

  There is a range of possible long term uses for the Millennium Experience Dome itself. These include developing the Dome as: a new arena for participation and spectator sports; a TV or film production studio and visitor centre; and using the site for a large scale international convention centre. These ideas serve to illustrate the Dome's future potential, and reflect the steps which have been taken to ensure the Dome can have a long life. Commercial interest in acquiring the Dome is, however, likely to be maximised in 2000, when it can be seen successfully in operation, and when commercial and popular awareness of the site is at its height. The Government will therefore decide on the Dome's long term future at that time. Meanwhile, I invite those with serious interest in the Dome's future use to register their ideas (which should not involve additional cost to the Exchequer) and to hold exploratory discussions with us. Proposals may either be for its use at Greenwich (where in 2000 it will occupy a 40 acre site) as a complement to English Partnerships' high quality and lasting development of the Peninsula, or for its transfer to another part of the United Kingdom.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contingency planning is being made in the event of failure of(a) Government services and (b) business arising from the year 2000 computer problem. [18025]

  Mr. David Clark
  (a) I have asked Ministerial colleagues to ensure that their Departments have contingency plans in place to cope with major systems failures, and that these are adequate to deal with any unforeseen Year 2000 processing problems.

  (b) Mr. Don Cruickshank, Chairman of Action 2000, the new Government initiative set up to help business tackle the problem, will encourage businesses to undertake their own contingency planning.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Congo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total level of aid paid to the Congo in the current financial year(a) directly and (b) via other agencies; what amount is planned for 1998–99; and if she will make a statement. [18072]
  4
  Clare Short
  All donors suspended development assistance to the Government of Zaire in 1992. Since then, substantial amounts of emergency and rehabilitation assistance have been provided. This year the UK has provided almost £1 million in bilateral emergency assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In addition, our contribution to the EU programmers in health and democratization is estimated at £9.6 million.

  We shall continue to provide emergency assistance in 1998–99 if it is needed. Future development assistance will depend on the strength of the development partnership which can be established with the new Government; its commitment to poverty alleviation; and our capacity to deliver an effective programme.

PRIME MINISTER

  Political Donations
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister if he advised the Cabinet Secretary of the fact that Mr. Ecclestone was a donor to the Labour party before his meeting with Mr. Ecclestone on 16 October. [18269]

  The Prime Minister
  No. I would not expect to do so.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Prime Minister if the terms of reference of the Social Exclusion Unit will include people aged over state retirement age. [17916]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: The Social Exclusion Unit's work programme is currently being finalised and will be published very soon. A number of the issues the Unit is being asked to address will bear on the needs of people over state retirement age.

  Mr. Ecclestone
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Prime Minister when Mr. Jonathan Powell was informed of the invitation to Mr. Ecclestone to visit the Prime Minister. [18374]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 269.

  Anglo-French Summit
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 270, what factors led him to determine that the total cost of furnishing and decorating the Canary Wharf venue for the Anglo-French summit was below the EU tendering threshold. [18512]

  The Prime Minister
  The threshold for European Union tendering provisions is £108,000. As the cost to the Government for the furnishing and decoration of the Canary Wharf Tower will be approximately £15,000, it falls well below the threshold figure.

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue Bailiffs (Totnes)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will advise the Inland Revenue to call off the bailiffs from Mrs. Joan Bridge-Taylor of Redhill, Jubilee Road, Totnes. [18052]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: It would not be appropriate for me to comment publicly on the tax affairs of an individual, but I shall write to the hon. Member about the matter he has raised.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the net cost of his proposal to cut the rate of VAT on energy-saving materials used in government-funded home insulation schemes. [18391]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs' recent review estimated that the annual cost would be £7.5 million.

  National Asset Register
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to sell items on the National Asset Register. [17974]

  Mr. Darling
  It is for each individual department, as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, to review its asset holdings as set out in the National Asset Register and decide whether they still meet the department's core aim and objectives. If they do not, then each department will need to decide the most appropriate response.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals he has for allowing United Kingdom citizens to pay taxes in euros before 2002; [15923]

  (2) if his proposals to allow taxes to be paid in euros before 2002 will allow such payments to be free of exchange costs. [16696]

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what will be the cost of equipping(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise to collect tax payments in euros after 1999; [15966]

  (2) what will be the operation date for calculation of the exchange rate in force for payments of taxes in euros after 1999; and which government department will bear the exchange rate risk of such transactions; [15965]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the need for additional computing and information technology resources for (a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise arising from their acceptance of payment in euros after 1999; [16179]

  (4) what plans he has for the dissemination of information arrangements for tax payments in euros for 1999 to (a) professional tax advisers and (b) taxpayers. [16178]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are, like other organisations, reviewing their banking requirements and their systems to take account of the likely effects of the introduction of the Euro, including 6
  an increase in the demand for payment of taxes in foreign currencies. This review is being conducted in consultation with the Business Advisory Group established by the Chancellor to look at the practical and strategic implications of EMU which is, among other things, assessing legal, accounting and reporting issues arising from EMU and what information about EMU is needed by business. A report summarising the groups conclusions and recommendations will be published early in 1998. If the reviews lead to proposals to change the way the existing arrangements operate, the information will be disseminated promptly and in the appropriate way. Costs will be addressed once the full implications have been identified.

  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise already accept payment of tax in foreign currency, so there is no new principle involved in accepting the Euro from 1999. It is not expected that accepting payment in Euro on the same basis will require substantial additional resources.

  Where tax payments to the Inland Revenue are made in foreign currency the net amount received conversion into sterling is the amount which the taxpayer is treated as having paid. So the exchange risk of a payment in euro will be borne by the taxpayer. Customs and Excise currently meet the costs arising from currency conversion on the relatively few payments received in foreign currencies. This policy may need to be reviewed if the introduction of the Euro increases demand.

  Tax Services (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the provision of tax office services in remote rural areas. [17215]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Services may be provided from a local office or by other means such as mobile inquiry centres and, increasingly, by telephone. The Inland Revenue is reorganising its local office network but none of the plans currently approved for implementation includes closure of a remote, rural office. The best means of providing services to such areas in the future is being considered as part of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  EU Unanimity Voting
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those treaty articles which provide for unanimity of voting in respect of matters contained in Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome. [17524]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome relates to the Council's powers to adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extend that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure that the establishment and functioning of internal market. The Article provides for unanimity of voting in relation to these matters. Other articles in the Treaty which specifically refer to fiscal matters maintain the unanimity requirement. In particular, Article 100a paragraph 2 explicitly excludes fiscal provisions from the internal market implementation measures that can be decided by qualified majority voting.

  Similarly, in relation to environmental measures Article 130s paragraph 2 states that provisions primarily of a fiscal nature must be adopted on the basis of unanimity.

  Income Tax
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue impact of raising the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent. on incomes over £50,000 per annum. [17039]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full year yield at 1997–98 income levels of increasing the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent. on taxable incomes above £50,000 per year is £2.7 billion. The yield includes the consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax after allowing for likely changes in the volume of disposals. It does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the new rate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public appointments she has made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these(a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin. [16783]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1 May 1997, 512 appointments have been made. Of these, 26 per cent. attract remuneration.

  The information about ethnic origin cannot be provided since to do so would risk identifying individuals without their consent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has provided information for all Departments in an aggregated form.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the additional funding allocated to the National Health Service in Northern Ireland has been allocated to(a) clinical care and (b) management support; and if she will make a statement. [16933]

  Mr. Worthington
  The £5 million for Northern Ireland which was announced on 14 October was allocated in full for clinical and social care, as was the additional £7 million I announced on 21 August and the further £7.5 million I announced on 28 November. The additional £19.5 million thus provided this year shows the priority this Government attaches to the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland and in particular now it has acted decisively to tackle key pressures over the coming winter by targeting resources on patients and clients.

  Central Investment Fund for Charities
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those organisations which belong to the Northern Ireland Central Investment Fund for Charities, the proportion of their investment in the fund and the current value of the fund's securities. [17303]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Department as trustee of the Northern Ireland Central Investment Fund for Charities considers that it has a duty of confidentiality not to reveal 8
  the identity of investors in the fund. The fund is valued monthly and at 31 October 1997 its capital value was £15.6 million.

  Civil Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what affirmative action measures she plans to adopt to increase the representation of Catholics and women in the(a) industrial craft and (b) higher non-industrial grades in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. [17705]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) aims to create a position where men and women, Protestants and Roman Catholics, are fairly represented at all levels in the organisation. It will continue to seek to identify lawful affirmative action measures which are effective in addressing the under-representation of women and Roman Catholics in the industrial craft and higher non-industrial grades.

  NICS policy is that employment and advancement is based on ability, qualification and aptitude for the work. Subject to that overriding principle, the Service has initiated a range of measures in the context of its Action Plan for Women, designed to help improve female representation at senior levels. These include the use of flexible working, women only training, equal opportunity awareness programmers for senior staff, training for women returning to work, and the examination of organisational barriers to the promotion of women to the senior levels including specialist areas.

  The Service also regularly reviews its promotion and recruitment practices and has taken a number of measures to promote a more balanced work force at all levels of the organisation. These include the use of positive action advertising in appropriate circumstances and the removal of various internal barriers to promotion to encourage a better flow of staff from lower to higher grades within and between Departments.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. [17707]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Some 280 posts were transferred from Belfast and Bangor to Londonderry in 1989. Subsequent options for dispersing jobs have been considered, but rejected for reasons of cost and feasibility. In view of this, a research study was commissioned to assess more accurately the costs and the social and economic benefits of dispersing Civil Service jobs from Belfast and North Down, to develop a methodology to measure costs and benefits and to inform decisions on future policy. The report of this study is under consideration.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the Sixth Report compiled by the Department of Finance and Personnel into Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service. [17706]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I was pleased to note the strong evidence contained in the Sixth Report of compositional change in the NICS work force and the fact that, at the macro level, Protestants and Roman Catholics are now fairly represented at most grade levels up to around Staff Officer and equivalent level. Service-wide female
  9
  representation has risen to 45.1 per cent. and Roman Catholic to 40.7 per cent. Overall in the Non-Industrial grades Female and Roman Catholic representation has increased in every grade level between Executive Officer level and the senior grades. However, I was naturally disappointed that the Service did not reach some of the goals and timetables previously set and, in particular, the progress made in terms of the composition of the most senior grades and the continuing under-representation of women in the Professional and Technical, and Industrial Grades. The Service has put in place a range of measures within the law to try to accelerate the rate of change whilst adhering strictly to the merit principle in both its recruitment and internal promotion practices. It will also continue to consult with the statutory agencies to examine and implement further practical affirmative action measures.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what impact the application of 'R' plates for probationary drivers in Northern Ireland has had on injury and fatality levels among and relating to newly qualified drivers. [17634]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Specific information on the direct impact of the Registered Driver Scheme on road casualties is not available. Research in 1993–94 into the overall effectiveness of the scheme was unable to demonstrate conclusively a direct correlation between it and a reduction in the level of road accidents.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 76, on the basis of what information she was able to indicate to the Minister of State at the Scottish Office the importance of the transfer of Jason Campbell to the wider peace process. [17460]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 24 November 1997]: I received representations from political parties and others regarding the importance of the transfer of loyalist prisoners. Throughout the current political process the Government has accepted the importance of prison issues of the participants.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Stress-related Illnesses
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many days during term time were lost through stress-related illness amongst(a) classroom teachers, (b) deputy heads and (c) heads in primary schools in each local education authority during the (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97 school years. [18550]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Schools (Internet)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools were connected to the Internet at the start of the current school year. [18551]
  10
  Dr. Howells
  Estimates indicate that some 6,000 schools in the UK (primary and secondary) were connected to the Internet at the beginning of the 1997–98 academic year. A further statistical survey of ICT in schools will be undertaken in 1998.

  Former Astra Staff
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he intends to take in respect of Astra pensioners. [18537]

  Dr. Howells
  Renewed investigations into the problems faced by former members of the Department over their pensions entitlements from the former Astra Training Services Ltd. following that organisation's collapse in 1993 have been going on in the Department for some time. The vast majority of Departmental staff who transferred to Astra had their previously accrued Civil Service pensions values and benefits preserved in the Principal Civil Service Pensions Scheme. Pensions values due for their time with Astra are primarily for the liquidators of the former Company to resolve. We will be pressing the liquidators and the pension fund trustees to resolve this long-outstanding issue.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the entitlement to interviews of ex-Astra staff. [18538]

  Dr. Howells
  Renewed investigations into the problems faced by former members of the Department who transferred to Astra Training Services Ltd. but were made redundant by the collapse of that organisation in 1993 have been going on in the Department for some time. Work continues to find ways of assisting former staff, and those currently seeking employment will be guaranteed interviews for any suitable vacancies which may arise in the Department.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department will take steps to secure a derogation from EU law so that students from England can be charged a higher fee for a fourth year university course in Scotland than students from elsewhere in the EU. [18514]

  Dr. Howells
  No, we see no need for such a derogation. From autumn 1998, the maximum support for fees that we are proposing to make available for full-time undergraduate students will be £1,000: this maximum will apply to students from England, Scotland, and the rest of the UK and the European Union, depending on the level of their parents', spouses' or own income. We have made it clear that top-up fees play no part in our proposals for home and EU full-time undergraduates.

  Full-time students resident in Scotland and studying in Scottish institutions on honours degree courses that are a year longer than equivalent courses elsewhere in the UK will, however, be eligible, irrespective of income, for the maximum support for fees in the final year of the course from the Scottish Student Awards Agency. The EC Treaty requires Member States not to discriminate on grounds of nationality against nationals of other Member States, on matters within the scope of the Treaty. However, EC law

  11
  does not intervene in internal matters and require each Member State to treat all its own nationals in exactly the same way.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the costs for local authorities of administering the means-testing of university tuition fees. [18515]

  Dr. Howells
  Data on local authorities' costs of administering mandatory awards are not collected centrally. Local authorities already carry out means testing of student and parental income for awards purposes. In 1998–99, the results of this means test will be applied first to the university tuition fee and any balance to maintenance grants.

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the annual budget of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. [18392]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The first budget of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will be agreed in consultation with the Authority in February 1998.

  Supplementary Allowances
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students in 1999–2000 and beyond who would be eligible for supplementary allowances under the existing system will continue to receive these allowances as grants. [17858]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given on 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 160.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Courts
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 11 November 1997,Official Report, column 501, if he will seek agreement at the next European Council for the adoption of rules of procedure applicable to all its future meetings and for the adoption of those arrangements for other Heads of Government meetings. [17869]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Council is established by Article D of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), where there is no provision for rules of procedure. Other international organisations such as the G7, also operate without formal rules of procedure. It is for the Presidency, in consultation with other Member States, to structure discussions in the European Council.

  European Council and the IGC
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates and times of(a) the meeting of the European Council and (b) the Inter-Governmental Conference held in Amsterdam in June; and what in each case was the smallest number of (i) Ministers and (ii) officials attending a session. [17915]
  12
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Council met in Amsterdam from 9.30 am on 16 June until approximately 4 am on the morning of 18 June. The majority of time was spent discussing the Intergovernmental Conference, although other European Council business was also addressed. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were present at all sessions. No UK officials attended the sessions, as is standard practice at European Councils.

  India (Trade)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British firms have contacted diplomatic missions in(a) Bombay and (b) New Delhi concerning trade opportunities in 1997. [18310]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Precise figures relating to trade and investment inquiries from British companies are not recorded. However, from extrapolation of incoming fax inquiries during September 1997, the British Deputy High Commission in Bombay dealt with an estimated 860 written inquiries during January to October 1997 inclusive. In addition, Bombay received 272 British business visitors in the same period. The British High Commission in New Delhi received an estimated 2,000 written inquiries from British companies and briefed 304 British business visitors during the same period. Both offices also received many telephone inquiries from UK companies, but these are not automatically recorded. An even greater number of inquiries were received from Indian companies seeking trade and investment links with British companies. In addition, there were numerous contacts with members of the resident British business community.

  Britain-Russia Centre
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual reports of(a) the Britain-Russia Centre and (b) the British East-West Centre will be published. [18276]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Copies of the Centres' Annual Report for 1996–97 have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Centres received a grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of £237,000 to support their activities in 1996–97. In addition the Centres secured funding in 1996–97 of £237,227 for direct expenditure on projects. Their priority areas for assistance have been Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Centres continue to make a valuable contribution to the strengthening of bilateral relations. Activities have included seminars and workshops; administering the British observer mission to the Russian presidential elections; work with the media in the republics of the Caucasus and senior level visits from Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

  Museum of Europe
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals are presently being considered at European Union level for the establishment of a museum of Europe; what discussions he has held with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on(a) which United Kingdom museum and (b) which United Kingdom collections will be affected; and if he will make a statement. [18155]
  13
  Mr. Fatchett
  At the Council of Culture and Audiovisual Ministers meeting held in Brussels on 30 June 1997, the Greek delegate proposed the foundation of a Museum of Europe. The proposal has not been considered since then and neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have had discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the matter.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies he has undertaken of the effect of the increase in the use of qualified majority voting procedures under the Treaty of Amsterdam on the use by the European Parliament of its powers in these areas; and if he will make a statement. [18299]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. There is no direct link between the use of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council and the use by the European Parliament of its powers.

  Bombay Deputy High Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to publicise the opening hours of the British Deputy High Commission in Bombay. [18312]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The opening times of our Deputy High Commission in Bombay (Mumbai) are readily available from the mission itself and from this Department. The Deputy High Commission is open from 0800 to 1300 and 1400 to 1600 local time.

  Ministerial Visits (India)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British Ministers have visited India in 1997. [18313]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Nine Ministers have visited India in 1997 including five since 1 May. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then Prime Minister, and Mr. Lang, then President of the Board of Trade, visited in January. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, visited in February. Mr. Nelson, then Minister of State for the Department of Trade and Industry visited in March. I also visited India in June. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited in September and November. My noble Friend, Baroness Symons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, visited in September. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited in October. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade visited in November.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions. [16816]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Iraq is not yet in compliance with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions (SCRs). Iraq must comply with all the relevant SCRs before the process of lifting of sanctions can begin.

  Immigration (Nigeria)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the staffing establishment of the British High Commission Immigration Section in Lagos, Nigeria; and how many staff are in post. [18073]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In our High Commission in Lagos there are 68 members of staff (19 UK-based and 49 locally engaged staff) on the establishment of the Immigration Section which is currently fully staffed. The total number of staff working in the High Commission is 246 (48 UK-based and 198 locally engaged).

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the average wait for an interview for(a) visa and (b) entry clearance at Her Majesty's High Commission in Lagos for each of the last three years. [18100]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The average wait for an interview for entry clearance (or visa) at the High Commission in Lagos for each of the last three years was:

  Interview type

  Average wait

  1997

  Visit

  11 days

  Settlement

  5 months

  1996

  Visit

  6 days

  Settlement

  5 months

  1995

  Visit

  1 day

  Settlemen

  1 month

  Rockall
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British Ministers have visited Rockall in each of the last 10 years. [18076]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the legal title to Rockall; and if he will make a statement. [18080]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Island of Rockall. This was made clear in response to recent correspondence from Greenpeace purporting to declare the independence of Rockall.

  Algeria
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press for an independent investigation of(a) massacres and (b) human rights violations in Algeria. [18536]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Without co-operation from the government in Algiers, any effort to investigate events in Algeria would be fruitless. We note that UN suggestions that the Commission on Human Rights has a role have been rebuffed by the Algerian Government. We welcome,
  15
  however, news that the Algerians have said that they will accept a visit by a UN Special Rapporteur. We encourage the Algerians to ensure this takes place soon

  Congo
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for Ministerial visits to the Congo. [18071]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are currently no plans for Ministerial visits to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). However we are closely monitoring the situation in the DRC with our partners in the EU and at the UN.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [18074]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), gave him on 3 November 1997,Official Report, column 167. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has held no further discussions with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since then.

  Employment Pacts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the rapport d' information approved at the plenary session of the Economic and Social Committee on 29 and 30 October on territorial employment pacts; and if he will make a statement. [18154]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have placed a copy of the Economic and Social Committee's information report in the Library of the House.

  As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, (Mr. Hughes) of 31 July 1997, Official Report, columns 635–36, the UK nominated 10 territorial employment pacts to the Commission. The Commission agreed to support our nominations and has been discussing detailed proposals submitted by the applicants. When these are approved, the Commission will pay an initial tranche of grant to them to support the development of local action plans.

  European Coal and Steel Community
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the provisions in the annual budget of the European Coal and Steel Community for(a) workers' housing, special reserve, and (b) staff loans, pension fund, apply to. [17264]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The special reserve relating to workers' housing is used to grant loans from ECSC funds to finance subsidised housing for workers in the coal and steel industries.
  16
  The proportion assigned to the pension fund originally represented the ECSC's total pension obligations prior to 5 March 1968. Since that date, the Member States have assumed responsibility, via the general budget for the payment of staff pensions, and this fund has subsequently been available for a number of purposes, including the financing of housing loans for officials of the European Communities.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Property Portfolio
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the Commissioners' management of the property portfolio. [16833]

  Mr. Bell
  The Commissioners' property portfolio is actively managed by external firms of Chartered Surveyors, with the exception of the Octavia Hill Housing Estates which are managed by qualified Housing Managers, directly employed by the Church Commissioners. The Commissioners' own property staff are headed by the Chief Surveyor who is a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The Commissioners' property portfolio has shown excellent returns in recent years, well ahead of the industry benchmark.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Poultry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the Agenda 2000 proposals on the costs of poultry production. [18385]

  Mr. Rooker
  Agenda 2000 contains no proposals which relate directly to poultry production. Feed costs, however, form a significant proportion of total poultry production costs and Agenda 2000 contains proposals to reduce cereal support prices by 20 per cent. from current levels. To the extent that cereal market prices also fall, feed costs will be reduced.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of UK poultry meat production is sold(a) fresh in (i) oven ready and (ii) New York dressed form and (b) frozen. [18375]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many tonnes of chicken meat were produced by United Kingdom producers in 1996 from(a) broiler and (b) other systems; [18383]

  (2) how many tonnes of turkey meat were produced by UK producers in 1996 from (a) intensive, (b) semi-intensive and (c) free range systems; [18384]

  (3) what tonnage of poultry meat was produced by UK producers in 1996; and how much was imported from (a) EU countries and (b) non-EU countries. [18382]
  17
  Mr. Rooker
  In 1996, 1,450 thousand tonnes of poultry meat were produced by UK producers, 244 thousand tonnes were imported from EC countries and 18 thousand tonnes were imported from non EC countries.

  In 1996, 1,065 thousand tonnes of meat were produced from broilers and 54 thousand tonnes of meat were produced from other chickens.

  In 1996, 293 thousand tonnes of turkey meat were produced by UK producers. No information is available on the systems by which turkeys are housed.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the UK per capita consumption of(a) eggs, (b) chicken meat and (c) turkey meat in the latest year for which figures are available; and what were the equivalent figures for (i) five and (ii) 10 years previously. [18386]

  Mr. Rooker
  Per capita consumption of eggs, chicken and turkey in Great Britain as measured by purchases for consumption at home is given in the following table.

  Grams per person per week (except for eggs)

  Purchases of:

  1986

  1991

  1996

  Eggs (number)

  3.01

  2.25

  1.87

  Chicken

  174

  183

  191

  Turkey

  21

  16

  38

  Pre-cooked poultry1

  11

  14

  23

  1 Not in cans.

  These estimates exclude consumption outside of the home and consumption in the form of processed products. To help complete the picture, the following table provides details of total usage, derived as total UK production plus imports less exports and adjusted for stock changes.

  UK usage of

  1986

  1991

  1996

  Eggs (million Dozen

  869

  853

  813

  Total Poultrymeat (000 Tonnes)

  986

  1,256

  1,539

  Chicken meat (000 Tonnes)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,220

  Turkey meat (000 Tonnes)

  n/a

  n/a

  286

  n/a = not available.

  It should be stated that poultry meat figures are carcase weight equivalent, whereas the per capita consumption estimates above relate to the actual weight purchased.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy regarding the(a) disposal and (b) usage of poultry offal. [18387]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 set out the requirements for the handling of poultry offal in licensed premises. Stringent hygiene requirements apply to all fresh meat, including offal, which is destined for human consumption.

  The EC Poultrymeat Marketing Regulations (Council Regulation 1906/90 with detailed rules set out in Commission Regulation 1538/91) allow the sale of giblets in the carcase of a whole bird when sold provided that this is indicated on the label.

  Enforcement officers carry out checks in licensed and unlicensed poultry premises under this legislation and also the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 to ensure that all food produced is fit for human consumption.
  18
  The Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, and the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973, as amended, set out the requirements for the processing and disposal of offals which are not intended for human consumption. This legislation is currently under review and any proposals will be the subject of consultation in the normal way.

  Eggs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proportion of UK egg production is from(a) battery, (b) deep litter, (c) barn and (d) free range systems; and what were the figures 10 years ago; [18377]

  (2) how many eggs were produced by UK producers in 1996; and how many were imported from (a) other EU countries and (b) non-EU countries; [18376]

  (3) how many laying hens are currently housed in (a) battery, (b) deep litter, (c) barn and (d) free range systems. [18378]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1996, 774 million dozen eggs were produced by UK producers for human consumption, 52 million dozen1 were imported from EC countries and 1 million dozen1 were imported from non EC countries.

  In 1996, 86 per cent. of eggs were produced by intensive systems, 11 per cent. were produced by free range systems and 3 per cent. were produced by perchery and other systems. This level of detail was not collected 10 years ago, and therefore no equivalent comparison can be made.

  No information is available on the number of hens split by production systems.

  1 Includes shell egg and shell egg equivalent of whole (dried, frozen and liquid) egg and egg yolk, but excludes albumen.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many eggs were imported from countries where mammalian meat and bone meal is incorporated in feedstuffs during 1996. [18379]

  Mr. Rooker
  During 1996, 52 million dozen1 eggs were imported from EC countries and 1 million dozen1 were imported from non-EC countries. We believe that most of these are destined for processing. We do not have detailed information on legislation on all feed controls in place elsewhere but are unaware of any measures in place in other countries, during 1996 or before, banning mammalian meat and bonemeal (MBM) from non-ruminant feed. The poultry feed may therefore have included MBM.

  1 Includes shell egg and shell egg equivalent of whole (dried, frozen and liquid) egg and egg yolk, but excludes albumen.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals he intends to make to the EU Council of Ministers during the UK Presidency regarding battery systems of egg production; [18381]

  (2) what steps he is taking regarding phasing out battery systems of egg production. [18380]

  Mr. Rooker
  We aim to phase out the conventional battery cage. This needs to be achieved at the European level, by developing measures in the Council of Ministers. That is why we are pressing the Commission to submit urgently for negotiation in the Council its proposals to update the EU rules on the welfare of laying hens.
  19
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that imported eggs and poultry meat meet the hygiene requirements for United Kingdom producers. [18388]

  Mr. Rooker
  The import conditions for trade in poultrymeat and eggs within the Community, and for imports from third countries, are governed by Community legislation. The EU shell egg marketing legislation and Council Decision 94/371 both provide for and apply a maximum "best-before" limit of 28 days after lay for the marketing of shell eggs. These provisions are enforced by the relevant enforcement authorities including the Egg Marketing Inspectorate.

  Ritually Slaughtered Animals
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to ensure that all ritually slaughtered meat is clearly labelled as such. [17254]

  Mr. Rooker
  We shall cover this approach in our forthcoming discussions with the religious communities about all aspects of religious slaughter.

  Technology Foresight
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what ways his Department's research priorities have been modified in response to Technology Foresight. [17426]

  Mr. Rooker
  An analysis of the Department's research programmed has shown that some 90 per cent. of it currently aligns with the Foresight recommendations. Since the Foresight programmed started, the Department has initiated new LINK programmers on Horticulture, Aquaculture and Sustainable Livestock Production and has established a Diet and Health Funders Group, all of which reflect Foresight recommendations.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what Technology Foresight priorities are being taken into account in the forward planning of the Department's scientific research programmed. [17425]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has played an active role in the Foresight panels dealing with Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry, Food and Drink, and the Marine. Our planned R and D already closely aligns with Foresight recommendations and we shall continue to be guided by the recommendations of panels in planning our future programmers.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help and access he has given the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards to ensure it can regulate organic farms effectively with particular reference to the origin of cattle bought by organic farmers; and if he will make a statement on the current constraints of commercial confidentiality affecting access to information in this area. [17748]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under the rules of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) organic farmers may buy in only cattle from herds which have not 20
  had any case of BSE in the previous 6 years. It is the responsibility of the organic farmer to demonstrate compliance with this rule.

  The Government have given an undertaking to make information on the BSE history of herds available to organic purchasers of animals provided that the consent of the owner of the herd to which the information relates can be obtained. However, the legal constraints are considerable and it has taken time to make sure that the procedures we propose are legally defensible. Administrative instructions are now being finalised and the Department will write to interested parties to inform them of the new arrangements next week.

  Chocolate
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the United Kingdom Government's position will be at the meeting of the Council of Ministers when they discuss the labelling of chocolate with regard to(a) vegetable fat and (b) milk content; and if he will make a statement [17747]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the Council of Ministers, the Government will press for a new chocolate Directive which allows the full range of different European chocolate-making traditions to co-exist within a single, harmonised market and which increases consumer choice throughout the EU. It will oppose any measures which would discriminate against UK products or change the names under which those products have been sold for many years and which are familiar to UK consumers.

  BSE (Headboning Businesses)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many headboning businesses closed as a result of the tightening of BSE o controls; and what was the impact on employment. [17722]

  Mr. Rooker
  I regret that no record is held centrally of the information requested.

  Vitamin B6 Supplements
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he undertook with international experts on nutrition prior to making his decision to introduce restrictions on the retail sale of higher dose vitamin B6 supplements. [17819]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government's decision to restrict the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law was based in part on advice from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). Members of the COT include internationally recognised experts in a range of disciplines including nutrition.

  In considering the safety of vitamin B6, the COT took account of the nutritional requirements for this vitamin that had been established by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) as part of its review of food energy and nutrient requirements of groups of people in the United Kingdom. Those carrying out this review included a number of nutritionists of international standing. International experts representing the EU Scientific Committee for Food and other experts from the European Community acted as observers.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the average impact on individual producers of his Department claiming in full the compensation available from the EU resulting from each significant revaluation of the Green Pound during 1997. [18098]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: No. The compensation which HMG could pay under the EU rules to offset the income effects of green rate revaluations this year stands at around £980 million, of which up to half may be reclaimed from the EU budget. It would be for Ministers to decide the mechanisms for distributing any such aid to the four sectors eligible for assistance under the EU rules.

  Offal Rendering
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy that the production of tallow and other products from the rendering of pig offal and fallen stock should be disposed of in the same way as that from bovine animals. [18067]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: The BSE (No. 2) Order 1996 requires that all mammalian protein is excluded from ruminant feed and all mammalian meat and bone meal is excluded from all farmed livestock feed. The Fertilisers (Mammalian Meat and Bone Meal) Regulations 1996 also require that mammalian meat and bone meal is not used as a fertiliser on agricultural land. The Orders do not distinguish between pig and bovine material or material from fallen stock. Under the Bovines and Bovine Products (Despatch Prohibition and Production Restriction) Regulations 1997, plants wishing to produce bovine tallow for feed use must be registered and comply with the provisions laid down in that Order.

  Hemp
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Home Office regarding the level of fee for the licence required for growing hemp and its impact on small producers. [18063]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: The Department's officials have written to, and met with, officials in the Home Office and have relayed the concerns of the hemp industry about the proposed level of the licence fee for 1998.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the total cost of the British nuclear deterrent over the next four years. [16797]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The total procurement cost for Trident is estimated to be £12.6 billion. Average running costs have been estimated at £200 million a year over the 30 year lifetime of the system. We are examining the basis 22
  upon which cost estimates have been calculated in the light of operating experience as part of the wider Strategic Defence Review.

  Medals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will instigate a review of the policy relating to the distribution and striking of medals and the protocols relating to their display. [16811]

  Mr. Spellar
  The present policy relating to the distribution and striking of medals and the protocols for the wearing of medals is well proven. There are no plans to change it at the present time.

  Army Officers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has given to the Chief of the General Staff on the selection and commissioning of Army officers. [16812]

  Dr. Reid
  My hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chief of the General Staff routinely discuss all major aspects of Army policy, including recruitment. They are both committed to ensuring that access to the modern British Army, and promotion thereafter, is based firmly on merit alone.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends publishing the RAF's operational requirement for the future large aircraft. [16813]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have no plans to publish the Staff Requirement (SR(A)435) for the Hercules Rolling Replacement Programmed (for which the Future Large Aircraft is a possible contender for the second tranche).

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. [16814]

  Dr. Reid
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Territorial Army, whose future role and structure are being considered in the Strategic Defence Review as part of our work on the Armed Forces as a whole. It would be premature to assess the likely outcome of the Review before the process is complete.

  Defence Medical Service
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the review of the Defence Medical Services. [16815]

  Dr. Reid
  The stewardship of the previous Administration, whatever its intentions, has left the Defence Medical Services in a parlous state. In addition to the work of the Strategic Defence Review, which will clearly encompass the Defence Medical Services (DMS), I have established a team to implement the recommendations of a recent review of the operational capability of the DMS. I have also ordered a review of the provision of secondary care in the UK by the Defence Secondary Care Agency, and called for proposals to improve morale and retention among DMS
  23
  personnel. I have directed that the work on these separate but interrelated issues be brought together in order to determine a structured way forward.

  Surface Ships
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the provision of new surface ships for the Royal Navy. [16817]

  Dr. Reid
  There are currently 18 surface ships either under construction or completing contractor trials. In the last 12 months two ships, the Type 23 Frigate, HMS Grafton, and the Ocean Survey Vessel, HMS Scott, have been accepted from contractors and will be entering full operational service in the next few months. The next 12 months will see the acceptance of the Type 23 Frigate HMS Sutherland, the naming and acceptance of the helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, and the launching of the Type 23 Frigate, HMS Kent, and the Single Role Minehunters, HMS Pembroke and HMS Grimsby. A contract was placed in October 1997 for the charter of additional Ro-Ro ships which from May 1998 will increase the heavy lift capability for the Joint Rapid Deployment Force to two vessels.

  Future projects include replacing, early in the next century, the capabilities currently provided by the Type 42 Destroyers with the Horizon frigates, the Type 22 and 23 Frigates with a new class of Future Escort and a new class of Aircraft Carrier to supersede the Invincible class. In addition to these major programmers, a number of other projects including replacements for the Surveying Flotilla, Logistic Landing Ships and new Combat Stores Ship are also under consideration. These projects are, of course, being considered as part of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Headquarters Refurbishment
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the cost of refurbishing his Department's headquarters. [16818]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Costs of the refurbishment of MOD Main Building will depend on proposals from the shortlisted consortia during the next stages of the procurement programmed that I announced on 12 November 1997,Official Report, column 582. Costs will continue to be closely examined as the public private partnership programmed proceeds. Shortlisted bidders have the challenge of producing value for money solutions against the benchmark of my Department's public sector comparator.

  ASTOR Project
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated value of the ASTOR project; and when he expects to announce his decision on this project. [16819]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimated procurement cost of the ASTOR (Airborne Stand-Off Radar) project is in the region of £750 million. Final proposals for the full Development and Production phase have now been invited from the two contractors who carried out competitive Project Definition studies. In addition, the Ministry of Defence has agreed that a co-operative development of a variant of the US Joint Surveillance 24
  Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) should also be considered for meeting the UK ASTOR requirement. We aim to announce a decision in 1998.

  Iraq
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently deployed overseas on duties related to the current situation in Iraq; and what plans he has to add to these numbers. [16820]

  Dr. Reid
  Some 800 UK Service personnel are deployed overseas on duties connected with the current situation in Iraq. Almost all are contributing to established land, sea and air operations (including UN operations) which predated the recent crisis caused by Saddam Hussein's decision to expel the US Unscom personnel.

  In addition, HMS Invincible and RFA Fort Victoria deployed to the Mediterranean, embarking seven RAF Harrier aircraft, as part of the UK's response to the crisis, with a combined complement of some 1,300 personnel. There are no plans at present to deploy additional personnel.

  Yorks and Lancaster Regimental Museum
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will restore the planned reduction in financial support towards the maintenance of the Yorks and Lancaster regimental museum in Rotherham. [16821]

  Mr. Spellar
  £6,000 of funding has been restored to the Museum in recognition of its valuable representative role for the Army and focus for local recruit activity. We have also offered our assistance in identifying alternative sources of income to enable the museum to cover any shortfall in funding.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the cost of the United Kingdom's contribution in the former Yugoslavia will continue to be met from the contingency reserve. [16822]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Once the costs of the Bosnia operation in the current year are clearer, we will be able to assess more precisely how much of that cost can be absorbed within the Defence budget. I will discuss the funding of anything in excess of that sum with my Cabinet colleagues.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of Britain's military contribution to the stabilisation force in Bosnia. [16823]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), on 3 November 1997,Official Report, column 83.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the armed forces participate in new deal employment initiatives. [16824]
  25
  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 14 November 1997,Official Report, column 688.

  Former Prisoners of War
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department took to ensure that his report following the review of the administration of the pay of officer prisoners of war and protected personnel in German and Italian hands during the second world war, published on 23 July, reflected the first-hand experiences of the officers involved. [16825]

  Mr. Spellar
  My decision on the Review of officer Prisoner of War and Protected Personnel pay deductions took full account of the lengthy submissions of the officers and Protected Personnel, their meetings with the previous Minister and the letters many of them wrote, all of which reflected their first hand experiences. This work also examined the considerable weight of contemporary evidence which survives.

  The main concern of the Review was to examine the pay policy which covered these servicemen, and to consider the decisions which formed it and its implementation. It is clear that those concerned with this policy had a number of sources of detailed information about the views and circumstances of those in the camps, ranging from the formal Reports of Red Cross and other visits, to communications with individuals raising questions about their own pay.

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for defence diversification. [16826]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith).

  Russian Defence Officials
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was discussed at his recent meeting with Russian defence officials; and if he will make a statement. [16827]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I paid a short, productive visit to Moscow on 3–4 November, where I had meetings with the Russian Defence Minister, General Sergeyev, the Secretary of the Defence Council, Dr. Kokoshin, and Foreign Minister Primakov.

  Dr. Kokoshin and I agreed to develop discussions on the democratic control of defence. Foreign Minister Primakov and I exchanged views on Iraq.

  The main purpose of my visit was to promote defence co-operation between the UK and Russia. General Sergeyev and I inaugurated a joint Russo-British Commission to oversee the management of defence co-operation between our countries. Among a range of bilateral issues discussed, we agreed that our navies should work towards closer co-operation in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations.
  26
  We agreed on the value to both countries of the series of high-level British/Russian conferences on defence matters, held at Wilton Park, Sussex.

  We also agreed to promote scientific co-operation between our Ministries of Defence, and that the Russians would send experts to a demining seminar in the UK next year. I took the opportunity to pass on an offer of assistance from The Royal British Legion to Russian veterans' organisations.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the delay in completing the strategic defence review. [16828]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 499–500.

  Chatham Dockyard
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims relating to alleged ionising radiation exposure at the workplace have been received by his Department from past civilian employees at Chatham Dockyard since it became a nuclear refit facility; and how many of these claimants have received compensation other than as a result of a common law claim. [17430]

  Mr. Spellar
  Chatham Dockyard became an approved nuclear submarine refit facility in 1966.

  It is not possible to report how many claims relating to former Chatham Dockyard workers have been received by my Department since 1966 because this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, such information has been held centrally since 23 October 1986 and my Department's records show that forty claims for compensation for illness allegedly caused by exposure to ionising radiation relating to former Ministry of Defence civilian employees who worked at Chatham Dockyard have been received.

  On 27 July 1994, the Ministry of Defence joined the British Nuclear Fuels Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. Membership of the Scheme covers past and present radiation workers including those at the Royal Dockyards before contractorisation in 1987. Thirty-two claims have been submitted to the Scheme of which seven have been rejected as ineligible, and twenty-five are under consideration. Prior to July 1994, all claims for alleged exposure to ionising radiation from civilian employees were considered on the basis of whether or not the Department had a legal liability to pay compensation. One of the eight claims received prior to July 1994 resulted in damages being awarded by the High Court; the remaining seven claims were not pursued. Therefore, none of the claimants has to date received compensation other than as a result of a common law claim.

  Hunting Licences
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total income to his Department from the issue of licences to hunt on his Department's land in the last year for which figures are available. [17301]

  Mr. Spellar
  The income that my Department will receive from those licences issued to hunt foxes on the Defence Estate in the 1997–98 season will amount to £800. The full administrative costs associated with the preparation of such licences will also be recovered.

  HMS Vigilant
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident D5 Missiles were loaded on to HMS Vigilant in the United States after the completion of its most recent test firing of missiles there. [18320]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following a very successful Demonstration and Shakedown Operation, HMS Vigilant collected 14 unarmed Trident D5 missiles from the US Navy's Strategic Weapon Facility Atlantic at Kings Bay, Georgia in preparation for her entry into operational service.

  UN Special Commission, Iraq
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if members of the reserve forces can serve with the UN Special Commission in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [18873]

  Dr. Reid
  A Call-Out Order is in force which permits members of the reserve forces to be called out under Section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to support operations in the former republic of Yugoslavia and also in the region of Iraq. This includes service with the UN Special Commission in Iraq. Only suitably qualified volunteers are called out.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the boundaries of the United Kingdom low-flying zones for fast jets. [16803]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK Low Flying System is kept under continuous review to ensure that low flying is conducted as safely as possible with the minimum of disturbance to the public.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase recruitment into the armed forces. [16807]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government is committed to addressing the very serious problem of undermanning inherited from the previous Administration and has made recruitment to the Armed Forces one of the top priorities. A number of new recruiting initiatives are in place and, there are signs that these measures are beginning to have an effect.

  OCCAR Projects
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the in-service date slippage in the production of the COBRA project to date has been due to problems in partner countries; what measures he is undertaking to prevent similar problems in other OCCAR projects; and if he will make a statement. [17914]

  Mr. Spellar
  The slippage against the original in service date for the Counter Battery Radar (COBRA) system is 108 months. The principal reasons for the slippage are explained in the National Audit Office Major Project Report 1996 (HC238, session 1997–98,15 August 1997). As the report notes:

  (a) The timetable was first estimated when the Project Definition phase approved in 1986. The in-service date was reassessed at the end of that phase as a result of a better understanding of the programmed and the work involved. This gave rise to a 23 month slippage from the original estimate.

  (b) There were protracted negotiations between the three Governments, UK, France and Germany, and industry before the placement of the Development contract in 1990, which resulted in a further slippage of 36 months.

  (c) The original in-service date was based on the assumption that there would be a seamless transition from development to production. This could not be achieved because a reduction in the number of Radars required by Germany invalidated the maximum price production option and led to the need for further development work, the Cost Reduction Programmed, to reduce production costs. This programmed resulted in a further slippage of 42 months.

  There has been a further delay of seven months as the result of extended negotiations with EuroArt, the international industrial consortium, over their proposals to enter the production phase. We are currently assessing those proposals.

  There are currently no UK collaborative projects being managed by Organisme Conjoint de Cooperation en matiere d'Armament (OCCAR), although we hope progressively to integrate projects, including COBRA, into the organisation. It is a primary aim of OCCAR to improve on past performance in the management of collaborative programmers. We will actively press for the adoption of best practice procurement techniques as part of our contribution to the development of OCCAR's procedures.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much the Government spent in each of the last 10 years on(a) new social housing stock and (b) maintenance of social housing stock in (i) Staffordshire, (ii) the West Midlands and (iii) England. [16871]
  29
  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 20 November 1997]: The available information on allocation or outturns for expenditure on social housing stock made by the government since 1988–89 is set out below. A revised local authority capital finance regime and housing revenue subsidy system was introduced from April 1990, and thus

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  11997–98

  England

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programmed (ADP) Net outturns.

  652

  810

  1,154

  1,639

  2,306

  1,795

  1,487

  1,153

  1,031

  676

  Housing Annual Capital Guidelines (ACG)/Basic Block allocations

  1,119

  874

  1,396

  1,343

  1,290

  1,378

  1,038

  994

  943

  628

  Estate Action outturns

  140

  190

  180

  268

  348

  357

  373

  316

  252

  170

  Cash Incentive Scheme allocations2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  —

  30

  60

  60

  60

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  118

  Other local authority allocations3

  52

  20

  121

  187

  80

  45

  39

  30

  30

  —

  Management and maintenance (M and M) allowances for LA stock

  1,897

  2,007

  2,955

  3,070

  3,206

  3,266

  3,298

  3,332

  3,375

  3,307

  Housing Action Trusts outturns

  —

  —

  —

  10

  27

  78

  92

  93

  90

  89

  West Midlands Region

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programmed (ADP) Gross outturns

  n/a

  n/a

  100

  112

  154

  162

  134

  100

  88

  57

  Housing Annual Capital Guidelines (ACG)/Basic Block allocations

  118

  92

  122

  120

  120

  130

  101

  102

  100

  69

  Estate Action outturns

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  35

  41

  47

  49

  41

  25

  5

  Cash Incentives Scheme allocations2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  25

  Other local authority allocations3

  4

  5

  3

  5

  7

  5

  4

  3

  3

  —

  Management and maintenance (M and M) allowances for LA stock

  192

  205

  328

  342

  359

  363

  361

  366

  375

  359

  Housing Action Trusts outturns

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  11

  14

  18

  Staffordshire

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programmed (ADP) Gross outturns

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23

  21

  19

  13

  14

  n/a

  Housing Annual Capital Guidelines (ACG)/Basic Block allocations

  17

  13

  18

  20

  20

  22

  16

  16

  15

  10

  Estate Action outturns4

  3

  6

  4

  3

  4

  3

  4

  1

  1

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme allocations2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Other local authority allocations3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Management and maintenance (M and M) allowances for LA stock

  24

  25

  48

  50

  52

  52

  52

  54

  56

  48

  Housing Action Trusts outturns

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 All outturns for 1997–98 are latest estimates.

  2 Resources were provided for cash incentives schemes in 1990–91 and 1991–92, but within a package of measures directed at homelessness which are included in the 'other local authority' row.

  3 Covers special programmers for homelessness, rural housing, energy efficiency, New Town defective dwellings, Flats over Shops, the Housing Partnership Fund and the Private Sector Initiatives.

  4 Estate Action figures for Staffordshire 1988–89 to 1992–93 inclusive are allocations.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Barclays Bank report concerning shortages of homes to buy. [17161]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Barclays Bank is one of a number of organisations reporting that there are currently more prospective buyers than there are homes for sale. Part of the reason is that confidence in the housing market has returned. Increasing numbers of first time buyers and people in rented accommodation are looking to buy but will have no home to sell. This imbalance is likely to level off as the market adjusts. The Government's planning policy guidance (PPG3: Housing) advises local planning authorities to ensure the availability of a continuous five year supply of housing land to cater for on-going housing requirements.
  30
  prior years' figures are not directly comparable. Some of the resources allocated through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund and City Challenge are used for investment in social housing but this element is not separately identified in the allocations made, and they are therefore not included below.

  Lowell Park Mortgages
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the activities of Lowell Park Mortgages. [17529]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department can find no trace of any representations relating specifically to this company.

  M25 Widening
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 1997,Official Report, column 255, if he will now instruct the Highways Agency to send a substantive reply to Mr. Chris Fisher of FLAME consequent on the publication of the accelerated review. [17346]
  31
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In my previous answer to my hon. Friend on 3 July 1997,Official Report, column 255, I said that the Highways Agency would reply once the outcome of the accelerated review was announced. In the event, the decision was to carry out a further review of the M25 widening scheme, that work is continuing and I would not wish to prejudice the outcome. The Highways Agency will give a substantive response to FLAME once that review has been completed. In the meantime FLAME's letter did raise some factual questions and I have asked the Highways Agency to respond to these issues directly to FLAME. A copy of the letter will be placed in the House Library.

  Vessels (Port State Inspections)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vessels were subject to a port state inspection at(a) Flotta and (b) Sullom Voe in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1 January to 31 October 1997; and in each case what percentage of the total number of vessels were inspected. [17609]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. James Wallace, dated 1 December 1997:

  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of vessels subject to port state inspection at (a) Flotta and (b) Sullom Voe in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1 January to 31 October 1997 and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of individual ships visiting the ports were inspected.

  Port state inspection was carried out in Flotta on one vessel in 1996, and on three vessels in the period 1 January to 31 October 1997. This represents, respectively, one percent, and five percent of the number of individual ships visiting the port. In Sullom Voe, twenty one vessels were inspected in 1996, and seven in the period 1 January to 31 October 1997, which represents sixteen percent and six percent, respectively, of the number of individual ships visiting during those periods.

  The selection of vessels for inspection takes account of their age, the safety record of the flag of registration, how recently the ship was inspected with Europe and the outcome, and inspection effort is directed to obtain the greatest impact.

  Water Quality (Fylde Coast)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) studies and (b) investigations the Environment Agency (i) has carried out and (ii) plans to carry out to determine the reasons for the failure of the waters off the Fylde Coast to meet the standards required under the European Community Bathing Water Directive in the last five years. [17878]

  Angela Eagle
  Additional monitoring and investigations have been undertaken by the Environment Agency since completion of the Fylde Coast bathing water improvement scheme. These include checking the performance of the scheme, the integrity of the local sewerage network and investigations into additional sources of microbiological contamination. Further information on these investigations, which are not yet concluded, is available from the Agency.
  32
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the powers available to him to tackle coastal pollution and (b) the occasions on which those powers have been used in respect of the Fylde Coast in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [17877]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has wide powers under the Water Resources Act 1991 relating to water pollution. In respect of bathing waters on the Fylde Coast, the effect of The Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No. 1597) and the associated Direction and Notice is to require the Environment Agency to exercise its powers to ensure, as far as is practicable, that the Bathing Water Directive quality standards are met.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussion(a) his Department and (b) the Environment Agency have had with North West Water on the failure of the waters off the Fylde Coast to meet the requirements of the European community Bathing Waters Directive. [17879]

  Angela Eagle
  Performance of the Fylde Coast bathing waters has been the subject of considerable discussion between the Department, the Environment Agency and North West Water, and this will continue. Improving compliance with the Bathing Water Directive is a high priority for the Government.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how health and safety issues arising from the year 2000 computer problem are being addressed by his Department. [18026]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has commissioned research into the safety-critical aspects of date discontinuity problems associated with the year 2000 computer problem and the research will be published shortly. HSE has also established a committee within government to ensure that the results of this research and other experience can be shared with enforcing authorities and used as a basis of advice to dutyholders who may have safety-critical systems. Further guidance will be published next year. Health and Safety inspectors will remind dutyholders of their legal responsibilities to make sure that control systems are safe and will take enforcement action where the risks and circumstances justify it.

  Commuting
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what ways his Department's objective of reducing commuting is reflected in planning guidance. [18303]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Existing Planning Policy Guidance on Transport (PPG13) and Planning Policy Guidance on Town Centres and Retail Developments (PPG6) encourage local authorities to locate major generators of travel demand in existing centres which are highly accessible by means other than the private care, and to strengthen existing local centres in both urban and rural areas which offer a wide range of everyday community, shopping and employment opportunities, in order to reduce the need to travel.
  33
  The Government regards the closer integration of transport and land-use planning as an important part of its current wide-ranging review of transport policy. The White Paper on integrated transport is due in the spring.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what would have been the effect in 1997–98 on(a) the standard spending assessment and (b) the revenue support grant for (i) each class of authority and (ii) each local authority in England, had the indicator for shared and non-permanent accommodation been removed from the social index used in the calculation of SSAs, assuming that the national aggregate finance had remained at the current level. [17963]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: Figures showing the effect in 1997–98 on standard spending assessments (SSAs) of removing the shared and non-permanent accommodation indicator from the Social Index are not readily available. Figures showing the effect of the same change in 1996–97 are given for each class of authority and each local authority in England in the "Standard Spending Assessments Sub-Group Report for 1997–98", published by the Department of the Environment in 1996, a copy of which is in the Library.

  It is not possible to quantify the effect of the change on revenue support grant (RSG), because the total amount of RSG available depends upon, among other things, the amount of the SSA Reduction Grant payable for the relevant year. This, in turn, depends upon the decisions made on the arrangements for the payment of SSA Reduction Grant and the pattern of SSA changes in the relevant year.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what would have been the change in(a) standard spending assessment and (b) revenue support grant in 1997–98 for (i) each local authority in London and (ii) London as a whole, had the resident population been used as the client group in the `All Other Services' SSA, assuming that the national aggregate external finance had remained at the current level. [17962]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: Figures showing the effect in 1997–98 on standard spending assessments (SSAs) of using the resident population as the client group for the purpose of adjusting for extra costs due to population density, population sparsity and varying socio-economic characteristics in the `All Other Services' SSA are given for each local authority in London, and for London as a whole, in the "Standard Spending Assessments Sub-Group Report for 1998–99". A copy of this document is in the Library.

  It is not possible to quantify the effect of the change on Revenue Support Grant (RSG), because the total amount of RSG available depends upon, among other things, the amount of the SSA Reduction Grant payment for the relevant year. This, in turn, depends upon the decisions made on the arrangements for the payment of SSA Reduction Grant and the pattern of SSA changes in the relevant year.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the 34
  standard spending assessment in 1997–98, for (a) the City of Westminster, (b) the London Borough of Islington and (c) the London Borough of Southwark, indicating for each the (i) density of population, (ii) proportion of people from ethnic minorities, (iii) proportion of people living in over-crowded accommodation, (iv) proportion of people aged over 85 years and (v) proportion of elderly people living alone. [17971]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: Information for the City of Westminster, the London Borough of Islington and the London Borough of Southwark on the Standard Spending Assessments for 1997–98, the proportion of people likely to be from ethnic minorities and the proportion of people living in overcrowded accommodation is available in the "Standard Spelling Assessment Handbook 1997–98", published by the Department of the Environment. A copy of this document is in the Library.

  Information for the same three authorities on the density of population, the proportion of people aged over 85 years and the proportion of elderly people living along is also available in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes to the standard spending assessment formula methodology he is assessing for implementation in 1998–99; and if he will indicate for each option its potential financial impact on each class of local authority in England expressed(a) as the net change in its standard spending assessment and (b) as the net change in its standing spending assessment divided by (i) the aggregate number of Band D equivalent dwellings and (ii) chargeable dwellings, as used for council tax setting in 1997–98, for that class of authority. [17972]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: We shall announce shortly our proposals for changes to the Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) formula methodology for implementation in 1998–99. In reaching our decisions, we have had regard particularly to the possible changes discussed this year with the Local Government Association. A report on these discussions, including illustrations of the effect of possible changes on SSAs, is given in the "Standard Spending Assessments Sub-Group Report for 1998–99", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Figures for each class of authority in England of the aggregate number of Band D dwellings and the number of chargeable dwellings, as used for council tax-setting in 1997–98, are also available in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the submissions his Department has received on the 1998–99 local authority settlements; and if he will summarise their main recommendations and indicate the date on which they were received. [17969]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: My right hon. Friend has received a large number of submissions from the local authority associations, local authorities and others, including, for example, considerable correspondence during the SSA sub-group's consideration of SSAs for 1998–99. It would be disproportionately expensive to cover all submissions

  35
  received on this issue. We have been carefully considering all submissions as we take decisions on our proposals for local government revenue expenditure in the coming financial year. We will be announcing the provisional settlement next week and local authorities and others will have the opportunity to comment on our proposals in the consultation process that will follow.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what would have been the effect in 1997–98 on the(a) standard spending assessment and (b) revenue support grant for each (i) class of authority and (ii) local authority in England had the share of SSA for additional educational needs changed in line with changes in numbers of income support claimants, assuming the national aggregate external finance had remained at the current level. [17967]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: Figures showing the effect in 1997–98 on Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) of changing the share of SSA for additional educational needs in line with changes in numbers of income support claimants are not readily available. Figures showing the effect of the same change in 1996–97 are given for each class of authority and each local authority in England in the "Standard Spending Assessments Sub-Group Report for 1997–98", published by the Department of the Environment in 1996. A copy of this document is in the Library.

  It is not possible to quantify the effect of the change on Revenue Support Grant (RSG), because the total amount of RSG available depends upon, among other things, the amount of the SSA Reduction Grant payable for the relevant year. This, in turn, depends upon the decisions made on the arrangements for the payment of SSA Reduction Grant and the pattern of SSA changes in the relevant year.

  London Government
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which regional chamber will cover London; and if he will set out its boundaries. [18177]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: In July we published proposals for a new elected strategic authority for London, to cover the area comprising the 32 London Boroughs and the Corporation of the City of London. Subject to a referendum on 7 May, we shall introduce substantive legislation next year to establish the new authority.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department proposes to treat the GLA as a tier of regional government. [18172]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: The GLA will be a new form of city-wide strategic local Government.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reviews his 36
  Department plans of the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local authorities. [18577]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We monitor the extent to which local authorities use bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless households through the quarterly statistics that authorities supply to us.

  Bed-and-breakfast hotels may have a role to play as very short-term accommodation, but, as my Department's Code of Guidance on the homelessness legislation states, should be used only as a last resort.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he uses to determine which planning appeals for supermarket developments are called in for his own determination. [18199]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: In recovering planning appeals for his determination, as distinct from planning applications called in prior to decision by a local planning authority, my right hon. Friend has regard to the criteria in paragraph 36 of the Government's response to the Fifth Report from the Environment Committee, Session 1985–86 (Cmnd. paper 43).

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the prohibition of appeals against a planning application which is allowed by a local authority. [17242]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In recent years, the scope for third parties to participate in the planning process has been increased by requiring that development plan policies are adopted only after widespread consultation and making it a statutory requirement that all planning applications are publicised. It is the responsibility of local planning authorities to act in the general public interest when determining planning applications and we therefore have no plans to introduce a third party right of appeal against the granting of planning permission. Such a right could be used to delay or effectively veto many acceptable developments needed for the health and growth of our economy.

  Water Saving Trust
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the 'Regions if he will establish a water saving trust with a similar remit to the Energy Saving Trust. [18502]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to establish such a trust. The Environment Act 1995 introduced a duty for the water companies to promote the efficient use of water, and we look to the water companies to fulfil this duty with vigour, imagination and enthusiasm.

  A49 (Shropshire)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fatalities have occurred as a result of accidents on the A49 in Shropshire in each of the past 10 years. [18410]
  37
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following list:

  1987: 8

  1988: 0

  1989: 5

  1990: 8

  1991: 2

  1992: 9

  1993: 5

  1994: 8

  1995: 4

  1996: 4.

  Liability Orders
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to amend legislation to allow the cancellation of liability orders where these have been made in error. [17241]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department's recent consultation paper on council tax enforcement included a proposal to give local authorities a power to request a magistrates' court to overturn a liability order where they consider it to have been made in error. The outcome of the consultation exercise will be announced shortly.

  Factory Noise
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review permitted noise levels from urban factories. [17243]

  Angela Eagle
  It is for local authorities to deal with noise pollution from urban factories. Noise from certain factories will be considered as part of my Department's continuing consultation on the future implementation of EC Directive 96/61 "Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control".

  Waste Management (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the holders of a waste management licence in West Yorkshire. [17244]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency is required to maintain a public register of current waste management licences. I have been informed by the Environment Agency that its public register records the following as holders of waste management licences in West Yorkshire:

  A. A. Bathie Ltd., T/A Viaduct Metals

  A. G. and H. G. Groundworks Ltd.

  A. & D. McGregor T/A McGregor Brothers

  A. Ross T/A A. Ross and Son Metal Merchants

  A. B. Kelly

  A. Hudson

  A. Dean

  A. B. Hall T/A A B Autos

  Abingway Properties plc

  Able Fuels

  Alan Finnemore T/A Batley Car Spares

  Albert Stanley Fenn

  Alf Ellis T/A Ellis Metals Ltd.

  Ansar Farooq Dad

  Arcon Plant Ltd.

  38

  Arthur Brook Ltd.

  Arthur Brooke Ltd.

  Autospares Bingley Ltd.

  B. C. Balmforth

  B. Simpson T/A CWRS Ltd.

  B. Stevenson T/A Aireborough Mini Skips

  B. Woodhead

  BBA Fricton Ltd.

  Bellmore Stud Ltd.

  Berry and Marshall (Bolton Woods)

  Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

  Blackleigh Limited

  Blacktop Ltd

  Bradford Waste Traders Ltd

  Bradley and Holmes Ltd

  Bradmet Asbestos Unit

  Bradmet Highways

  Bradmet Landscapes

  Brighouse Skip Hire

  Britannia Recycling Ltd

  British Gas plc, North Eastern

  British Gas plc, Trans Co

  British Waterways

  British Waterways Board

  British Waterways North Yorkshire Navigations

  Bursaul Landfill Site Services Ltd.

  C. S. Davidson T/A C. Davidson & Son

  C. Rhodes & Son Ltd

  C. F. Harris Ltd.

  C. Heath & Son

  C. G. Fell T/A Vellco Tyres Co

  C. J. McNally

  C. R. Longley Ltd

  C. W. J. Saunders

  C. F. Moon

  C. & J. Blackburn

  Caird Bardon Ltd.

  Calderdale Met Borough Council

  Cannon Hygiene Ltd.

  Car Disposals Ltd.

  Carlton Landfill Operations

  Central Drawing Off. Services

  Chancename Ltd. T/A Newmet

  Chapmans Casks and Drums Ltd

  Chemwaste Ltd

  Christopher Atkinson

  City of Bradford Metropolitan Council

  City of Bradford Bradmet Services

  Clays of Addingham Ltd

  Cleanmet Ltd

  CLM Properties Ltd

  CMS (Highways)

  Colne Valley Skip Hire

  Crossley Evans Ltd.

  Crossley and Evans Ltd

  Crossley & Craven Ltd.

  D. Greenwood

  D. A. Rathmell and Sons

  D. Firth

  D. G. Robinson T/A Ferrybridge Motor Spares

  D. Hoare

  Darrington Quarries Ltd.

  Dean Langton T/A Skelton Waste Disposal

  Demex Ltd

  Du Pont UK Ltd

  E. & J. M. Beecroft

  E. Bailey

  E. Rhodes

  E. Pease & Son Ltd

  E. Simpson

  E. Moulson

  E. Wilkinson T/A Licensed Tyre Disposals

  Earthmover Tyres Yorkshire Ltd.

  Environment Agency

  Eric France & Son (Metals) Ltd.

  Eric Winterbum T/A Viking Car Spares

  39

  F. M. Atha

  F. W. Thompson

  F. Long

  Firth Carpets Ltd.

  Fryston Recovery Ltd.

  G. Sharp T/A Autos

  G. & S. C. Hackney T/A Thorpe Autobodies

  G. W. Butler Ltd.

  G. Bennett

  G & K Pearce T/A Acorn Skip Hire

  Geoff Wormersley Jnr

  Gill Demolitions Ltd

  Glendennings (Containers) Ltd.

  Glintdale Ltd. T/A Quickskip

  Gordon Smith

  Greencroft Plastics Ltd

  Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd.

  H. M. Fitzsimmons

  H. & D. Douglas (Tyres) Ltd. T/A Stafford Tyre Co.

  H. Smith & Sons Ltd.

  H. Moore Ltd. (Metal Broker)

  Halifax Metal Processors Ltd.

  Hard York Ltd.

  Harry Can (Autowreckers) Ltd.

  Haworth Scouring Co

  Hengbays (1984) Ltd

  Henry Waddington Nelson

  Hicks Haulage

  Hickson Ltd. T/A Hickson Fine Chemicals

  Hillridge Ltd.

  Hinchliffe Brothers

  I. M. (Contractors) Ltd

  I. Paris

  Ibstock Brick (Nostell) Ltd

  IMI Yorkshire Alloys Ltd.

  Infrastructure Services Northern Track Removals

  J. Bower

  J. A. Stevenson

  J. Hudson

  J. Snee

  J. N. Hirst

  J. R. Towriss

  J. Hornby and Sons Ltd

  J. S. Miller & Co. Ltd

  J. S. Bamforth & Co. Ltd

  J. W Hinchcliffe Ltd

  J. W. Crowther & Son Ltd.

  J. A. Dickinson T/A Dickinson Autos

  J. Turkington T/A Knostrop Autowreckers

  J. W., J. H. & D. Whiting T/A Whiting Brothers

  J. Crisp T/A Dragon Bridge Dismantlers

  J. Liversidge & Son and L. Barbidge and Sons

  J. B. Garahan Ltd.

  J. M., R. A. & G. V. Beckett T/A Jim Beckett Commercial Motor Dealers Vehicles & Spares

  J. Hand

  J. E. Crowther (Holdings) plc

  J. A. Whitehead Services (Littletown) Ltd

  J. B. Hill & Sons Ltd

  J. Jagger & Sons

  J. E. Crowther Ltd.

  J. Ward T/A Phoenix Auto Dismantlers

  J. Brook

  J. T. Singleton & Son

  J. Matthews T/A J. M. Metals

  J. Brotherton

  J. Brooksbank

  Jack Stephenson & Phyllis Stephenson T/A J. & P. Stephenson

  James Rodney Hulme

  James Macnair T/A Thomes Wharf Vehicle Spares

  James Pickup

  John Alderson & Son Ltd

  John Milner & Sons Ltd

  Johnsons Wellfield Quarries

  Joseph Sykes Brothers Ltd.

  K. Armstrong

  40

  K. Briggs

  K. Appleyard T/A Thorpe Lane Commercial

  K. Durkin & N. Ramsey T/A Prestige Salvage Co

  K. Moorhouse

  K. S. Cooper

  K. Johnson

  K. A. Rothery

  K. Ibbertson

  Killgerm Chemicals Ltd

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Kirklees Highways Services

  L. Junior Power

  L. Whitaker

  L. Power

  Lambson Fine Chemicals Ltd

  Leeds City Council (Asbestos Unit)

  Leeds City Council

  Linfact Installations Ltd

  Linpac Plastics Ltd

  Lloyd Loaders (M. H.) Ltd

  M. J. Procter

  M. Brook

  M. Lovatt T/A A 1 Tool and Skip Hire

  M. Andrews

  M. Hutchinson

  M. Witcombe

  M. and C. Dismantlers

  M. Greenwood

  M. B. Wood

  M. & S. Kent T/A Wetherby Skip Services

  M & B Haulage

  Mahmood Atkhar

  Marshalls Mono Ltd

  Marshalls plc

  Messrs Conroy and Booth Ltd

  Messrs K. M. & R. Humphrey T/A KMR

  Metaltreat Ltd

  Michael Willey

  Mitchell Cotts Chemicals Ltd

  Modern Car Spares Ltd.

  Mone Bros. (Civil Eng.) Ltd

  Mone Bros. (Excavations) Ltd.

  Monoplas Industries Ltd

  Morley Waste Traders Ltd

  Mr. Grabovski T/A Star Salvage

  Muktubs (UK) Ltd

  M. W. Homer

  N. and R. Contractors Ltd

  N. C. Woolford T/A Leeds Skip Services

  N. Crossley

  National Power plc

  Naylor Bros. (Clayware) Ltd

  Normanton Brick Company Ltd

  Northern Drums Ltd

  Norver Paints Ltd

  Oats Royd Mill Ltd

  Octave Four Ltd

  On-The-Dot Ltd

  Orcol Fuels Ltd

  P. H. Sanders

  P. Garnett & Son Ltd

  P. Wagstaff T/A Waggies Auto Spares

  P. Brewerton

  P. Drake

  P. Downham

  P. A. Austick T/A Stanningley Motors

  P. Metcalfe T/A Betta Skip Hire

  P. Popek

  P. & E. Murphy T/A Skiplift

  P. Singh T/A Churwell Car Spares

  P. R. Jones

  Park Pitt Landfills Ltd.

  Parkinson and Spencer Refrac Ltd

  Percy Pickard (Sales) Ltd.

  Personnel Hygiene Services Ltd

  Peter Bould T/A Boulds Bins

  41

  Pinegreen Ltd.

  Plastic Drum Reconditioning

  Pole Moor Auto Spares

  R. Spivey & Sons Ltd.

  R. Gentry T/A M. G. Skip Hire

  R. Kaye

  R. D. Skinner & A. Skinner T/A Jeff Skinner Skip Hire

  R. Crossley

  R. Askew

  R. Wisher

  R. J. Patchett Ltd.

  R. A. Taylor

  R. F. Winder Electrical Ltd.

  R. Woodhead

  Ray Allen & Sons

  Readymix (Huddersfield) Ltd

  Reflecting Roadstuds Ltd

  Rentokil Initial plc

  Reusable Building Supplies

  Rhodar Ltd

  Richard Schofield

  Richard Hall

  Ridgenorth Ltd. T/A T. Holmes and Co

  Rigby Cold Drawn

  Robinson & Birdsell Ltd

  Robinson Bros. (Airedale Demolitions) Ltd

  Robinson Group Ltd

  Ryhill Landfill Site Ltd

  S. Clark T/A Auto Salvage Autowreckers

  S. Pickard

  S. R. Parker

  S. Wagstaff

  S. J. Mitchell T/A Crest Properties

  S. Brook

  S. W. Shelton T/A Bridge Supply Company

  S. & R. M. Peel

  Safety-Kleen UK Ltd

  Sheppard Group Bradford Ltd

  Shipley Paint Ltd

  Silver Lining Industries Ltd

  SIS Chemicals Ltd

  Solvo Ltd

  South Elmsall Quarries Ltd

  Stephenson Bros. (Haulage) Ltd

  Synthomer Ltd

  T. E. Lowe

  T. Sandham T/A Aireborough Waste Traders

  T. Matthews

  T. A. Plunkett

  T. Musgrove

  T. Kelly

  T. Berryman & Sons Ltd

  T. R. & R. Bainbridge T/A L. Bainbridge & Sons

  T. H. Holroyd Ltd

  Tarmac Heavy Building Materials UK Ltd

  The Design Practice

  Thomas Arthur Brotherton

  Thornton Processing Ltd

  Tourberry Ltd

  Tyre Collection Services Ltd

  UK Waste Management Ltd

  United Leeds Teaching Hosps

  W. H. Robinson Ltd

  W. S. Crossley (Yorkstone) Ltd

  W. T. Knowles and Sons Ltd

  W. M. Beattie (Leeds) Ltd., T/A Plant Hire Co

  Wainmans

  Wakefield Demolition Co. Ltd

  Walker May (Halifax) Ltd

  Wayne Peter Simpson

  Waystone Ltd.

  Webfell Ltd

  Webfell

  Wells and Moorhouse Ltd

  West Yorkshire Waste Management Joint Committee

  West Riding Waste Disposal

  42

  Westwood Yarns Ltd

  Wilkinson Brothers

  William Ernest Ley

  Woolcombers (Processors) Ltd

  Wright Bros. (Clayton) Ltd

  Wright Engineers (Burley) Ltd

  Y. Tweedale

  Yorkshire Electricity

  Yorkshire Metal Traders Ltd

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

  Yorkshire Water Enterprises

  Yorkshire Electricity Group plc

  Yorkshire Environmental Limited T/A Global EnvironmentalServices

  Zeneca

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions were pursued, in West Yorkshire, for contraventions of waste management regulations in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [17245]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency is responsible for the enforcement of waste management legislation. I have been informed by the Environment Agency that the number of waste-related prosecutions in West Yorkshire brought by the Agency, and prior to 1 April 1996 by waste regulation authorities, for the calendar years 1993–1997 is as follows:

  Number

  1993

  18

  1994

  20

  1995

  16

  1996

  20

  1997 (to date)

  25

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions the Health and Safety Executive has brought against employers who have failed adequately to control exposure to substances hazardous to health under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 since January 1995 in which the employer was charged with failing to reduce the level of exposure below the maximum exposure limit; and how many have been successful. [18414]

  Angela Eagle
  Such prosecutions can be brought only under Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994 for failure to ensure that exposure is adequately controlled. Charges cannot be laid separately under Regulation 7(6) which explains the duty with regard to substances for which a maximum exposure limit is specified. There have been five informations laid under Regulation 7(1) resulting in five convictions during 1996–97. This information is provisional. Information prior to 1996–97 is not available at this level of detail due to the coding system then used by HSE.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions the Health and Safety Executive has brought against employers who have failed adequately to control
  43
  exposure to substances hazardous to health under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994; and how many have been successful. [18413]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive has brought 28 prosecutions under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994. Of these, 22 have resulted in convictions. The provisional figures for 1997 are 11 prosecutions resulting in 11 convictions.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures Health and Safety Executive officials are taking to ensure that levels of exposure to substances hazardous to health are reduced below the maximum exposure limit. [18415]

  Angela Eagle
  Where a maximum exposure limit (MEL) has been assigned, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994, as amended, require employers to control exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable and in any case below that MEL.

  Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors enforce COSHH by assessing employers' arrangements for controlling health risks and, in particular, the measures they take to reduce exposures, including monitoring to test compliance with exposure limits.

  HSE also publishes considerable practical advice on controlling exposure and inspectors refer to such guidance as illustrating good practice. Publicity and enforcement campaigns are also targeted at priority classes of substances, many of which have maximum exposure limits.

  "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas"
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department has taken in the last 12 months to assess the extent of the problem of failure to report in pursuance of the recommendation of Lord Donaldson's Report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". [18187]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. R. Bradley, to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. James Wallace, dated 1 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about the steps taken to assess the extent of the problem of failure to report, pursuant to recommendation 71 of Lord Donaldson's Report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas."
  44
  Since the publication of the report by Lord Donaldson the Department has implemented Council Directive 93/75/EEC. The implementing Regulations make it compulsory for masters of vessels which find themselves in circumstances which may cause pollution or damage, either to themselves or to the UK coastline, to report to the Coastguard. This significantly strengthens the position as against that prevailing at the time of the report.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a progress report on the implementation of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's Inquiry Report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" in a form similar to that placed in the Library on 31 October 1996. [18186]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government is currently reviewing the progress made in implementing the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's Inquiry. I will place copies of a progress report in the Library shortly.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to monitor the operation of the voluntary certification scheme issued by the Marine Safety Agency in May 1995 in pursuance of recommendation 51(c) of Lord Donaldson's Report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". [18190]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. R. Bradley, to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. James Wallace, dated 1 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about what steps the Department has taken to monitor the operation of the voluntary certification scheme issued by the Marine Safety Agency in May 1995 in pursuance of recommendation 51(c) of Lord Donaldson's Report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
  The voluntary certification scheme, published in Merchant Shipping Notice number M.1616, encouraged ship operators to gain certification to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code in advance of the mandatory compliance dates.
  Our records indicate that those passenger roll-on/roll-off ferries and their operating companies, which were required to comply with the Code under Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95, have all achieved certification.
  In addition, good progress is being made on the certification of companies and the vessels they operate which are required to comply with the Code by 1 July 1998, by virtue of the new Chapter IX to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 Convention. The vessel types affected in this phase of implementation are oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and cargo high speed craft, all of 500 gross tonnage and over, and all passenger ships including passenger high speed craft. We are liaising closely with ship operators who have already applied under the voluntary scheme, to ensure certification is achieved as soon as possible. We have been in contact also with the few who have not yet formally applied to enquire about their progress and intentions.

  Coastguard Minute 20/96
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the text of Coastguard Minute 20/96 sent to coastguard stations in July 1996 [18191]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Coastguard agency, Mr. C. Harris, to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. James Wallace, dated 1 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Coastguard Minute 20/96.
  I enclose a copy of Coastguard Minute 20/96 "SAR situation reports (SITREPS) and morning press reports" as requested.

  HM COASTGUARD

  Coastguard Minute 20/96

  Distribution C

  Sar Situation Reports (SITREPS) And Morning Press Reports

  Ref: A. CG3 Vol. 3 Part 2 Section 7

  B. CG3 Vol. 2 Part 5 Section 1

  1. Representations have been received at CGHQ concerning the publication in Lloyd's List of information on alerts, emergencies and equipment failures, passed by the Offshore Industry and Merchant Vessels to HM Coastguard in good faith and on the understanding that there will be an embargo on further publication. However, despite the "For information not for publication" affix, these articles are being published.

  2. Staff should be well aware of the value of rapid and open reporting between Industry and ourselves and should be conscious that unnecessary media emphasis on what turns out to be a precautionary report is not conducive to maintaining the necessary rapport. We must however, also be mindful, as a government agency, of being aware of the publics' expectation for us to report emergency incidents without fear or favour.

  3. (a) Effective upon receipt of this minute, SAR situation reports are not to be transmitted to Lloyds, except where positive SAR1 action occurs.

  Reports in accordance with Ref. B (Paragraph 1.6.2) are to continue, however to clarify the situation, the term "wreck or casualty" does not include precautionary alerts or reports of vessel stoppages.

  (b) In accordance with Ref. A, SITREPS should normally only be sent when positive SAR action is taken or required; for example, precautionary alerts from an offshore installation or a report of a vessel stopped for mechanical repairs would not normally warrant a SITREP unless/until the situation deteriorated.

  5. In future, tighter control is to be maintained on the occasions when SAR SITREPs are released to external authorities. SWOs/DMTs/RDOs are to assess the requirements for SITREPs more rigorously, paying particularly attention to the SITREP address list.

  6. Morning reports to CGHQ should continue as per Ref. A. Where these are used for external distribution, they should be edited to reflect only those incidents where positive SAR action was taken.

  46

  7. This Coastguard Minute remains extant until superseded or incorporated into Coastguard Instructions.

  J ASTBURY

  Chief Coastguard

  15 July 1996

  Department of Transport—CG2 2/1/5/15

  Coastguard Minute 19/96 was circulated Distribution B;

  1 Positive SAR is where assets are mobilised and despatch to an incident.

  On-train Telephones
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that public on-train telephones are equipped with induction loops; and what steps his Department has taken in pursuing this matter with the Office of the Rail Regulator. [17931]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Regulator will be reviewing his Code of Practice for Disabled Passengers in the New Year; the revised Code will take account of the regulations made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The draft regulations include a proposal that on-train telephones are equipped with inductive couplers.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the proposed regulations for railway rolling stock under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will ensure that public on-train telephones are equipped with induction loops. [17932]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently drawing up draft regulations for railway rolling stock under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. They will be issued for public consultation early in the New Year.

  The regulations cover a wide range of features to ensure that disabled people can travel on trains in safety and with reasonable comfort. The draft regulations include a proposal that public on-train telephones are equipped with inductive couplers.

  South Downs
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received about the protection of the South Downs; [17922]

  (2) when he plans to announce a decision about the future of the South Downs Conservation Board; [17923]

  (3) what representations he has received about the future of the South Downs Conservation Board. [17924]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministers have received a number of representations about the protection of the South Downs and about the future of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. At our request, the Countryside Commission is carrying out the consultation on the long term arrangements for the South Downs. A conference was held in Brighton on 26 November to launch the consultation, at which it was announced that the consultation period has been extended to 1 February. Copies of the consultation document are available from the Countryside Commission's London office and from
  47
  libraries within the South Downs and surrounding towns. The Commission will analyse the responses and bring the results and advice to Ministers next spring.

  Port Control Inspections
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of(a) all foreign flag vessels, (b) oil tankers, (c) passenger ships and (d) bulk carriers were the subject of port state control inspections in United Kingdom ports in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) January to October 1997. [18189]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. R. Bradley, to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. James Wallace, dated 1 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about the inspection of foreign flag vessels
  Please find below the figures you requested. You will note that Marine Safety Agency statistics are compiled by financial year rather than by calendar year.

  Port state control inspections by ship type

  Per cent

  1995/6

  1996/7

  April-October 1997

  All foreign vessels

  30.6

  27.4

  25.9

  Oil tankers

  17.4

  15.8

  10.0

  Passenger ships

  71.8

  91.7

  85.7

  Bulk carriers

  65.3

  74.7

  74.8

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what United Kingdom port state control inspections of the vessel "Green Lily" have taken place since 1 January 1996. [18188]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. R. Bradley, to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. James Wallace, dated 1 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question abut the vessel "Green Lily".
  Since 1 January 1996, "Green Lily" has been inspected once by the Marine Safety Agency. This inspection was conducted on 24 March 1997 at Hull. No deficiencies were noted.

  Alexandra Palace and Park
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the correspondence between his Department and the London Borough of Haringey since 1 January 1990 regarding Alexandra Palace and Park; and if he will make a statement. [18193]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Department has had a considerable volume of correspondence with Haringey over Alexandra Palace and Park in the last seven years. Much of its relates to a deficit of approximately £55 million which the authority has accrued in respect of the property. As such, a large part of the content of these 48
  letters is therefore commercially sensitive and is exempt from release to a third party under the Department's Code of Practice on Open Government.

  Identifying the correspondence and the information that is confidential would be time-consuming and could not be undertaken except at disproportionate cost.

  Driving Licences (Diabetics)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what medical conditions are specifically identified in legislation as preventing a person holding a licence enabling them to drive a vehicle in Groups C and D. [17392]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the Secretary of State to refuse to grant a licence if he is satisfied that an applicant is suffering from a relevant disability. Relevant disabilities which are a bar to the holding of a Category C or D licence are:inability to read a number plate under prescribed conditions;
  eye abnormality which prevents a person from meeting prescribed visual acuity standards, or sight in one eye only;
  diabetes requiring insulin treatment;
  epileptic attack or treatment for epilepsy within the previous 10 years;
  liability to seizures other than as a result of epilepsy;
  liability to disabling giddiness or fainting, including as a result of an implanted electrical cardiac device;
  severe mental disorder;
  persistent misuse of alcohol or drugs;
  becoming a High Risk Offender as a result of disqualification for a drink/drive offence; and
  any other disability which is likely to lead to a danger to other road users.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of the proposed restrictions on issuing driving licences to people with insulin-dependent diabetes on those whose current employment requires them to drive vehicles in Groups C and D; if he will review such restrictions to allow licences to be granted in very exceptional cases; and if he will make a statement. [17393]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Legislation has since 1991 prohibited the grant of category C and D licences—giving entitlement to lorries over 7.5 tonnes and buses with more than 16 seats—to insulin dependent diabetics. The provisions which come into force on 1 January 1998 apply only to those having entitlement to drive vehicles in category Cl (lorries up to 7.5 tonnes) and category D1 (minibuses) obtained through passing a test to drive cars. The D1 entitlement is qualified "Not for hire or reward" and holders should therefore not be employed as drivers. It is impossible to establish the number of people who are employed as drivers of Cl vehicles who are insulin-dependent. In any case a number of studies by experts in the field on the consequences of insulin treatment have shown that insulin treatment leads to a significant risk of hypoglycaemia. This can lead to loss of consciousness, as well as other effects such as diminished judgment. It is well established that hypoglycaemia can occur without
  49
  warning and a number of accidents have directly resulted from this. The Honorary Advisory Panel on Diabetes and Driving have advised that there are, in their judgment, no exceptional cases, and confirmed that granting licences to drive lorries up to 7.5 tonnes and minibuses to those who are insulin-dependent is not in the interests of road safety.

  Coastguard Reports
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions between 1 August 1996 and 31 October 1997 coastguard search-and-rescue situations reports were not released to Lloyd's List. [18192]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Services (Oxfordshire)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received from Oxfordshire about the reductions in social service provision in the county. [18390]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations about the funding of Oxfordshire County Council. Many of these have referred to proposals by the County Council to make reductions in its services, including social services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Big Cats
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibility his Department has for monitoring sightings of big cats. [17874]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office has no responsibility for monitoring the sightings of big cats.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sightings of big cats have been reported to the police in Norfolk. [17875]

  Mr. Michael
  Since 1 July 1997, Norfolk Constabulary have received 54 reports of a "big cat", mostly sighted in the Norwich area.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes, on average, from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders, and for other young offenders. [18874]

  Mr. Straw
  Information on the time between arrest and sentence for young offenders is not available from historical records, as the previous Government did not collect data on time intervals from arrest. However, we have recently completed a survey of persistent young offenders dealt with by the youth justice system in 1996. That survey indicates that in 1996 the average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders was 142 days.
  50
  An Audit Commission survey of 600 young offenders in 1996 suggests that the average time between arrest and sentence for all young offenders was 121 days1. The Time Intervals Survey, published by the Lord Chancellor's Department, indicates that in 1996 the average time from offence to completion for defendants in indictable cases dealt with by the Youth Court was 131 days. The White Paper "No More Excuses—A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales" (Cm 3809) erroneously stated (paragraph 7.1) that this figure of 131 days was the average interval between arrest and sentence for a young offender.

  We are ensuring that systems are put in place to monitor the time between arrest and sentence in the future for persistent young offenders and other young offenders.

  Notes:

  1 Audit Commission, Misspent Youth: Young People and Crime, November 1996.

  2 Time Intervals for criminal proceedings in the magistrates' courts, Lord Chancellor's Department, March 1997 (Issue 1/97).

  Mukesh Gajjar
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the deportation order in the case of Mukesh Gajjar. [18316]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The decision not to revoke the deportation order against Mukesh Gajjar is currently under appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Final Product Cosmetic Testing Ban
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of animal deaths, broken down by species, which will be averted by the voluntary ban on final product cosmetic testing on animals. [17885]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1996" were laid in the House in July. Table 10 shows that 252 procedures were for the purpose of safety testing of finished cosmetic products, the category of tests covered by the voluntary ban. Table 10a shows that these involved 220 animals (34 rats, 162 guinea-pigs and 24 rabbits). Most of these animals would only have experienced low levels of suffering and would not have died as a result of the procedure.

  The ban on cosmetic product testing is an important first step. We announced on 6 November that we would also be exploring a ban on the testing of ingredients for "vanity" products and finished household products.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan asylum seekers have been granted refugee status or leave to remain in the UK in the past 12 months(a) without the intervention of a special adjudicator and (b) following intervention by a special adjudicator. [17912]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the period 1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997, a total of 1,900 initial decisions, excluding dependants, were made on asylum applications
  51
  lodged by Sri Lankan nationals. Of these, 40 were to recognise the applicant as a refugee and grant asylum, 10 were to refuse asylum but grant exceptional leave (to enter/remain in the United Kingdom) and 1,850 were to refuse both asylum and exceptional leave.

  Provisional information indicates that, during the same time period, special adjudicators determined approximately 1,140 appeals lodged by Sri Lankan nationals against the refusal of asylum. Of these, an estimated 8 per cent. were allowed, 87 per cent. were dismissed and 5 per cent. were withdrawn.

  An allowed appeal does not necessarily result in an automatic grant of refugee status or a grant of exceptional, or other, leave to remain in the United Kingdom. In cases where the allowed appeal relates to an initial refusal of asylum on safe third country grounds, the Asylum Directorate will then usually consider the application substantively—any subsequent, adverse decision attracting a further right of appeal before the special adjudicator. Additionally, in cases where reasonable grounds exist, the Home Office may elect to challenge an adjudicator's determination by lodging an appeal with the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  I regret that a reliable breakdown of asylum decisions made following appeal determinations is not available.

  Prisons (Boards of Visitors Reports)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates of publication for each board of visitors annual report for 1996 and(a) each privately managed prison and (b) each publicly managed prison; and if he will make a statement. [18086]

  Ms Quin
  Each Board of Visitors has a statutory duty under Prison Rule 97 to report annually to the Home Secretary on the state of the prison and its administration and include advice and suggestions as they consider appropriate.

  Boards of Visitors Annual Reports are not published documents. They are made to the Secretary of State who permits the Board to publish their Annual Report, if they wish, subject to allowing a period of notice to elapse before publication and to removal of any material which is confidential.

  Fifty Boards have published their 1996 Annual Reports. The Boards and the publication dates of their Reports are as follows:

  Board

  Publication date

  Privately managed prisons

  Blakenhurst

  December 1996

  Wolds

  April 1997

  Publicly managed prisons

  Aldington

  January 1997

  Askham Grange

  February 1997

  Bedford

  May 1997

  Belmarsh

  February 1997

  Blantyre House

  February 1997

  Blundeston

  April 1997

  Bristol

  February 1997

  Brixton

  May 1997

  Bullwood Hall

  January 1997

  Channings Wood

  February 1997

  Chelmsford

  January 1997

  52

  Board

  Publication date

  Dartmoor

  January 1997

  Deerbolt

  January 1997

  Downview

  March 1997

  Drake Hall

  January 1997

  Erlestoke

  January 1997

  Exeter

  January 1997

  Feltham

  March 1997

  Ford

  February 1997

  Full Sutton

  January 1997

  Guys Marsh

  February 1997

  Haslar

  January 1997

  High Down

  February 1997

  Highpoint

  August 1997

  Hollesley Bay

  May 1997

  Holloway

  April 1997

  Hull

  January 1997

  Huntercombe

  May 1997

  Kingston

  April 1997

  Kirkham

  January 1997

  Lancaster Farms

  February 1997

  The Mount

  April 1997

  Northallerton

  January 1997

  Norwich

  April 1997

  Nottingham

  April 1997

  Pentonville

  April 1997

  Preston

  January 1997

  Send

  January 1997

  Swaleside

  March 1997

  Swansea

  May 1997

  The Verne

  April 1997

  Wandsworth

  April 1997

  Wayland

  August 1997

  Wetherby

  May 1997

  Whatton

  August 1997

  Whitemoor

  February 1997

  Winchester

  March 1997

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide details of the renewed contract between his Department and United Kingdom Detention Services Limited in respect of Her Majesty's Prison, Blakenhurst; and if he will make a statement. [18087]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on 19 June 1997,Official Report, columns 247–49, that he would extend the contract for the management of Her Majesty's Prison, Blakenhurst by UKDS Limited for a further three years. The detailed contractual terms are being finalised and, as is usual for prison management contracts, a copy of the signed contract will be placed in the Library.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions and on what basis the Prison Service Contracts and Competition Group has provided consultancy, advice and assistance to foreign governments and private contractors; what income has been received as a result on those occasions; and if he will make a statement. [18090]
  53
  Ms Quin
  Since 1995–97, members of the Prison Service Contracts and Competition Group (CCG) have met or provided information on request to officials of the following national governments:

  Australia

  Colombia

  Canada

  Fiji

  Israel

  Japan

  Trinidad and Tobago

  New Zealand

  United States of America

  Similar assistance has been provided to the following provincial or state governments or administrations:

  South Australia

  Western Australia

  Victoria

  New Brunswick

  Nova Scotia

  Ontario

  Oklahoma

  These contacts were either part of an itinerary of visits arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or, in the majority of cases, reflect the reciprocal exchange of information between the Prison Service and other prison services throughout the world.

  More extensive advice and assistance was provided this year to the Republic of South Africa in connection with its pilot programmed for the design, construction, management and financing (DCMF) by private contractors of 5,400 new prison places. The Head of CCG was an independent member of the evaluation panel that assessed application by contractors to prequalify to tender for these contracts. CCG also arranged a short briefing programmed in the United Kingdom, which included meetings with officials at the Treasury and staff of the Private Finance Panel Executive, for officials from the Republic of South Africa's ministries of Public Works, Corrections and Finance.

  There were no charges for such assistance; most of the meetings were of a short duration.

  Relations with private contractors are restricted to the administration of existing contracts and actions necessary for the procurement of future contracts.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much income the Prison Service received for staff recruitment advertisements placed in Prison Service publications by private prison and escort service operators in the last six financial years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [18091]

  Ms Quin
  Prison Service News has carried three such advertisements during the past two years, earning from them £990 in the financial year 1996–97 and £200 in the current financial year (to the end of October). There were no such advertisements placed in 1995–96, the only other year for which such detailed advertising records are available.
  54
  All income from such advertising is appropriated in aid of Prison Service expenditure through the Supply Estimates.

  Departmental Staff (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials in his Department and its agencies, in the grade of assistant secretary and above, or equivalent, took early retirement, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; what is the estimated additional cost of those early retirements; how many in each year retired on(a) medical grounds and (b) grounds related to performance; how many were subsequently re-engaged for any period on a consultancy basis; and if he will make a statement. [18093]

  Mr. Straw
  Details of the number of officials in the grade of assistant secretary and above, or equivalent—now members of the Senior Civil Service—who retired early, including those leaving on medical grounds, are shown in the table. Information is available only for the last six years. During this period, no early retirements on grounds of performance are recorded.

  Number of officials in the Home Department (and agencies) at SCS level (previously grade 5 and above or equivalent) who have taken early retirement since 1992

  Year

  Total retiring early (number onill health grounds in brackets)

  1992

  1

  1993

  2

  1994

  6 (1)

  1995

  4

  1996

  119

  1997 (to end November)

  3 (2)

  1 Includes 18 early retirements resulting from loss of senior posts following Home Office Senior Management Review.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public appointments he has made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these(a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin. [16780]

  Mr. Straw
  Since 1 May 1997, I have made 323 public appointments, of which 58 (18 per cent.) receive remuneration.

  The information about ethnic origin cannot be provided since to do so would risk identifying individuals without their consent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has provided information for all Departments in an aggregated form.

  Private Prison Contracts
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide details of each default notice issued in the last two years for failure to comply with private prison contract conditions; and if he will make a statement; [18088]

  (2) if he will list the dates, amounts and details of the financial penalties incurred by private prison operators for contract failures; and if he will make a statement. [18089]
  55
  Ms Quin
  There have been two occasions when the contractors managing prisons were penalised financially. First, in February 1994, a payment of £41,167 (excluding value added tax) was withheld from UKDS Limited because of an incident at Her Majesty's Prison, Blakenhurst, which resulted in a temporary reduction in cell availability. Second, a deduction of £526 was made from payments due to Group 4 under the contractual performance measurement system for Her Majesty's Prison, Buckley Hall.

  Notices issued to contractors managing prisons when they fail to comply with their contract are now termed improvement notices; in the past, they have sometimes been described as cure or default notices. The number of and reasons for such notices issued to privately managed prisons since 1 November 1995 are set out in the table below.

  Prison

  Date

  Reason for notice

  Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst

  22 November 1995

  Failure to provide a full set of standing orders in the prison library

  3 September 1996

  Failure to maintain accurately prisoners' records

  25 March 1997

  Failure to provide meals for prisoners transferring to another prison

  Her Majesty's Prison Buckley Hall

  17 January 1996

  Failure to operate fully the personal officer scheme

  17 January 1996

  Failure to provide sufficient work opportunities

  15 August 1996

  Employment of three members of staff without security clearance

  10 April 1997

  Failure to comply with procedures laid down in the Security Manual

  6 November 1997

  Operation of prison shop by subcontractor without Her Majesty's Prison Service authorisation

  Her Majesty's Prison Doneaster

  —

  —

  Her Majesty's Prison Wolds

  —

  —

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the access by the family or representatives of a deceased prisoner to the Prison Ombudsman; and if he will make a statement. [18278]

  Ms Quin
  We have received one representom from the family of a prisoner who died in custody, and another from the campaigning group Inquest on behalf of the 56
  family of a prisoner who died in custody. Inquest have also raised the question of the Prison Ombudsman's remit separately with my right hon. Friend.

  The Prison Service already carries out an internal investigation into every death in custody and the Service is currently considering whether future reports should be made public. In light of the outcome of this review, we will consider whether there is a case for extending the Prison Ombudsman's remit.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths of prisoners have occurred at HMP Belmarsh, in the past year; what were the causes; and if he will make a statement. [18279]

  Ms Quin
  Four prisoners at Belmarsh prison have died in the past year. The inquest on one of these deaths was completed on 10 September 1997; the cause of death was hanging. The remaining inquests are outstanding; the cause of death in these cases has been initially classified as apparent suicide by hanging.

  Myra Hindley
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors lay behind his decision to keep Myra Hindley in prison for the rest of her life. [17720]

  Mr. Straw
  Following my reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on 10 November 1997,Official Report, columns 419–20, about a revised policy on setting tariffs for mandatory life sentence prisoners, Myra Hindley's solicitors asked that I should indicate whether I proposed to stand by her present whole life tariff. I have looked at the papers considered by my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), before he set her present whole life tariff. They include descriptions of the crimes for which she was convicted, the judicial comments made in her case, and her representations. I saw no reason to depart from his decision. Myra Hindley's solicitors wish to make further representations on the subject of whether her whole life tariff should be reduced by reason of "exceptional progress" by her. When I receive such representations, I shall consider them.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the(a) desirability and (b) practicality of making the installation of smoke alarms in domestic dwellings mandatory; [17645]

  (2) what steps he is taking to encourage the installation of smoke alarms in domestic dwellings [17644]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government recognise the significant contribution made by smoke alarms to the protection of life and property. The installation of properly maintained smoke alarms in households has been the centrepiece of our efforts to reduce fire casulties for some time.

  Since 1992, the Building Regulations require all new dwellings in England and Wales to have a smoke alarm system installed. For existing properties, the policy has

  57
  been to ensure that people are aware of the potentially life saving benefits of smoke alarms; and to encourage them to install smoke alarms in their homes and maintain and test them regularly. These efforts, and those of brigades, increased ownership from 9 per cent. in 1987 to its present figure of 79 per cent.

  Our efforts on fire prevention certainly need to be redoubled. In this respect, I welcome the report earlier this month to my right hon. Friend from the Community Fire Safety Task Force. The Task Force considered the mandatory installation of smoke alarms, but felt this would not be practicable. However, they argued for the refocusing of the fire service towards prevention and set ambitious targets for reducing the incidence of fires, deaths and casualties in the home.

  There is clearly still more to be done to install smoke alarms in those households who are most vulnerable or at greatest risk of having a fire. The Task Force report identifies means of achieving this. We are consulting widely on their recommendations and in light of responses will decide on the way forward.

  Visitors' Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent appeals procedure for refusal of visitors' visas. [18317]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are committed to providing a streamlined right of appeal for visitors denied a visa and we are examining the options for achieving this. We hope to make an announcement in due course.

  Voting Systems
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Independent Commission on the Voting System. [18561]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today appointed Lord Jenkins of Hillhead to be the Chairman of the Independent Commission on the Voting System. The other members will be Lord Alexander of Weedon, Lady Gould of Potternewton, Sir John Chilcot and Mr. David Lipsey.

  The Commission's terms of reference will be:
  "The Commission shall be free to consider and recommend any appropriate system or combination of systems in recommending an alternative to the present system for Parliamentary elections to be put before the people in the Government's referendum.
  The Commission shall observe the requirement for broad proportionality, the need for stable government, an extension of voter choice and the maintenance of a link between hon. Members and geographical constituencies".

  Wholetime men as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  CFO

  ACO

  DACO

  SDO

  DO I

  DO II

  DC III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  1

  2

  0

  0

  6

  0

  9

  18

  54

  58

  78

  411

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  0

  4

  8

  25

  31

  42

  181

  Berkshire

  1

  3

  0

  0

  3

  6

  2

  10

  26

  54

  63

  245

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  2

  0

  2

  0

  5

  0

  10

  19

  38

  44

  177

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  6

  0

  9

  23

  28

  42

  140

  Cheshire

  1

  2

  0

  1

  3

  1

  9

  17

  47

  60

  86

  389

  Cleveland

  1

  2

  0

  4

  0

  5

  4

  12

  46

  59

  97

  392

  Cornwall

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  4

  12

  15

  32

  22

  88

  58
  The Commission will begin its work early in the new year and has been asked to report within twelve months.

  Prisoners (Books and Magazines)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Prison Service's policy on the taking of books and magazines into prisons for inmates. [16181]

  Ms Quin
  The taking of books and magazines into prisons is covered by Prison Service policy on prisoners' property brought in on reception and visits, or sent in by post. Books or magazines of a category allowed by the local establishment may be handed in and then checked by the prison authorities before giving it to the prisoner. The Governor of each establishment has discretion to restrict the handing in of any property within the powers given by Prison Rules 41, 42 and 85 and Young Offender Institution Rules 45 and 69 (Copies available in the Library) to avoid, for example:

  (a) undermining the incentive and earned privileges scheme; or

  (b) compromising the security of establishments.

  The Governor of each establishment has complete discretion over the handing in of property. If, for security reasons, a particular prison restricts the handing in of property which prisoners may normally have in their possession, facilities will be made for prisoners to purchase these items either through the prison shop or through approved mail order arrangements by suing their private cash and/or earnings.

  It is planned to review existing policy on the handing in of prisoners' property during 1998–99.

  Fire Brigades
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the personnel of each fire brigade by ethnic origin, sex and grade. [17785]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils' Joint Committee on Equal Opportunities produces an annual report which includes statistical information on fire brigade personnel. The Committee's Fourth annual report was published on 22 October 1997 and circulated to all fire authorities and brigades. I am placing a copy in the Library. The report includes data on personnel employed by fire brigades, analysed by gender and ethnic origin.

  The attached tables, based on recent statistical returns from fire brigades, provide a further breakdown, by rank, gender and ethnic origin, of uniformed personnel within the fire service for England and Wales for the year ending 31 March 1997. Copies of these have also been placed in the Library.
  59

  Wholetime men as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  CFO

  ACO

  DACO

  SDO

  DO I

  DO II

  DC III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  3

  6

  12

  28

  30

  21

  175

  Derbyshire

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  1

  5

  12

  37

  49

  70

  275

  Devon

  1

  2

  0

  3

  0

  10

  0

  19

  52

  69

  53

  327

  Dorset

  1

  2

  0

  2

  0

  8

  0

  10

  21

  37

  35

  178

  Durham

  1

  2

  0

  3

  0

  5

  0

  11

  19

  49

  53

  262

  Essex

  1

  2

  0

  4

  0

  8

  0

  18

  67

  87

  136

  585

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  10

  14

  28

  23

  140

  Hampshire

  1

  2

  0

  7

  0

  15

  0

  21

  47

  96

  99

  481

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  5

  9

  25

  48

  44

  203

  Hertfordshire

  1

  3

  0

  0

  6

  0

  9

  9

  53

  80

  59

  357

  Humberside

  1

  3

  0

  0

  8

  0

  11

  19

  41

  71

  77

  470

  Kent

  1

  3

  0

  8

  0

  6

  7

  25

  70

  97

  143

  574

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  12

  1

  23

  87

  110

  101

  619

  Leicestershire

  1

  2

  0

  4

  0

  6

  2

  6

  27

  36

  49

  272

  Lincoln

  1

  2

  0

  2

  0

  6

  1

  10

  23

  22

  23

  93

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  8

  13

  26

  31

  33

  171

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  4

  0

  4

  24

  34

  32

  178

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  1

  8

  12

  27

  26

  121

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  3

  0

  2

  0

  9

  0

  12

  36

  81

  85

  356

  Oxfordshire

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  3

  3

  8

  29

  26

  25

  117

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  4

  Shropshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  5

  15

  26

  32

  113

  Somerset

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  4

  6

  17

  24

  18

  95

  Staffordshire

  1

  2

  0

  4

  0

  8

  0

  13

  33

  61

  75

  271

  Suffolk

  0

  3

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  20

  20

  31

  29

  146

  Surrey

  1

  2

  0

  3

  0

  7

  0

  19

  41

  91

  82

  470

  East Sussex

  1

  2

  0

  3

  2

  4

  0

  14

  30

  50

  68

  255

  West Sussex

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  2

  8

  12

  33

  42

  61

  222

  Warwickshire

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  4

  7

  21

  30

  53

  184

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  5

  6

  6

  31

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  5

  1

  12

  19

  24

  25

  17

  North Yorkshire

  1

  2

  0

  0

  5

  2

  5

  16

  23

  36

  50

  219

  Total 1997

  38

  72

  5

  68

  66

  159

  118

  482

  1,251

  1,891

  2,160

  10,104

  Greater Manchester

  1

  5

  0

  7

  7

  5

  31

  53

  183

  210

  169

  1,487

  Merseyside

  1

  3

  0

  5

  1

  9

  9

  23

  120

  182

  166

  959

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  3

  0

  5

  0

  10

  19

  3

  112

  103

  153

  620

  West Midlands1

  1

  4

  0

  8

  5

  9

  8

  32

  211

  214

  201

  1,302

  South Yorkshire

  1

  3

  0

  4

  0

  2

  4

  16

  74

  111

  118

  548

  West Yorkshire

  1

  4

  0

  4

  0

  17

  0

  30

  143

  179

  237

  1,106

  London

  1

  7

  2

  11

  13

  51

  9

  106

  445

  489

  559

  3,951

  Total 1997

  7

  29

  2

  44

  26

  103

  80

  263

  1,288

  1,488

  1,603

  9,973

  Mid and West Wales

  1

  3

  0

  3

  3

  7

  4

  16

  52

  60

  52

  299

  North Wales1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  4

  7

  9

  24

  35

  35

  160

  South Wales

  1

  3

  0

  6

  2

  10

  0

  21

  77

  113

  97

  597

  Total 1997

  3

  7

  1

  10

  9

  21

  11

  46

  153

  208

  184

  1,056

  Grand Total 1997

  48

  108

  8

  122

  101

  283

  209

  791

  2,692

  3,587

  3,947

  21,133

  1 Includes DFCO.

  From the rank of CFO to SDO there is a total of 1 from the ethnic minorities: there is 1 "Asian" SDO in the West Midlands Fire Service.

  Black

  Rank

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  3

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  60 61

  Black

  Rank

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  4

  44

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  9

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  27

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  6

  London11

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  7

  132

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  3

  3

  6

  14

  184

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Wales1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Grand total 1997

  0

  0

  5

  6

  8

  18

  231

  1 Includes DFCO. From the rank of CFO to SDO there is a total of 1 from the ethnic minorities: There is 1 "Asian" SDO in the West Midlands Fire Service.

  Asian

  Rank

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  62 63

  Asian

  Rank

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  15

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  London1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  17

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  28

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Wales1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Grand total 1997

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  4

  44

  1 Includes DFCO. From the rank of CFO to SDO there is a total of one from the ethnic minorities: There is one "Asian" SDO in the West Midlands Fire Service.

  Other

  Rank

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDGFF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  2

  0

  2

  8

  4

  11

  41

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  64 65

  Other

  Rank

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  2

  1

  4

  9

  4

  13

  64

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  3

  4

  55

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  2

  3

  5

  4

  76

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Wales1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grand total 1997

  2

  1

  6

  12

  9

  17

  140

  1 Includes DFCO. From the rank of CFO to SDO there is a total of 1 from the ethnic minorities: There is 1 "Asian" SDO in the West Midlands Fire Service.

  Wholetime women as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  CFO

  ACO

  DACO

  SDO

  DO I

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STNO

  SUBO

  LOG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  9

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  66 67

  Wholetime women as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  CFO

  ACO

  DACO

  SDO

  DO I

  DO II

  DO III

  ADO

  STN 0

  SUB 0

  LDG FF

  FF

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  119

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  6

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  43

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  2

  59

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Grand total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  4

  5

  4

  184

  There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Black

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertforshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  1

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  68

  Black

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  West Midlands

  0

  1

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London

  0

  7

  Total 1997

  0

  8

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Grand Total

  0

  9

  There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Asian

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  69

  Asian

  Rank

  LDGFF

  FF

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London

  0

  1

  Total 1997

  0

  1

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Grand Total 1997

  0

  1

  There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Other

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  70

  Other

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London

  0

  4

  Total 1997

  0

  4

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Grand Total

  0

  4

  There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Retained women as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  71

  Retained women as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  6

  169

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Mersey side1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  London1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Grand total

  0

  0

  0

  7

  188

  1 No retained service. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Black

  Rank

  Number

  Avon

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  Devon

  1

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  0

  Essex

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Humberside

  0

  Kent

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  Somerset

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  72

  Black

  Rank

  Number

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Total 1997

  1

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Merseyside1

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  London1

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  1

  North Wales

  0

  South Wales

  0

  Total 1997

  1

  Grand total 1997

  2

  1 No retained service. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Asian

  Rank

  Number

  Avon

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  Devon

  0

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  0

  Essex

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Humberside

  0

  Kent

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  Somerset

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  73

  Asian

  Rank

  Number

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Merseyside1

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  London1

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  North Wales

  0

  South Wales

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  Grand total 1997

  0

  1 No retained service. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Other

  Rank

  Number

  Avon

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  Devon

  0

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  0

  Essex

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Humberside

  0

  Kent

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  Somerset

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Merseyside1

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  74

  Other

  Rank

  Number

  West Yorkshire

  0

  London1

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  North Wales

  0

  South Wales

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  Grand total 1997

  0

  1 No retained service. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of firefighter.

  Retained men as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LOG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  8

  14

  32

  157

  Bedfordshire

  0

  8

  8

  16

  101

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  13

  28

  119

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  1

  13

  36

  149

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  31

  75

  228

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  9

  34

  142

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  6

  12

  66

  Cornwall

  0

  24

  31

  47

  313

  Cumbria

  0

  7

  43

  72

  429

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  27

  64

  293

  Devon

  0

  14

  68

  111

  470

  Dorset

  0

  9

  24

  67

  236

  Durham

  0

  2

  14

  30

  108

  Essex

  0

  10

  33

  73

  342

  Gloucestershire

  0

  7

  25

  48

  195

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  49

  112

  537

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  25

  55

  250

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  22

  42

  189

  Humberside

  0

  0

  21

  49

  221

  Kent

  0

  0

  42

  105

  584

  Lancashire

  0

  6

  32

  57

  285

  Leicestershire

  0

  3

  16

  35

  152

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  34

  80

  314

  Norfolk

  0

  6

  38

  84

  299

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  17

  34

  135

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  13

  28

  132

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  21

  60

  232

  Oxfordshire

  0

  4

  23

  51

  182

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  1

  1

  6

  25

  Shropshire

  0

  5

  22

  50

  194

  Somerset

  0

  20

  15

  46

  293

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  17

  61

  260

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  36

  79

  303

  Surrey

  0

  3

  9

  18

  103

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  13

  44

  182

  West Sussex

  0

  15

  19

  75

  238

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  13

  34

  146

  Isle of Wight

  0

  9

  13

  25

  114

  Wiltshire

  0

  4

  19

  60

  229

  North Yorkshire

  0

  4

  26

  66

  271

  Sub total

  1

  170

  915

  2,101

  9,218

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  4

  8

  42

  Merseyside1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  2

  4

  16

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  1

  2

  9

  South Yorkshire

  0

  2

  5

  9

  51

  West Yorkshire

  0

  4

  11

  26

  137

  London11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sub total

  0

  6

  23

  49

  255

  75

  Retained men as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  ADO

  STN O

  SUB O

  LDG FF

  FF

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  5

  51

  98

  484

  North Wales

  0

  21

  44

  90

  392

  South Wales

  0

  3

  29

  70

  292

  Sub total

  0

  29

  124

  258

  1,168

  Grand total 1997

  1

  205

  1,062

  2,408

  10,641

  1 No retained service. From the rank of ADO to Sub O there are a total of two from ethnic minorities: There is one "black" Stn O in the Dorset Fire Service. There is one "other" SubO in the Northamptonshire Fire Service.

  Black

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  1

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  1

  Hertfordshire

  0

  1

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  1

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  2

  Oxfordshire

  0

  1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  3

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  1

  Warwickshire

  0

  2

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  1

  Sub total

  1

  17

  Greater Manchester

  0

  1

  Merseyside1

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London1

  0

  0

  Sub total

  0

  1

  76

  Black

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Sub total

  0

  0

  Grand total 1997

  1

  18

  1 No Retained Service. From the rank of ADO to Sub O there are a total of two from ethnic minorities: There is one "Black" Stn O in the Dorset Fire Service. There is one "Other" Sub O in the Northamptonshire Fire Service.

  Asian

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  1

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  1

  Lancashire

  0

  3

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  1

  Norfolk

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  1

  Staffordshire

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  1

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Sub total

  0

  12

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside1

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London1

  0

  0

  Sub total

  0

  0

  77

  Asian

  Rank

  LDG FF

  FF

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  1

  Sub total

  0

  1

  Grand total 1997

  0

  13

  1 No Retained Service. From the rank of ADO to Sub O there are a total of two from ethnic minorities: There is one "Black" Stn O in the Dorset Fire Service. There is one "Other" Sub O in the Northamptonshire Fire Service.

  Other

  Rank

  LDGFF

  FF

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  1

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  2

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  1

  19

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  3

  27

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  8

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Sub total

  4

  61

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside1

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London1

  0

  0

  Sub total

  0

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  78

  Other

  Rank

  LDGFF

  FF

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Sub total

  0

  0

  Grand total 1997

  4

  61

  1 No Retained Service. From the rank of ADO to Sub O there are a total two from ethnic minorities. There is one "Black" Stn O in the Dorset Fire Service. There is one "Other" Sub O in the Northamptonshire Fire Service.

  Control room women as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  PFCO

  GFCO

  FCO

  SFCOp

  LFCOp

  FCOp

  Avon

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  8

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  0

  4

  3

  8

  Berkshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  9

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  1

  0

  4

  4

  13

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1

  13

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  1

  3

  6

  13

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  7

  Derbyshire

  0

  1

  4

  2

  1

  9

  Devon

  0

  0

  4

  1

  4

  11

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  10

  Durham

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  16

  Essex

  1

  1

  4

  6

  8

  36

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  9

  Hampshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  12

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  12

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  14

  Humberside

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  12

  Kent

  0

  1

  4

  5

  8

  20

  Lancashire

  1

  0

  4

  4

  7

  23

  Leicestershire

  0

  1

  2

  1

  3

  8

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  11

  Norfolk

  1

  0

  2

  2

  3

  8

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  7

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  1

  4

  4

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  1

  3

  4

  3

  9

  Oxfordshire

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  9

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  8

  Staffordshire

  1

  0

  4

  3

  8

  10

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  1

  3

  3

  11

  Surrey

  0

  1

  4

  4

  4

  13

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  9

  West Sussex

  1

  0

  1

  3

  8

  10

  Warkwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  6

  Isle of Wight.

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  7

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  11

  Total 1997

  6

  11

  52

  102

  134

  417

  Greater Manchester

  1

  6

  4

  8

  5

  44

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  5

  10

  10

  30

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  0

  4

  3

  5

  16

  West Midlands

  1

  2

  7

  8

  14

  31

  South Yorkshire

  1

  0

  4

  3

  3

  12

  West Yorkshire

  0

  2

  0

  1

  4

  21

  London

  0

  0

  0

  2

  7

  61

  Total 1997

  5

  11

  24

  35

  48

  215

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  1

  2

  6

  9

  13

  79

  Control room women as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  PFCO

  GFCO

  FCO

  SFCOp

  LFCOp

  FCOp

  North Wales

  0

  0

  2

  4

  8

  23

  South Wales

  0

  1

  5

  14

  13

  25

  Total 1997

  0

  2

  9

  24

  30

  61

  Grand total 1997

  11

  24

  85

  161

  212

  693

  No control room staff in the Isles of Scilly Fire Brigade. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of LFCOp.

  Black

  Rank

  LFCOp

  FCOp

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  1

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  2

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  2

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London

  0

  2

  Total 1997

  0

  4

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  80

  Black

  Rank

  LFCOp

  FCOp

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Grand total 1997

  0

  6

  No control room staff in the Isles of Scilly Fire Brigade. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of LFCOp

  Asian

  Rank

  LFCOp

  FCOp

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  81

  Asian

  Rank

  LFCOp

  FCOp

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Grand total 1997

  1

  1

  No control room staff in the Isles of Scilly Fire Brigade. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of LFCOp.

  Other

  Rank

  LFCOp

  FCOp

  Avon

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  1

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  London

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  Grand total 1997

  0

  1

  No control room staff in the Isles of Scilly Fire Brigade. There are no women from ethnic minorities above the rank of LFCOp.
  82

  Control room men as of 31 March 1997

  White

  Rank

  PFCO

  GFCO

  FCO

  SECOp

  LECOp

  FCOp

  Avon

  0

  1

  2

  5

  3

  4

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  1

  4

  4

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  2

  3

  3

  4

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  1

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Devon

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  2

  Dorset

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Hampshire

  1

  0

  3

  6

  0

  7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  0

  1

  3

  3

  0

  1

  Humberside

  0

  1

  2

  1

  2

  5

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  2

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  1

  5

  3

  4

  Somerset

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  6

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  2

  4

  1

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  1

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Total 1997

  1

  5

  33

  73

  47

  68

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  4

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  4

  West Yorkshire

  1

  0

  4

  3

  5

  10

  London

  0

  1

  4

  9

  11

  13

  Total 1997

  1

  2

  8

  16

  21

  38

  Mid and West Wales

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  10

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total 1997

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  14

  Grand total 1997

  2

  7

  42

  92

  69

  120

  No control room staff in the Isles of Scilly Fire Brigade. From the rank of PFCO to FCOp there are a total of 2 from ethnic minorities: There is 1 "Black" FCOp in the London Fire Brigade. There is 1 "Other" FCOp in the Hertfordshire Fire Service.

  "Corpus Juris"
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 28 October 1997,Official Report, column 778, concerning the document "Corpus Juris", under what authority and terms of reference and for what reason this paper was produced; and by what Ministerial Council of the Community and under which article or treaty any formal proposal would be made. [17319]
  83
  Mr. Michael
  I have no information about the provenance of the document beyond the fact, which is stated in the introduction to the document and was referred to by my hon. Friend in his earlier question, that the work was done by researchers at the request of the Director General for Financial Control of the European Commission.

  As has been made clear, the paper has no status beyond that of a possible discussion document, for the commissioning of which no formal Treaty base is required. None of the recommendations has been formally proposed in the Council, nor has the paper itself been formally presented to or discussed in any European Union forum. If the Commission were formally to table proposals arising from the text, it would be for it alone to decide where, and on which Treaty base, to introduce them; that would clearly depend on the content of such proposals. In some areas to which the text refers, e.g. police and judicial co-operation, the Commission

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom from nationals of Nigeria, excluding dependants, initial decisions1,2,3, and
  removals/voluntary departures, for the years 1987 to 1996 and 1997 (January to October)

  Number of principal applicants

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  41997

  Asylum applications1

  10

  10

  20

  135

  335

  615

  1,665

  4,340

  5,825

  2,900

  1,290

  Decisions1,2,3

  10

  10

  5

  15

  25

  210

  360

  1,495

  2,630

  5,145

  3,855

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  —

  *

  *

  15

  40

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain

  5

  5

  *

  —

  —

  *

  10

  5

  5

  10

  30

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain

  5

  5

  5

  15

  25

  210

  350

  1,485

  2,625

  5,120

  3,785

  Applications outstanding (at end of year)

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  160

  450

  870

  2,455

  5,100

  7,940

  5,225

  52,680

  Removal6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  65

  105

  190

  285

  395

  430

  Port7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  50

  75

  125

  190

  215

  185

  Third country

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  30

  40

  35

  30

  Substantive

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  60

  90

  150

  185

  155

  In country8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  30

  70

  95

  180

  245

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with "*"= 1 or 2 and "n/a"= not available.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in same year.

  3 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  4 Provisional. January to October.

  5 Relates to position at end of September 1997.

  6 Refused asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom-includes persons removed to countries other than those of their nationality.

  7 Includes any voluntary departure up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application but excludes any subsequent departure.

  8 Includes removals under enforcement powers and those departing voluntarily following enforcement action but excludes all other voluntary departures.

  Campsfield Detention Centre
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been charged following incidents in Campsfield Detention Centre last August; and if he will make a statement. [18079]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following the disturbances at Campsfield House detention centre on 20 August, a thorough investigation of the events was conducted by Thames Valley Police. Thirteen detainees were charged initially with violent disorder. Twelve were remanded in prison custody and one was granted bail. On 12 November, charges against four of the detainees were dropped and they were returned to immigration detention.
  84
  does not have any formal right of initiative. Any proposal in these areas would therefore need to be presented by a member state.

  Since the document covers issues which span the First and Third Pillars of the Treaty on European Union. I do not think I can usefully speculate about which article might be used if a formal proposal were made or which Ministerial Council might be involved.

  Asylum Seekers (Nigeria)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for asylum from Nigeria have(a) been granted refugee status, (b) been given exceptional leave to remain, (c) not yet had their application determined and (d) been removed to Nigeria for each of the last 10 years and for 1997 to the latest available date. [18101]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  The remainder have now been charged with riot. They appeared at Oxford Magistrates' Court on 28 November and were remanded to reappear in January 1998.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of damage to Campsfield Detention Centre following incidents in August. [18077]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The insurance assessors have estimated the total cost of the damage to Campsfield House to be £175,000.

  Immigration (English Channel)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has issued to(a) ferry and (b) Channel Tunnel Operators concerning the stamping of passports of passengers; and if he will make a statement. [18075]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No official written guidance has been provided by the United Kingdom Passport Agency on the practice of stamping passengers' passports. I fully support the ferry and Channel Tunnel operators in their efforts to deal effectively with the unacceptable behaviour of certain passengers but the private stamping of passports by the ferry companies is an unorthodox approach which we have not sanctioned.

  Immigration Detention
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is offered to security companies undertaking administration of immigration detention on behalf of the Immigration Service. [18099]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All Group 4 Total Security Ltd. and Wackenhut (United Kingdom) Ltd. staff employed under contract to provide detention management services are required to undergo a comprehensive training programmed. This programme includes an immigration induction course; race awareness; self injury and suicide prevention; health and safety; control and restraint; first aid; domestic management; the welfare of and duty of care towards immigration detainees. Refresher training is provided after one year's service and at yearly intervals thereafter.

  Protection from Harassment
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the rules of court to be completed for section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and if he will make a statement. [17738]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 introduces, amongst other things, the power for a civil court to grant relief to a victim of harassment by way of an injunction and whereby the breach of an injunction granted by that civil court may be dealt with as a criminal offence. Subsections 3(1) and 3(2) are in force, and breach of an injunction made under those subsections may at present be punished as a contempt of court by up to two years' imprisonment. Rules and forms for subsections 3(3)-3(9) have been drafted for use by the High Court, county courts, the Crown Court and magistrates' courts to ensure that the process of treating a breach as a criminal offence works effectively. Consultation on these is under way and, as soon as it is complete, the outstanding subsections will be commenced.

WALES

  Capital Expenditure (Cardiff)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of publicly 86
  funded capital expenditure in the Cardiff County Council area in (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and what's the planned expenditure for 1997–98. [17575]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  These figures are not held centrally but the principal sums made available or committed over the past three years, totalling £376.4 million, include the following:

  £ million

  CBDC

  232.0

  ERDF

  9.5

  WDA

  2.5

  Transport grant

  10.3

  Millennium Commission

  73.0

  SportsLot

  13.9

  Welsh Arts Lottery Fund

  17.3

  SDS/Welsh Capital Challenge

  9.4

  Wales Tourist Board

  0.7

  CADW

  0.3

  Heritage Lottery

  0.4

  Top Slice housing SCA

  7.1

  These figures exclude sums made available through basic credit approvals, expenditure on further and higher education and more general housing provision.

HEALTH

  Appointments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) all those people he has appointed since taking office, (b) the offices to which he has appointed them, (c) the period of office for which they have each been appointed and (d) the political party allegiance or membership of each of their appointees and the date of appointment where this is known. [18556]

  Mr. Milburn
  Most of the information requested by the hon. Member is collected by the Department but it will take a little time to assemble. I will write to him immediately it is available. However, we will be unable to provide information on the political allegiance or party membership of candidates for National Health Service appointments as this is not collected by the Department. We will be able to provide information on the political activity of candidates, as defined by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Commissioner's guidance requires candidates for appointment to NHS boards to make a declaration about any significant political activity in the last 5 years. Significant political activity is defined as activities that are a matter of public record such as office holding in, public speaking in support of, or candidature on behalf of a political party (or affiliated body) which fields candidates at local or national elections.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce ILO conventions into British law in respect of child labour. [18070]
  87
  Mr. Boateng
  The Government fully support the efforts of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in tackling the problem of child labour. The United Kingdom is party to a number of ILO Conventions which deal with the minimum age for admission to employment and has launched an urgent review of what is involved in order to ratify the core Convention (No. 138) in this area. The UK welcomes the discussions planned for next year's ILO Conference aimed at drawing up a new Convention specifically designed to tackle the most abhorrent forms of child labour.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning child labour legislation from local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [18078]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received few representations from local authorities about the law on children's employment. We intend to announce our plans shortly.

  Read Codes
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the figures for the last five financial years on capital expenditure and revenue in respect of(a) version 2 and (b) version 3 of the Read Codes. [18533]

  Mr. Milburn
  Version 3 of the Read Codes was developed by the Clinical Terms Projects. The relevant costs are as follows:

  £million

  Revenue

  Capital

  1992–93

  1.1

  Nil

  1993–94

  2.1

  Nil

  1994–95

  0.5

  Nil

  Total

  3.7

  Nil

  Although the Clinical Terms Projects ended in 1995, during 1994–95 and 1995–96 significant numbers of new Read Codes were added to version 3 as part of routine maintenance. The costs were as follows:

  £ million

  Revenue

  Capital

  1994–95

  0.7

  Nil

  1995–96

  0.7

  Nil

  Total

  1.4

  Nil

  Since 1996 maintenance of new Read Codes version 3 has stabilised. Maintenance of all versions is now part of the baseline activity of the NHS Centre for Coding and Classification. It is not possible retrospectively to break down its baseline budgets into separate capital and revenue figures for the maintenance of each version of the Read Codes.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total licence income from all NHS sources to Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. in each financial year since 1991–92; and what proportion of this income was derived from Read Codes version 3. [18534]
  88
  Mr. Milburn
  The revenues for National Health Service licences paid to Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. up to 1995–96 are as follows:

  £

  April 1991 to September 1992 (18 months)

  1,530,900

  October 1992 to September 1993

  1,286,912

  October 1993 to September 1994

  1,572,877

  October 1994 to September 1995

  1,684,016

  October 1995 to September 1996

  1,615,189

  The relevant accounts for the year 1996–97 are not yet available.

  The National Health Service Read Code licence covers the use of all versions of the Read Codes and it is not possible to estimate what proportion of the above income was derived from Read Codes version 3.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from NHS clinicians in relation to Read Codes version 3; and what assessment he has made of the degree of clinician support for the viability of that version. [18535]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1994 the clinical professional bodies wrote formally to the National Health Service Executive supporting the use of the Read Coded Clinical terms as recommended clinical dictionary to underpin all clinical information systems and communication in the NHS.

  A review of the Information Management and Technology Strategy for the NHS is currently in progress and this will include a proposal for the future role of version 3 of the Read Codes.

  Bereavement Services
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS trust hospitals which employ a(a) full-time or (b) part-time bereavement officer or counsellor. [18295]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally. Bereavement counselling is undertaken by a variety of different people, depending on who within the hospital is trained to undertake the work. This may be a psychologist, a nurse trained in bereavement counselling or a counsellor called in from the community.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list(a) those hospitals which have contracted out their bereavement services to the private sector and (b) the names of the trading companies and their parent companies which have been awarded the bereavement services contracts; [18296]

  (2) if he will list (a) those NHS hospitals whose bereavement officers are employees of funeral director companies and (b) trading companies and the parent companies involved. [18297]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive market testing database has a record of one NHS trust, the Central Middlesex Hospital, which has contracted out its bereavement and mortuary services (but not its bereavement counselling). This contract was awarded to
  89
  Associated Funeral Directors whose parent company is Service Corporation International plc. The bereavement officer is an employee of Associated Funeral Directors.

  Mentally Ill People
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the £300 million extra funds for the National Health Service this winter will be spent on provision for the mentally ill. [18373]

  Mr. Milburn
  Details of the purposes to which the extra funds are to be put are contained in the Executive Letter EL(97)64, copies of which are available in the Library. Details of the amounts allocated to specific service areas are not held centrally.

  Social Services (Oxfordshire)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from Oxfordshire about reductions in social services provision in the county. [18389]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Director of Social Services for Oxfordshire wrote on behalf of the Social Services Committee to express concern about budget reductions on the provision of Social Services on Oxfordshire. Ministers will be responding shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wealth Warnings (Consultation)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the consultation paper on wealth warnings will be issued. [14436]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: I will publish a consultation paper on simplification and clarification of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 shortly. This will include a proposal on wealth warnings.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of how many computer systems will be made redundant by the century date change; if she has had discussions and issued guidelines on arrangements for their disposal or redeployment; and if she will make a statement. [17427]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have made no assessment and issued no guidelines. I understand that relatively few systems will be made redundant. Most affected systems can be upgraded, some by reworking existing software or electronic components and others by replacing inadequate software or components.

  Action 2000, the new initiative set up by this Government and chaired by Don Cruickshank, Director General of OFTEL, will be signposting business to information to help them address such issues.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with relevant representative 90
  bodies on the reporting requirements for companies during the transition phase of economic and monetary union. [17141]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The question of the currency in which company accounts may be drawn up, whether or not the United Kingdom were to participate in European Monetary Union, has been discussed during the course of meetings between my officials and a range of representative bodies. The question was also touched upon by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech to the CBI on 10 November 1997.

  Funerals
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people have brought pre-paid funerals in the last two years. [17940]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  On the basis of information obtained during consultation it is estimated that to date up to 200,000 pre-paid funerals have been sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 191, if she will list the undertakings given by (a) the Co-operative Wholesale Society and (b) Service Corporation International to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, together with the dates by which (i) each undertaking was to be carried out and (ii) each undertaking was carried out. [18036]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: On 7 December 1987 the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted undertakings from the Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited (CWS) that it would before 21 October 1988 (or such later date as the Secretary of State might agree) sell either all the funeral businesses acquired from House of Fraser plc, or alternatively the businesses in those areas affected by the merger, as going concerns to a person other than a CWS subsidiary or certain retail societies. CWS also undertook to keep the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) informed as to its progress in divesting itself of the businesses. The four businesses situated in the areas most affected by the merger (Aberdeen, Falkirk and Perth) were sold by CWS on 22 April 1988.

  CWS also undertook to notify the DGFT before it acquires any enterprise carrying on the business of a funeral undertaker in Scotland; and that it will not refuse to supply coffins on normal commercial terms to any funeral undertaker in Scotland. These undertakings are on-going.

  On 18 December 1996, the then Minister for Corporate and Consumer Affairs accepted undertakings given by Service Corporation International (SCI). SCI undertook, within six months of the date of the undertaking:
  (a) to reduce its market share to no more than 25 per cent. by selling funeral directors' businesses in Brighton and Hove, Camberwell, Chiswick, Eastbourne and Sidcup (in relation to Chiswick, the sale of either of two specified SCI branches in that locality would be deemed to comply with this undertaking);

  91
  (b) where it had a market share of more than 25 per cent. before the merger, to sell the funeral directors' businesses it acquired from Plantsbrook Group plc in Battersea, Bromley, Crawley, Fulham and Putney;

  The divestment required under (a) and (b) took place on 4 April 1997.

  SCI further undertook:
  (c) not to acquire any further funeral directing businesses within the ten localities without the DGFT's prior approval;
  (d) to disclose its ownership of funeral directing businesses prominently at the premises, in documentation given to customers, and in all advertisements or other promotional material used in connection with those businesses (for those SCI funeral businesses situated in the area examined by the MMC);
  (e) to display prominently details of competing crematoria at every SCI funeral directing branch in the area of an SCI crematorium;
  (f) not to discriminate in the prices charged for crematorium services between its own and other funeral directing businesses; and?
  (g) to provide customers with a list of prices of competing crematoria where, in the area examined by the MMC, an SCI funeral directing business is situated within 20 miles of an SCI crematorium.

  Undertakings (c) to (g) are on-going.

  On 3 November 1997 I accepted a variation to the undertakings given by SCI to allow it to acquire Birkbeck Securities Ltd. (Birkbeck) on condition that SCI disposed of the funeral directing business of Birbeck's subsidiary, H. Copeland & Son Ltd., within six months. That business has now been sold by SCI.

  I have placed copies of the relevant press notices with undertakings attached in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 192, if she will list the representations she has received relating to the marketing and selling of pre-paid funeral plans and place copies in the Library. [18043]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: I have received representation on the marketing and selling of pre-paid funerals from:
  Scottish Consumer Council;Service Corporation International;Federation of Small Businesses;Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors;National Association for Pre-Paid Funeral Plans.
  I am still receiving representations. When the process is complete, I will publish a list of these in the Library.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will(a) establish a funeral services ombudsman, (b) establish a single code of practice for the supply of funeral services and (c) introduce statutory regulation of pre-paid funeral plans. [18049]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: 1 refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) today. I am considering a number of possible options for the regulation of pre-paid funerals as a priority. I shall consider options for improved consumer protection more generally.
  92
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 192, (1) if she will list the trading companies that are subsidiaries of registered charities and the registered charities concerned about which she has received representations; [18046]

  (2) if she will list the representations she has received relating to links between providers of funeral services and subsidiaries of registered charities and place copies of these representations in the Library. [18044]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: I have received one representation on this. However, since the representation was made on the understanding that it would be treated in confidence, the name of the complainant is not being made public.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 19 November 1997,Official Report, column 191, if she will list the individual funeral directors' businesses that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended Service Corporation International divest, and the dates on which divestment took place in each case. [18037]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: The MMC did not specify all the individual funeral directors' businesses that Service Corporation International (SCI) should be required to divest.

  Divestment in accordance with the undertakings given by SCI took place on 4 April 1997.

  The individual funeral directing businesses sold were:

  Francis Chappell and E. L. Wickes (Camberwell);

  Ashtons (Brighton and Hove);

  Frederick W. Paine (Chiswick);

  Adela (Eastbourne);

  Mannerings (Sidcup);

  W. H. Wigley (Battersea);

  W. S. Bond (Fulham);

  Ashton and Matthias (Putney);

  Mannerings (Bromley);

  Peter A. Martin (Crawley);

  Colin Bennett Funeral Services (Woodingdean); and

  E. Carter and Sons (Rottingdean).

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases for unfair dismissal(a) have been brought by employees of funeral director firms over the past five years and (b) are currently pending; if she will list the names of the parties to the actions; and if she will indicate the names of the employers' ultimate parent companies [18298]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have consulted the Chief Executive of the Employment Tribunals Service on this matter, and he informs me that no information is held on an employee's occupation or on the category of business the employee was working in. Details of tribunal applications, the tribunal's decision and the names of respondents in particular cases can be found on the Public Register at Bury St. Edmunds, unless the case involves an allegation of a sexual offence.

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will set up an independent ombudsman to oversee the funeral industry. [16863]
  93
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  There are a number of schemes for consumer redress in the funeral industry. A substantial minority of funeral directors recognise the present Funeral Ombudsman Scheme. The largest trade association, the National Association of Funerals Directors operates a separate scheme. I would welcome the emergence of a single independent scheme to protect consumers.

  Turkey (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what export credits have been made to Turkey in each of the last three years for the sale of military equipment to Turkey; and if she will make a statement. [17859]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 November 1997]: From data readily available, the information that my hon. Friend requests is as follows:

  £ million

  1994–95

  90

  1995–96

  268

  1996–97

  none

  1997–98 (to October 1997)

  none

  These figures include all ECGD supported business with defence buyers in Turkey, including sales of non-lethal equipment.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of her Department in respect of the closure of(a) main and (b) sub-post offices. [18163]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. We cannot guarantee that no post office will ever close or relocate for operational or other reasons, as over 95 per cent. of the network is made up of small businesses. At my request, the Post Office, in May, suspended its programme of converting Crown post offices to agency status until the review of the Post Office is complete and we are in a position to make informed decisions.

  Employment Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many appeals there have been to the Employment Appeal Tribunal where the applicant did not have two years' continuous employment prior to dismissal; how many of these cases have been (i) stayed and (ii) struck out by industrial tribunals subsequent to the case of Seymour-Smith and Perez; and for (i) and (ii) what are the figures by industrial tribunal region. [18327]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Since the decision in the case of R v. Secretary of State for Employment ex parte 94
  Seymour-Smith and Perez was referred to the European Court of Justice, 182 cases have been stayed at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Chief Executive of the Employment Tribunals Service informs me that the industrial tribunal offices do not record separately cases that have been struck out or stayed because the applicant could not demonstrate two years' continuous service.

  Duty Free Trade
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with Treasury ministers in respect of obtaining from the European Union a material damage derogation to permit the cross-Channel duty-free trade to continue in perpetuity. [18060]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: None. The decision to allow intra-EU duty free sales to continue until 30 June 1999 was taken by the Council of Finance Ministers in 1991 so as to allow the economic sectors concerned time in which to adapt gradually to the new situation.

  Coal
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will require coal to be the main fuel for base load generating stations. [16438]

  Mr. Battle
  The choice of baseload generation should be determined on the basis of cost as assessed in a market which is fair. In the review of the Electricity Trading Arrangements (including the Pool), which I announced on 23 October 1997, the Government will examine whether the market is tilted against coal, and, if so, what changes are needed to level the playing field.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 11 July 1997,Official Report, column 646, how many (a) customers and (b) others were sent the letter regarding the Export Credits Guarantee Department's policy on disclosure of business information; what were the results of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's consultation exercise; and if the Export Credits Guarantee Department has drawn up new guidelines on the disclosure of information. [15621]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD's letter was sent to 11 exporters, 11 banks and five trade associations. A number of other Government Departments were also consulted. It emerged that while some customers were generally content with ECGD's guideline proposals, there was still a serious concern that the confidential nature of their business relationship with ECGD should be maintained. No new guidelines have since been drawn up by ECGD and it would be premature for work on this to be completed in advance of the publication of the Government's White Paper on freedom of information. ECGD is currently abiding by the spirit of the Open Government Code of Practise on Access to Government Information which encourages information to be disclosed unless it is judged that, on a case by case basis, such disclosure would be
  95
  harmful either to the competitive position of a company or the work of ECGD as insurer.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if she will make a statement. [16310]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My Department provides a considerable amount of internal guidance to staff on administering the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This includes guidance on the proactive dissemination of information as required by the Code. I will be placing copies of my Department's general internal guidance on the Code of Practice in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Office
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available the study of the impact on traffic of moving a large part of the Scottish Office from New St. Andrew's House to Victoria Quay. [17626]

  Mr. Dewar
  Research was conducted prior to the move of Scottish Office staff to Victoria Quay into the travel to work intentions of these staff. A summary of the research report "Future Travel to Work Patterns of Scottish Office Staff-Relocation to Victoria Quay", drawn up in 1995, has been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the full report is available on loan from my Department's library at Victoria Quay.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to move Ministers' offices from St. Andrew's House to the Scottish Office building at Victoria Quay. [17627]

  Mr. McLeish
  The issue of future accommodation arrangements for Scottish Office Ministers will be addressed when a decision on the site of the Scottish Parliament building has been taken. Ministers regularly use accommodation at Victoria Quay at present.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those organisations which have expressed to the Scottish Office their views on where the Scottish Parliament should be sited, indicating which support(a) Leith, (b) Calton Hill, (c) Haymarket and (d) a city centre site. [17628]

  Mr. McLeish
  We have received letters from the following:

  (a) List of organisations in favour of Leith

  Forth Ports Plc

  Dunfermline Forum on Disability

  Leith Chamber of Commerce

  James Clydesdale and Associates

  The High Constabulary of the Port of Leith

  96

  (b) List of organisations in favour of Calton Hill/Regent Road

  Edinburgh Development and investment

  Old Town Renewal Trust

  Princes Street Association

  Celtic League

  The St. Andrew Society

  The City of Edinburgh Labour Party

  Simpson and Brown

  Musselburgh Labour Party

  Althelstane Developments Ltd.

  Cin La Salle Investment Management

  Capital Rail Group

  Wilkies

  Jenners

  Old Waverley Hotel

  Drummond Civic Association

  Regent Royal and Calton Terraces Association

  Campaign for a Scottish Parliament

  A. C. Wolfe and Partners

  Boots the Chemist

  Edinburgh Central Liberal Democrats

  Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee

  Dunard Fund

  The Lord Provost's Commission on Sustainable Development for the City of Edinburgh

  (c) List of organisations in favour of Haymarket

  Kantel Macdonald Orr

  (d) List of organisations in favour of a city centre location

  Joint Landlords of Waverley Shopping Centre

  Waverley Tenants Association

  John Lewis Plc

  The Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland

  Clydesdale Constituency Labour Party

  D. M. Hall Chartered Surveyors

  Sheeps Clothing for Ewe

  George Street Association of Edinburgh

  Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise Transport Group

  100 Burghs Group

  Tollcross Traders' Association

  Edinburgh and Lothian Tourist Board

  James Gray and Sons

  The Project Management Partnership

  Phyllis International

  IFP Consulting Engineers

  William Wilson Ltd.

  The City of Edinburgh Council

  Hurd Rolland Partnership

  Department of Architecture, University of Edinburgh

  Railtrack Property

  Euroscope

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individual representations the Scottish Office has received,(a) from residents in Edinburgh and (b) from those living elsewhere in Scotland, on the proposed site

  97
  for the Scottish Parliament; and how many have supported (i) each of the three specific sites and (ii) a city centre site. [17629]

  Mr. McLeish
  A total of 150 representations have been received, of which 91 have come from people living in Edinburgh and 59 from people who live elsewhere in Scotland. 44 of these representations were in support of a city centre location but did not mention any preferred site. The remainder supported the following:

  Number

  Calton Hill/Regent Road

  89

  Leith

  11

  Haymarket

  6

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Sensory Impairments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps her Department plans to take to ensure that people with sensory impairments are not disproportionately affected by the proposed changes to the backdating of benefits. [16124]
  98
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The proposed rules will provide for up to one month's automatic backdating for non-income-related benefits and up to one month's backdating of claims for income-related benefits in specified situations. This will include circumstances where the person is deaf and/or blind and has no relative, friend or adviser to assist them in making a claim.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of allowing students to claim(a) income support during the summer months and (b) housing benefit; what plans she has to introduce income support and housing benefit for students; and if she will make a statement. [18549]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information required on which to base a reliable estimate of the cost is not available.

  The primary source of financial support for full-time students is the student support system, which is specifically designed to meet their needs. Social Security is not. Certain students in prescribed vulnerable groups (including lone parents and students with disabilities) are entitled to benefits in recognition of the additional difficulties they may face in continuing with their studies. The majority of full-time students are not entitled to benefits and we have no plans to alter those arrangements.

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

Homosexuals: Civil Service Pension Rights
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy that homosexual employees of the Government should be able to nominate another homosexual of the same sex to enjoy the rights accorded to spouses in occupational pension schemes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the phrase "employees of the Government" refers strictly only to civil servants. The Civil Service pension scheme pays survivors' pensions only to legal spouses and to dependent children. Lump sum benefits arising on death in service or death in deferment are paid to a person nominated by the member.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Is there any proposal to change that situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given authority for officials to start negotiations with the Civil Service unions about possible changes to the Civil Service pension scheme. But it has been made clear at all times that any changes which would cost money would be at the expense of members rather than at the expense of the taxpayer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many couples of the same sex live together in a stable and supportive relationship and that in such a case the policy mentioned in the Question would be eminently just and morally and legally justified?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the question of what changes might take place as a result of the discussions has not yet come to the surface. The negotiations (if indeed they are taking place yet) are at a very early stage. My noble friend is right in implying that in some private pension schemes provision for survivors' pensions to be paid other than to legal spouses is made. That might apply also to stable same-sex couples.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us wonder just exactly how
1172
this new arrangement, if it is ever agreed to, would work out? For example, if the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who asked the Question, and I decided to set up home together, would we be eligible to transfer our pensions between each other, or would we have to declare a sexual relationship before we could do so? How would we be required to prove that it was a sexual relationship and not a platonic one?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is way ahead of the game. Negotiations are at an early stage. All the questions that he raises will no doubt be taken into consideration.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, for how long do a couple of the same sex have to live together in order to qualify as a permanent arrangement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that, again, would be one of the considerations for any negotiations.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention to downgrade the honourable state of marriage?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about pensions. I do not think there is any question of downgrading the honourable state of marriage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that two brothers, two sisters or two siblings who live together are often dependent on each other in terms of finance? If it is going to go wider than marriage, it should certainly include people of that type.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I hope I have made clear, the Government have no intention of preaching or prescribing any particular family structures. However, the wider one casts the net on survivors' pensions, the more it costs.

Romania: NATO Membership
2.40 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the extent of their commitment towards Romania's membership of NATO.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we and our NATO allies agreed at the Madrid Summit in July to invite Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to begin accession negotiations with NATO. We expect those negotiations to conclude this month and for new members to accede to the alliance in 1999. The Madrid Summit also agreed to review the enlargement process in 1999. No commitment has been made to any country about future invitations to join NATO.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply about Romania, which we let down at Yalta.

1173
Does she agree that the Government's definite commitment to backing Romania over the second wave of entry is much to be desired, bearing in mind that during the last elections Romania passed the test of democracy with flying colours? There is civilian control of the military, most of the population of Romania supports NATO and the Romanian Government are pledged to increase their defence expenditure.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government do not recognise any special cases over future membership of NATO. but the Prime Minister said in another place on 9th July, after the Madrid Summit, that the applications of Romania and Slovenia were especially closely considered even though there was no consensus to invite them to join on that occasion. Both countries have indeed made remarkable progress. As the noble Lord said, Romania's Government deserve particular congratulation on the steps taken since they took office last November. The noble Lord is also right that the Government are fully aware of the commitment by the Romanian Government to NATO and the popular support in Romania for NATO membership. We are encouraging the Romanian Government to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the enhanced Partnership for Peace further to deepen Romania's ties with NATO.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's understanding that this is not the last enlargement of NATO and that after 1999 there will be further stages of enlargement to take in a number of other countries. among which Romania clearly has a very strong claim?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, there will be a review in 1999 so the door to future membership is certainly not closed. If Romania continues to make economic and political progress it will be an excellent candidate for any future enlargement. But enhancing the security of Europe as a whole will also be part of that decision. The credentials of individual countries are certainly part of the picture. It will also be a question of how the accession of individual countries affects the security of NATO as a whole.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have taken into consideration the financial consequences of a country like Romania, and other Eastern European countries, joining NATO at the same time as having to meet the costs involved in joining an enlarged Community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we all recognise that bringing new members into NATO will indeed incur costs, as my noble friend suggests. The forces of the countries joining NATO will need training in communications, in NATO methods and in the use of English. Their communications, air defences and military bases will also have to be brought up to
1174
NATO standards. NATO forces together have to be able to deliver on the alliance's guarantee of defence for the new members. NATO is currently analysing the costs involved in these objectives.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on the recent statement by the Russian Federation that it wants the Baltic states and the northern Scandinavian countries to join its security pact? Does the noble Baroness agree that there is an even stronger case to accept the three Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—into the NATO organisation as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the recent steps of the Russian Federation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Madrid Summit communiqué recognised the progress achieved in a number of the Baltic states towards greater stability and co-operation. Of course, we are aware of a number of different moves around the Baltic states at the moment in relation to Russia. But at the time of the Madrid Summit we made it clear that in future no applicants would be excluded on the basis of their geographical location and that, of course, includes the Baltic states.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given the disagreements between the United States and France on the question of the timing of the accession of Romania and Slovenia to NATO, do the Government envisage that that will cause future problems and delays for NATO expansion? Furthermore, what specific actions have the Government taken to reassure Romania of the United Kingdom's commitment to its future accession, given that the Government supported the American model of limited enlargement at the NATO Summit in Madrid in July?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government strongly support the open door policy which was outlined at Madrid. Indeed, the Madrid declaration did not prejudice future enlargement decisions, which will depend, as I said, not only on the credentials of the individual candidates, such as Romania—specifically mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech in another place—but also on the wider security background and the need to maintain NATO's effectiveness. As regards the future timetable, we have to wait until 1999, when the next review will take place. That will be the time for sorting out when future accessions can be accepted.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as regards the answer which the noble Baroness gave to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, does she agree that the two absolute priorities for Romania, and indeed the other countries of the former Soviet Union, are, first, defence through NATO and, secondly, access to the European single market? Does the Minister further agree that access to that market need not necessarily involve membership of the Treaty of Rome with all the damaging bureaucracy which that inevitably brings?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. I had imagined that I was answering questions about

1175
NATO and not about EU enlargement. However, should there be further access to either the EU or NATO, I am sure that those accessions will be dealt with on their merits and in the proper way.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as Romania is so often bracketed with Bulgaria, what is the Government's view on Bulgaria's future membership? Will Bulgaria be included in the second wave?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be asking that question in due course and then I may have a full range of briefing with which to answer it. However, as I said, in 1999 there will be a review of those countries which wish to accede to NATO. Bulgaria will then have the opportunity of making any case that it wishes at that time.

North Sea Oil Taxation
2.49 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on the review of North Sea oil taxation, and when they expect the review to he completed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report on 25th November, the review of North Sea oil taxation, which was announced on 2nd July, is not yet complete. Oil industry representative bodies, oil and gas producing companies and others have provided their views both in writing and at a number of meetings. Various analyses have also been undertaken. No decisions have yet been made about any changes which might emerge, but the review is expected to be completed in time for the spring Budget.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that classic parliamentary Answer, which tells me what I already know and nothing that I do not know. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this: what is the motive behind the review? Is it to increase development in the North Sea and at the Atlantic margin and thus provide more jobs, particularly in Scotland, or is it to increase the tax take for the Treasury at the cost of jobs in the North Sea and the Atlantic margin?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my Answer told the noble Lord what he already knows. And it told him all that I know. As I said, the review is not yet complete. When it is complete, the results will emerge in the spring Budget. On the noble Lord's second question, the purpose of the review, as the Financial Statement and Budget report makes clear, is to ensure that,
"an appropriate share of North Sea oil profits are being taxed while continuing to maintain industry interests in the future of the UK's oil reserves".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House whether Her Majesty's
1176
Government have entered into any obligation, express or implied, which would prevent them from increasing taxation on North Sea oil?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have made clear on a number of occasions in this House, questions of taxation and expenditure are matters for this country. I assume that my noble friend is referring to any obligations as a member of the European Union and possibly even to future obligations as a member of European monetary union. Our right to set our own tax regimes still stands.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, how far are the costs involved in dismantling platforms and other undersea installations driving the need to review the tax regime for the North Sea oil industry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; they certainly form part of the considerations. The North Sea oil tax regime is extraordinarily complicated. Indeed, I wish that I had not asked for a full briefing on it, because it took me a very long time to read. Questions relating to decommissioning are among those which will he considered in the review.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether our freedom to decide our own rates of taxation extends to the freedom to introduce new zero rate bands or to remove items from the standard rate and put them into the zero rate band? Have we still got that freedom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The noble Lord is well aware of the VAT regime and the House has been reminded of it very recently. The sixth directive makes clear that there are limits on the extent to which we can vary the value added tax regime, but that regime is entirely separate from our other taxation policies.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will at some stage tell us when this country should leave the European Union.
Noble Lords: Now!
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, against the background of existing North Sea oilfields paying a total of 68 per cent. tax, do not the Government agree that any attempt to tighten and increase the fiscal take on new fields may result in new oil companies leaving the North Sea?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want it to be thought that the result of the review will inevitably be an increase in tax. The review may result in no change or, I suppose, even in a reduction in tax. However, the noble Lord ought to consider two factors. First, as I said, our petroleum tax regime is extraordinarily complicated and has developed over time so that fields approved before 1st April 1982 are subject to royalties based on the landed value of the oil. Those

1177
approved before 16th March 1993 are subject to petroleum revenue tax, which is a tax on profits, and new fields are subject to corporation tax only. Secondly, the noble Lord may like to bear in mind that although international comparisons are very difficult, petro-consultants who conduct an annual survey on this subject have concluded that our tax regime is second only to that of Ireland in its attractiveness to the oil industry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he practised a popular deception when, in answer to his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, he referred to EMU as "European monetary union"? Is the noble Lord not aware that EMU stands for "European economic and monetary union" and that it is the "economic" bit that will do the damage to which his noble friend referred?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be wary of answering questions from either my noble friend Lord Bruce or the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, when every single question that they ask in this House comes down to Euro-scepticism. I went too far in responding to my noble friend Lord Bruce; I shall not go so far as to respond to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers have not, I am afraid, reduced my suspicion that the Chancellor may be looking at the oil industry in the same way he looked at the pensions industry—that is, as a suitable place from which to pull more tax? However, does the Minister accept, and will he pass on to his right honourable friend the Chancellor, the fact that the oil industry, especially on the Atlantic margin, is involved in some ground-breaking, world-beating innovation to deal with the problems of extracting oil and that that, in addition to the jobs that that provides directly at the Atlantic margin, has made Britain a world centre for oil development technology? That is very important. So can the noble Lord tell us that the Chancellor will bear those important points in mind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that there is very much that I can do to relieve the noble Lord's psyche. He is congenitally suspicious of this Government and nothing that I can do will change that. However, the simple answer to the noble Lord's second question is "yes". The Chancellor will bear those points in mind. We are well aware of the importance of a successful oil industry for this country and particularly for the Scottish economy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was kind enough to refer to me,
1178
will the Minister accept from me that the question that I addressed to him was not intended to have any European implications whatever?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I express my apologies and my astonishment.

Middle East Peace Process
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauldasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken since 1st May to promote the Middle East peace process.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have worked hard with the US and our EU partners to keep the peace process on track. We have taken strong positions on terrorism, Israeli settlements, and the need for all sides to fulfil their commitments.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will she assure the House that, following Mr. Netanyahu's visit to London, everything possible will be done to promote final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Israeli Prime Minister was in London on 13th and 14th November, when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made clear to him the extent of international concern at the current difficulties in the Middle East peace process and our commitment to the negotiating framework. They also urged Israel to implement full commitments under existing agreements, including further redeployments. Her Majesty's Government have supported Mrs. Albright's insistence on full security co-operation and a freeze on unilateral action such as settlement building and the confiscation of Palestinian identity cards in Jerusalem.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a former Minister at the Israeli Foreign Office said yesterday that the bottom line was that the present Israeli Government were not implementing the signed peace agreement? Since that is the view of one of the authors of the peace agreement, can the Minister give the House an assurance that, especially during the UK's presidency of the EU, Her Majesty's Government will take a robust attitude to the failure of the Israeli Government to implement that signed peace agreement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I give the noble Lord the assurance that, together with their EU partners, Her Majesty's Government will work assiduously for the implementation and furtherance of the peace process. We all recognise that serious negotiations must proceed urgently without overlooking the equally important issue of a freeze on settlements and other outstanding elements of the interim agreement.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will

1179
continue to make clear to the Israeli Government that their claim that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of that country is not accepted by either the British Government or the United Nations, and that Her Majesty's Government will continue to resist any proposal that embassies should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the status of Jerusalem is to be determined in the final status talks. Neither side should pre-empt those talks. Her Majesty's Government have condemned Israeli policies aimed at altering the demographic balance in East Jerusalem, including settlement building, the confiscation of Palestinian ID cards and house demolition. Pending the agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be illegally occupied. We recognise no de jure sovereignty over the city as a whole.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this matter is one of peoples as well as of governments? Can one seriously expect a rational policy on the part of the Government of Israel while the Israeli people live under the daily threat of chemical and biological warfare? Does the Minister agree that the best contribution that Her Majesty's Government can make to the peace process is to act with other members of the international community to ensure that Saddam Hussein is deprived of these weapons of mass destruction as soon as possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have made clear from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions that Her Majesty's Government attach the highest priority to ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. The question of the Middle East peace process, like so many other peace processes around the world, involves the human element. It is always important to ensure the security of both parties when negotiating any peace settlement.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, with regard to the attacks made on the Government of Israel from time to time in this House, does the Minister agree that, while democracies sometimes elect absolutely splendid governments, there are occasions when they elect governments for whom none of us would ever vote? In those circumstances, does the Minster agree that, Israel having elected a Government, we must deal with that Government and help in any way we can to ensure that both they and the Palestinians reach an agreement which is permanent, fair, and one with which both sides can live?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in your Lordships' House I do sometimes reflect on the governments that people from time to time elect. On this occasion one is dealing with a government who have got into difficulty in terms of international opinion. It is important that the rights of both the Palestinian and the Israeli communities are fully recognised in the peace
1180
process. That is what Her Majesty's Government are striving for in concert with our friends in the United States and our European partners.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that friendly Arab countries are distancing themselves from US foreign policy in line with popular opinion? If she accepts that, is she concerned that the United Kingdom is losing its friendship with those Arab states that closely identify this country with that same foreign policy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have seen reports in newspapers which reflect the position that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, puts forward. I believe that those reports have in large part reflected what some people perceive as double standards. For example, some perceive the United States Government as having failed to bear down sufficiently forcefully on the Israeli Government on the question of settlements. I do not believe that that perception is a fair one. We and like-minded countries have repeatedly pressed Israel about the need to implement the agreement into which it entered under the Middle East peace process. I hope that our allies and friends elsewhere in the region recognise the efforts that we have made to persuade the Israeli Government that what they have been doing in relation to those settlements is wrong.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister recall the moving occasion when, five hours before he died, Sir Isaiah Berlin dictated a very short memorandum about the situation in the Middle East in which he said that Israel must be prepared to give up territory on the West Bank but that Jerusalem must inevitably, as a quid pro quo, become the capital of Israel, with very strict safeguards for the Moslem holy places and population of that city?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that a number of noble Lords in this House wish to put forward ways in which the Middle East peace process may be taken forward. But we all recognise, following so many press reports over the weekend about what is happening over the Middle East peace process, that the best course is to wait for the final status talks so that all these issues can be considered together, rather than that one particular strand of the peace process should be singled out and lit upon. All of them need to be considered.

Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause I [The Commission]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("and other expressions of cultural identity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is one of a number of consequential amendments which are required if Clause 3 of the Bill is to be deleted.

1181
I believe that it is helpful to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 3 and 19 which achieve that effect. I am sure that there are other consequential amendments that have not been put onto the Marshalled List. We would facilitate those provided that the main amendment, Amendment No. 3, to delete Clause 3 of the Bill were to be accepted by your Lordships' House.
I started off by being sympathetic to what I understood to be the idea behind Clause 3; namely, to put parades into context. With the clause included, the Bill is widened from what to some people seems a simple anti-parades Bill into an anti-offensive action Bill of all kinds since the clause brings in all kinds of other matters that may be offensive to people. I believe that that is now an unwise thing to do. I believe that the Bill should be a parades enabling Bill; that is, a Bill which makes it easier for parades of all kinds to take place without giving offence. I include not only the traditional parades in Northern Ireland with which we are all familiar, held by people from both communities, but also protest marches and the other kinds of marches we see.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable marches and parades of all kinds to take place without giving offence. The more one looks at the intention of the clause, which is to widen the Bill and the duties of the commission so as to include other expressions of cultural identity, the worse it looks in practice.
It became evident in Committee that the Government did not have a clear idea of the other outdoor manifestations of cultural identity at which the clause was intended to be aimed. We pressed a number of possible manifestations of cultural identity to which the clause might be aimed and which the commission might consider, but, for various reasons, all were unsatisfactory.
There is no doubt that people who want to be difficult—and there are plenty of those on all sides in Northern Ireland—would soon find issues in which to enmesh and entangle the commission. There is a danger that people who are so ill inclined will try to use the Bill to make a fuss about processions which would otherwise take place. Under Clause 3, the commission would become involved in many more problems, thereby weakening its authority.
It was suggested in Committee that the clause should refer to sporting occasions. There can be occasions, particularly involving the Gaelic Athletic Association, which cause offence to other people. However, for reasons best known to the Government, sporting occasions are specifically excluded from Clause 3. On the other hand, religious services held in the open air are not excluded from the clause. We all know that religious services in Northern Ireland are or can be an expression of cultural identity, probably the most fundamental expression of cultural identity. They can also be, and sometimes are, occasions which cause offence to people from other communities.
We pressed the Government on whether painted gable ends and kerbstones might be regarded as outdoor expressions of cultural identity. Of course they are. If you have a building with a picture of King Billy painted
1182
on it, your cultural identity is clear. The same applies if you have a picture of the Pope. Sometimes the paintings are of paramilitaries exalting or praising one of their organisations. Clearly, they are expressions of cultural identity and are deeply offensive to people of the opposite culture; indeed, to some people of the same culture. However, to involve the commission in dealing with gable ends and kerbstones painted red, white and blue, or green and orange, is difficult and is not what is intended or desirable.
I believe that the clause should be deleted from the Bill and that consequential changes should be made to the Title and in other small respects. It is at the least a clear case of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". In Northern Ireland, it is not a sound idea to create opportunities which will escalate grievances. There are enough already. I believe that the parades commission will have plenty to do, given its responsibility for parades of all kinds, and that Clause 3 makes its task more difficult. I suggest that it should be deleted from the Bill. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it would be sensible to deal with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 19 together, considering that they are interrelated. I took the view in Committee that as the legislation was proposed precisely because of expressions of cultural identity, it would not be realistic to pretend that such expressions did not exist. However, by the time the Committee considered Clause 3, with its two references to the phrase "cultural identity", it was clear that the phrase could become the deciding factor in decision-making by the Secretary of State, the commission and the chief constable. It was also apparent that there was little support for the phrase within your Lordships' House or within Northern Ireland generally.
As regards Amendment No. 3, the same concessions will apply to this debate. In Committee, during the debate on whether Clause 3 shall stand part, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, drew attention to the impact of the Human Rights Bill superimposing as it does European law on British law. Those of us who recently participated in such debates in your Lordships' House will remember that we suddenly realised the wide-ranging impact of the Bill on British law.
It will not be a matter of achieving compromises between the two sets of laws because the Bill, which has yet to go to another place, requires that where incompatibility arises, the UK Parliament must immediately bring our laws into conformity with European law. Therefore, even if Clause 3 is withdrawn, one can visualise Northern Ireland Ministers continually bringing forward to your Lordships' House a stream of Orders in Council for the purpose of amending this Bill at the whim of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
I note that if Clause 3 is withdrawn, with it will go the rule of the Parades Commission in regard to events which are wholly or partly open to the air. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I did our best to discover what

1183
was meant by letting in fresh air to certain events. He and I could give examples where that might be desirable.
Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I stressed the need for the control of so-called festivals designed entirely by paramilitary bodies for the sole purpose of intimidating and threatening law abiding residents by name, employing, as they do, amplifying equipment with a range greater than one mile. I asked the Minister whether that atrocious behaviour could be dealt with under existing public order legislation or whether we needed to include a provision in the Bill. Perhaps he will indicate the results of his inquiries.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, I support the amendment. There are many precedents in Great Britain and other democratic countries for exercising some control over marches and parades along a public highway. Unless the marchers are few in number, their rights conflict to some extent with the rights of non-marchers to move from A to B in order to keep appointments, to catch trains and aeroplanes and so forth. Provided that such control is exercised sparingly and sensitively, there can be few objections on libertarian grounds.
However, to try to restrict what might be described as static expressions of cultural identity is a different matter. Of course there is a need for a balance between the sentiments of the different communities. For some time, the ratchet effect of repeated concessions to what might he described as anti-British sentiment has been working to the disadvantage of the wider unionist communities. But that necessary balance can be achieved better, in my opinion, by agreeing to this group of amendments and by supporting Amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 14 and possibly Amendment No. 17.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. I I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 19, for effectively we are dealing with the removal of Clause 3 and the other amendments are consequential.
It may be useful to give ourselves a brief reprise on how we have reached this position. As noble Lords will be aware, processions and parades have been a matter of conflict and difficulty in Northern Ireland for a long time, but in recent years they have been seized upon to build on and create greater difficulty. No one should be under any illusion that any legislation which we pass or any commission established will solve all the problems in relation to parades or anything else in Northern Ireland.
However, when the matter of parades became contentious, particularly on the Lower Ormeau Road and the Garvaghy Road two or three years ago, my colleagues and I went to the previous government and said that we believed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was being placed in an invidious position because it was being asked to make decisions on contentious parades and then to implement those same decisions. That is putting the police in the position of both judging and implementing. The RUC was being attacked, as I said, not just on both sides but, quite frankly, on all sides. Therefore, we proposed that a tribunal be established.
1184
The previous government decided, in their wisdom, that there was no necessity to move on that front but when the following year matters became worse, and others began to agree that such a proposition was worth while, the previous government decided not to put in place a commission but to set up a commission to study the possibility of putting in place such a commission. Dr. Peter North, a very eminent and distinguished gentleman, was asked, with a number of colleagues, to look at the matter of public processions and to advise accordingly.
Dr. North gave an extensive report. He consulted widely not only with leaders of the community but, by opinion polls and other surveys, with the community at large. It was quite clear that there was overwhelming support for a commission which could give rulings and which would remove the requirement for the police to both make a decision and implement it. But the government did not move ahead on that. They decided to postpone the matter.
When the matter came to be looked at again by a new Government they found that they had committed themselves, quite rightly, to implementing the North report in full. But over the summer period they found difficulties arising yet again because the commission had not yet been established with the legal powers which Dr. North had recommended. The introduction of Clause 3 in respect of cultural identity came about quite clearly because a deal was done between the new Government and the Orangemen which would, in the event over the past summer, defuse the situation and make the Orange Order feel that the Bill was not an anti-parades Bill (which it was never meant to be) but was, in fact, a balanced Bill.
I was almost going to say that, like many deals arrived at, it was done in the heat of battle and, frankly, over the summer it often appeared that way. Such decisions are rarely well advised and the full consequences are very rarely considered. And so indeed it was, because when the matter of Clause 3—the inclusion of all other aspects of cultural identity coining under the remit of the commission—began to be considered by my colleagues and myself it was clear that that was very foolish indeed. When that became apparent a number of noble Lords and I spoke against it on Second Reading.
What has become striking is that as the community and its representatives in Northern Ireland have considered this matter more and more fully the agreement that Clause 3 is ill advised has become remarkably widespread. During previous stages of the Bill your Lordships will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was very clear in his remarks. It is quite striking that at a recent party conference the SDLP, with which the noble Lord was previously very much involved, came out very strongly against Clause 3 and the power contained in it. It is clear also that the unionist community has begun to realise that the clause could well be a complete boomerang for its part. Your Lordships will notice that not only do we have the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, in the Chamber but we also have the noble Lord, Lord Eames—the

1185
Archbishop of Armagh—who spoke powerfully in Committee against the foolishness of including the clause.
If this House is for anything, surely it is for the proper consideration of such matters in detail. During the full consideration of Clause 3 it has become apparent that it is simply a mistake. There is no shame in making a mistake when it is made, as I believe to be the case, with all good intent to defuse the difficulties throughout the summer period and to create some kind of equitable approach to the problem. Therefore, there is less shame than ever in a mistaken decision taken for the best possible reasons.
When one recognises that a mistake has been made and has an opportunity to put right that mistake with no loss of face and no damage done, then shame enters in when one does not take the opportunity, seize it with both hands, and, in this case, removed the offending Clause 3. I know that the Government have considered this matter carefully and I urge them to take on board the advice coming, almost remarkably, from all quarters in Northern Ireland and to remove Clause 3. That clause is of advantage to no one but is a very real risk and threat to our community.
Viscount BrookeboroughMy Lords, first, I apologise that I must leave the Chamber at 3.45 for another event. However, I support the removal of Clause 3. For the benefit of some of your Lordships, for whom this may be a first exposure to parades issues, I should like to say that when one mentions parades to people in England they all say, "Parades, what about them? Why are you parading? What's up? Parades cause problems". Great Britain is one of the very few countries in Europe, and perhaps in the world, which does not have national parades to any great extent. France has Bastille Day, America has 4th July and Spain seems to have parades almost every day in the streets. Throughout the remainder of the world parades are considered to be an every-day event. Many parades have been like that in Northern Ireland.
When people in Great Britain see a parade, unless it is the Notting Hill Carnival, it is generally either a ceremonial or protest parade. That is not so in Northern Ireland. Although there have been problems with certain parades—and it is hoped that this Bill will address many of those problems—people here should understand that, as a whole, the parades are not troublesome. I support the removal of Clause 3 for all the reasons that have already been given. Virtually everything that one does in Northern Ireland, whether it is going to watch a Gaelic football match or flying a certain flag, is bound to be an indication of cultural identity. Whether you have "IRL" or "GB" on the back of your car may indicate cultural identity. It goes a very long way. Therefore, and I do not want to be contentious, it is possible to create arguments about very simple issues. I ask the Government to consider removing this clause before the commission becomes embroiled in some extremely petty issues which will take a long time to sort out.
Lord GlentoranMy Lords, I too support the withdrawal of Clause 3. I spoke to that effect in Committee while sitting beside my noble friend the
1186
Archbishop of Armagh. I do that for reasons similar to those advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, but I pay attention also to the difficulty of interpreting the law once it is in place.
This matter of parades will require a great deal of concentration. It is an extremely serious issue which needs to be addressed by this Bill. Anything else in this Bill will be a red herring. The inclusion of that clause will cause the commissioners great difficulty and may create an excuse to avoid the main issues. I ask the Government to withdraw Clause 3.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McConnellMy Lords, I believe it is a fundamental principle of legislation that it should be clear and easily understood. The expression "cultural identity" could mean anything that anyone wants it to mean. It could lead to more argument, more ill will, and, possibly, more litigation in the courts as to what it really means. For example, the flying of the Union Jack is an expression of cultural identity. Will that be prohibited under the legislation?
For many years, people of different cultural backgrounds in Northern Ireland got on very happily with each other's expressions of identity. But recently, troublemakers, often connected with terrorist organisations and calling themselves "residents' associations", have used threats to persuade some of the peaceable people in their area to protest. This is a gift to them. They need not confine themselves to processions: indeed, they could say, "Oh look, 'cultural identity', you have to protest about that." I am convinced that the provision could lead to a great deal of trouble within Northern Ireland. We have a lot of that, so let us do away with this rather ill-thought-out piece of legislation.
Lord FittMy Lords, rarely can there have been such unanimity in relation to Northern Ireland as has been witnessed here today in this Chamber. Everyone who has participated in the debate has spoken clearly about what this disastrous clause would mean if it were included in the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will have had some experience in relation to parades in Northern Ireland because, as a former Minister of Home Affairs, he would have had quite a lot to say in relation to parades. The noble Lord will be very much aware of just how explosive certain parades can be in Northern Ireland.
I fail to understand how the Government allowed themselves to be persuaded to put such a clause in the Bill. It is quite obvious to anyone who has any experience of Northern Ireland that every sore head, every agitator, everyone who believes that he has a grievance of some sort, would have used the clause to justify his opposition to the Bill. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said; indeed I have found myself in the same position. In all the contacts I have made in Northern Ireland since the Second Reading of the Bill, I have not encountered one who disagrees with the deletion of the clause from the Bill. I have never seen such unanimity in the House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, within the general community in Northern Ireland.

1187
The Bill will eventually go to the House of Commons where there are elected representatives. Some of them may be persuaded by how many votes there are, and are not, as regards the attitude they adopt. I hope that they will consider the debates which have taken place in this Chamber on Second Reading, in Committee, and today on Report, and realise that it would be to the advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland if the clause were deleted from the Bill.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, I apologise for having arrived slightly late. We have all listened with care to the rather grave warnings uttered about Clause 3. However, as I asked in Committee whether the difficulty might be overcome by having a later commencement date for the clause, I would be interested to hear whether the Government considered that suggestion and what conclusion they reached in that respect.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I express my support for the removal of Clause 3 for a very simple reason. Expressions of "cultural identity" should be a matter of respect between people and, in days gone by, I believe that they were. It is only in recent times that they have been found to be an effective excuse for causing trouble. That is why, right across the cultural differences in Northern Ireland, it is now accepted that the less we talk about them and argue about them the better. There is a very simple reason why they should be removed from the Bill: so as not to have another reason to cause trouble.
Lord StewartbyMy Lords, I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments deployed by those who have much more recent experience in such matters as I have not been engaged on that score for nearly 10 years. However, I hope that the Government will accept that there is a serious risk that Clause 3 could produce more opportunities for mischief makers as opposed to those who want to keep the peace. Today's short debate has been remarkable, as a number of noble Lords have said, because of the unanimity displayed in all quarters. I suspect that the unanimity of approach to the amendment will also be noted. For my part, if the Government were to withdraw Clause 3, or take on board the comments of this debate by responding in a different way but with a similar effect, I believe that it would not be a case of anyone rejoicing in the Government's discomfort but, indeed, one of congratulating them on their common sense.
Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, in my limited experience, there is no part of the United Kingdom where memories are longer than is the case in Northern Ireland. I am very much afraid that, if the commission starts with the millstone around its neck which Clause 3 obviously is—a view clearly expressed from all parts of the Chamber—it will effectively be killed off. This is a very bad provision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)My Lords, Clause 3 provides that the commission shall keep under
1188
review, consider and make its determinations in relation to the law and practice relating to expressions of cultural identity which appear to the commission to have, or to be likely to have,
"an adverse impact on relationships within the community".
Our intention in including Clause 3 in the Bill was to recognise the feeling which many had expressed that the Bill was exclusively targeted at only one side of the community. I believe that that point has been well understood. According to my arithmetic, 13 noble Lords had actually contributed to the debate before I stood up to reply.
Perhaps I may briefly digress from the main argument to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. He asked a specific question about the use of loudhailers at community festivals and that type of conduct. We agreed that we would look at the matter when we discussed the point in Committee. I can now confirm that the sort of behaviour described by the noble Lord is already covered by existing legislation. Intimidatory behaviour of that type might be prosecuted under a Public Order order (Article 9 on intimidation) or under Section 1 of the Protection of Persons and Property (Northern Ireland) Act 1969. We are satisfied that we already have the powers to deal with such behaviour.
I return to the specific points raised by the amendment. In drawing up the Bill and designing the new structures we have been keen to stress our commitment to even-handedness, and we remain receptive to suggestions as to how that could be achieved in practice. Far from being a blunt instrument aimed at the other side of the community as part of some crude quid pro quo, the proposed extended remit of the commission was designed to build on our commitment to taking steps to tackle issues which might have a seriously damaging effect on community relations. I think that it is generally accepted that parades are hardly the only manifestation of cultural identity which could have a damaging effect on community relations.
It is fair to say, however, that the proposals as drafted in the Bill have raised fears on one side of the community and are not considered useful by the other. We have listened carefully to the debate as it has developed through discussions in Committee stage. I have listened carefully to the 13 contributions—perhaps unanimous contributions—that we have heard this afternoon. The developments in the arguments have confirmed our belief that it was right to put these measures through the full parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill rather than simply an Order in Council.
We accept that Clause 3 does not have the kind of cross-community support which it will need if the commission were to be able to play a useful role in this area. Accordingly I inform your Lordships that the Government intend to remove this clause at a later stage. We are not removing Clause 3 at this stage for one reason only, and that is because a number of consequential amendments need to be made to the Bill in addition to those which have already been tabled this afternoon. Some have been identified by your Lordships

1189
in their amendments, but for convenience's sake we thought that it would be better to sweep them all together in a series of government amendments which we hope to bring before the House at Third Reading. On the basis of that assurance I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, it is extremely agreeable for me as a brand new Member of your Lordships' House to find such unanimity on this occasion with the views which I expressed. Coming from another place I am not quite used to that! Nevertheless the Minister and his colleagues have been extremely wise to take the decision which he has just announced to the House. I make no complaint at all about his doing the deed as it were, or the collection of deeds, by tabling the necessary amendments at Third Reading. That is entirely acceptable. I just hope that the unanimity we have achieved so far this afternoon continues throughout the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Commission in relation to public processions]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) In making a determination in respect of a particular proposed public procession the Commission may take into account the known or likely pattern of processions in the same locality.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, another issue which has been to the fore from a fairly early stage is the value of having the commission look at the pattern of processions over a period of time when considering parades and processions. One of the reasons that is so important is because when there is to be agreement about the conduct of a contentious parade, almost inevitably there will have to be some negotiation and discussion, and some kind of compromise will have to be reached. Sometimes a compromise is achieved as regards the re-routing of a parade. If it takes a different route, it may be more acceptable to the community as a whole. Sometimes a compromise may be reached on the conduct of a parade. For example, when an Orange parade passes through a nationalist area a compromise may be reached in that there will be no playing of music, and in particular no playing of party tunes if the procession passes a Catholic church. There are various ways in which compromises can be arranged which make parades possible and more acceptable.
Given the number of parades that pass through particular areas, for example, the Lower Ormeau Road or Garvaghy Road—those are two of the most contentious areas—one compromise that has been found to be acceptable in the past is to reduce the number of such parades over the period of a year. Whereas five or six parades may not be acceptable to the local community, one or two are acceptable. When we discussed this matter in Committee, the Minister
1190
indicated that as far as he was concerned such power or advice was already implicit in the Bill in the powers of the commission. He may well be right about that. Certainly in the guidelines that have been drawn up by the commission there seems to be some indication that that is the case.
However, I find it somewhat troublesome that the Minister said that if we were to make the provision explicit in the Bill it may come in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. I find it somewhat astonishing that it is recommended that we accept the provision as being implicit in the Bill, but that if we make it explicit it would contravene the European convention. I do not believe that that is a reasonable position to take. I speak as one who strongly supports the incorporation of the European convention. Therefore I have returned with a changed amendment which seeks to indicate on the face of the Bill that the commission,
"may take into account the known or likely pattern of processions in the same locality".
I believe that it is important for the commission to have that opportunity.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I know that he has considered this matter. I know that he appreciates that the principle to which I advert is important if we are to achieve compromises. It is valuable to have that on the face of the Bill because then we shall not have any disagreement on the part of those who would query whether or not the commission had the power to address the matter in the manner in which I have described. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not quite sure that this amendment is directed at the right part of the Bill, or that it is perfectly drafted from the point of view of the commission on human rights. I realise that both those objectives are difficult to achieve judging from the debates that were held in Committee. However, I most certainly support the sentiment that lies behind this amendment. Clearly a parade once or a few times a year is much more tolerable than parades taking place every few weeks down the same road. There is nothing surprising in that. If one's neighbour holds a noisy party once in a while to celebrate some special family occasion no one complains, or not much. However, if one's neighbour holds noisy parties every weekend or at frequent intervals, that becomes intolerable. The same principle can apply to parades in certain parts of Northern Ireland. It is not the case in Northern Ireland that it is only local people who are concerned about this; some people travel quite long distances in order to be offended by a parade. Nevertheless we need to consider those who live in the areas where parades take place, particularly if those parades are held frequently. Therefore I support the sentiment behind this amendment. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister is progressing with the drafting to ensure that the measure is explicit and can work.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at Second Reading I said that it would be a mistake to make this into a big problem. There are few parades. If one can establish legislation to give the commission the flexibility to compromise on

1191
the few parades which are known to cause problems, that would be the solution. As I have said before, it is not that this is not "broke" but the breakage is small. To fix it we must apply a small remedy and not dismantle the whole machine and try to put it together again. It is important to avoid general statements and to allow for every contingency. The commission has been appointed and is doing a good job. It should be allowed full flexibility. The less said on the face of the Bill from that point of view, the better.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, at an earlier stage I expressed some reservations about how the laudable objective of achieving balance could be secured by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I contrasted the position with regard to processions using a main arterial road as a legitimate and sensible means of getting from A to B—which would entail use of the road by several traditional or customary processions organised by several different organisations over the years—with, on the other hand, processions taking place in a small village or hamlet where there are perhaps no more than three such events in one calendar year. In Committee I asked whether the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had in mind some form of rationing of processions. The noble Lord explained that his objective was to persuade the commission to look at the broader picture. I do not take issue with that. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, we sometimes have 100 years' notice of certain parades which have been held on an annual basis on a fixed, traditional date and a fixed, traditional route. I assume that such a factor would be given due weight, perhaps in conjunction with the common sense view that insistence on processing through housing estates should be discouraged and the residents of such estates should be protected from such intimidation outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I refer to the pressure applied to them to rise from their beds before seven o'clock in the morning and, complete with their children and other persons, to proceed to a traditional arterial route to be offended by a procession lasting some 15 minutes; and then, it is to be hoped, they go back to their beds.
I gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that he did not have in mind a rigid directive, even in a limited area—no equivalent to what I call a Heathrow air traffic slot. If that is the case, I shall feel much easier in my mind.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I fully share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for the commission to take a broader view. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am that the noble Lord is present this afternoon. I know that he has had difficulties because of the talks. I am glad that he has managed to be, as it were, in two places at the same time—at the talks on some days and in the Chamber this afternoon. Perhaps I may also say how pleased I am to see my noble friend Lord Callaghan. I know that he has a lot of experience of this issue. It is a pleasure to have him with us.
I listened carefully in Committee and today to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. But I am satisfied that the Bill as currently
1192
drafted enables the commission to do that which the noble Lord requires. The amendment would make it clear that in making decisions on individual parades the commission can take account of the broader view in the area. For example, no matter how innocuous an individual application may he, if it is requesting the 27th parade in the past couple of weeks in a major flashpoint area, this is clearly a factor which the commission should be able to take into account.
As we discussed in Committee, the North Report wanted to go further if possible, and recommended that the commission should have power to set out its determinations for a particular area for the entire marching season, and even for years ahead. We do not believe this is practicable for the reasons I described in Committee.
But it is entirely clear in both the guidelines and the procedural rules which the commission has already issued in draft form that the frequency of parades in a given location is a factor which can be taken into account. The commission will be working very hard to ensure local accommodation, not just on individual parades which have caused trouble in the past, but will be seeking to broker agreement in flashpoint areas over a longer period. Indeed, not only will the commission be seeking to broker voluntary agreements, but in the draft procedural rules it makes it clear that the Parades Commission will be setting out its preliminary views on the forthcoming marching season well in advance.
Many noble Lords will have heard the chairman of the Parades Commission, Mr. Alistair Graham, on Radio Ulster's "Talkback" early last week, in which he announced that it was planning to publish a preliminary view by early April; that is, before the marching season begins. This preliminary view will attempt to set out what the commission is achieving, taking into account the broader pattern of parades.
Therefore, I believe that the commission has made it clear that it will meet precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, wants it to do without the requirement of this binding amendment. In the circumstances, I do not believe that the proposed amendment is necessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Alderdice:My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, first, for his kind remarks about my attendance, but more particularly for his explanation of the Government's views of the matter.
In terms of what we all aim to do, I do not think that we are far apart. I believe that there is an appreciation that these matters should be available to the commission in coming to its determinations; and that it should be able to give a form of guidance. As noble Lords know, my main concern is that there should be no dispute about whether or not the commission has the power. It would be greatly disadvantageous if shortly into its proceedings the matter was taken to judicial review or some other form of legal process. That would only diminish the commission and its laudable work.
I realise that the Government have given considerable thought to this matter and for that I am grateful. It is clear that as the Bill has proceeded through this place it

1193
has achieved some refinement of a fairly considerable order. It will, of course, go to another place where further refinements may take place. I am much reassured by the Minister's undertaking to deal with Clause 3 and other matters before the Bill leaves this House. That is extremely important.
That being the case, I shall be content for the present to see how matters move along while keeping an eye on this issue as the Bill continues its passage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Functions of the Commission in relation to other expressions of cultural identity]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 4: [Code of conduct]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert ("or a counter-demonstration to a public procession").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 4 provides for the commission to issue a code of conduct providing guidance to persons organising a public procession. That code of conduct has already been issued in draft by the commission. It lays down in great detail what parade organisers should do, how people should behave, dress, and so on, when taking part in a parade, what tunes bands should play on certain occasions, and many other details. But there is no code of conduct, and no indication of what should be done, for those seeking to arrange counter demonstrations to a parade.
The idea underlying the Bill is that people should be able to express their views, traditions, and so on, by processing within a framework of acceptable rules of conduct. The code of conduct forms a large part of that aim. Similarly, those who take an alternative view to that being expressed by a procession should be able to make their alternative view clear within acceptable rules of conduct. Frankly, no procession leads to a great deal of trouble with the police unless there is a counter demonstration. It does not seem right or sensible to lay down elaborate rules in a code of conduct for the organisers but no rules for the protesters who are likely to object to the procession taking place.
I believe that this omission is an example of why the Bill looks to some people like an anti-parades Bill, despite the Government's protestations. I believe that those are genuine protestations and that the Government do not deceive us by saying that they do not intend it to be an anti-parades Bill. But the Government should take account of some of the points which make people believe that it is an anti-parades Bill. There is a lack of a code of conduct for those who wish to make clear that they do not agree with those taking part in the procession. I believe that this is an instance where the Government could make such provision. That is why I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, if the amendment were accepted, Clause 4(1)(b) would state:
"The Commission shall issue a code … regulating the conduct of persons organising or taking part in a public procession or a counter-demonstration to a public procession".
1194
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated, that achieves exactly the right balance. The provision is not so much in the Bill for its legal implementation as for the code of conduct. However, the fact that it is designed to influence and give guidance to those who will be operating the code of conduct—namely, the commission—indicates that a degree of flexibility can be shown. I think that Parliament has a solemn duty to give the commission guidance on this matter.
4 p.m.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, as I said when speaking in favour of Amendment No. 1, this amendment seems a much better way of achieving the necessary balance between the communities than the soon-to-be-deleted Clause 3. This is because, as I understand it, the majority of counter-demonstrations are launched against parades which are broadly unionist in character.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, I simply want, in the briefest way possible, to indicate that I agree with noble Lords in their comments. As I said in Committee, there are other ways of achieving balance. This does seem to me to be part of the issue. Of course it is only a matter of giving guidance regarding counter-demonstrations which are notoriously difficult to deal with, even with the giving of guidance, although guidance would be welcome. My colleagues and I believe that it is important to give our support to this proposition.
Lord FittMy Lords, I wish to support this amendment as well. It is evident from the sentiments expressed in the House this afternoon that all noble Lords are determined to try to put on the statute book in Northern Ireland something of relevance to the whole community in Northern Ireland. Counter-demonstrations have been part and parcel of parades in Northern Ireland since the onset of the civil rights movement in 1968, particularly in the city of Derry where many counter-demonstrations in 1968-69 led to a great deal of trouble.
I believe that this Bill is of great importance. It should be seen in Northern Ireland that the Members of your Lordships' House are trying to the best of their ability to ensure that Northern Ireland legislation is in the interests of the whole of the community there. It would be a very sad occasion if the House were to divide on amendments such as we have opened up today. I do not believe that there is any need for division. If we show unanimity, understanding and compassion, the legislation will have the effect that we want it to have.
Lord DubsMy Lords, one of the gratifying aspects of debates on Northern Ireland in this House is that so many noble Lords bring great experience to bear in trying to solve the problems we are discussing. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say how delighted I am to see the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, here, given that he was the first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and therefore has a particular place in the history of that part of the United Kingdom.
The idea of a code of conduct was one for which the North Report found considerable public support. Many believe that it is often not the parades themselves which

1195
cause trouble but the behaviour of some of those participating in them and of their "hangers-on". The same has often applied to counter-demonstrations, which can vary from dignified and peaceful protests by the side of the road to highly provocative, intimidatory and sometimes violent and unlawful protests.
This amendment seeks to give the Parades Commission the responsibility for a code of conduct which would cover not only those organising and participating in a parade but also those organising and taking part in demonstrations against a parade. We understand the thinking behind the amendment but we are not sure that this is the right way to go about it. The North Report itself considered the possibility of a code of conduct for counter-demonstrators but recommended that the police should give serious consideration to applying a similar code to counter-demonstrators.
The North Report did not believe it would be appropriate for the commission to have the ownership of such a code for the very good reason that the commission would not be responsible for monitoring or imposing conditions on such demonstrations. Under the new legislation, the power to impose conditions on counter-demonstrators remains where it was in the Public Order order—in the hands of the police. Moreover, unless there is a legal obligation on organisers of the counter-demonstration to notify these demonstrations in advance it is not easy to see how the code could bind such organisers, or indeed in some cases how the organisers could be identified.
The code of conduct is not legally binding in the sense that those committing breaches of it are not guilty of a criminal offence. While the Parades Commission is able to take account of the past misconduct of parade organisers and participants in setting future conditions on parades, it is hard to see a corresponding sanction which could apply to counter-demonstrators. Having said that, we will give serious consideration to the possibility of a code of conduct for counter-demonstrators although in general we believe that the problems they pose are normally straightforward public order problems which the police already have the power to deal with in particular through Clause 14 of the Bill, the subject of which is the breaking up of public processions.
However, the Government have considered this matter in detail and I believe that the outcome of our further consideration will be most appropriately dealt with when the Bill reaches another place. On that basis I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, that was not exactly an acceptance of the amendment but it was an acceptance of the possibility of thinking further about it, and that encourages me to withdraw the amendment. However, I have just had time in the last few moments to look at the summary of the conclusions of the North Report. It states:
"We recommend that a Code of Conduct should be introduced covering the behaviour both of participants in a parade and of protestors".
1196
I believe therefore that we should be heading towards a code of conduct in some form for the protestors as well as for the participants in a parade. However, in the light of the helpful attitude expressed by the Minister towards this particular proposal I beg leave, at this stage at any rate, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Advance notice of public processions]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert ("or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine, or to both").
The noble Lord said My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which brings us to Clause 7 of the Bill. The last subsection provides for penalties for a person guilty of the offence of holding a procession without having given due notice of it: that is to say, an illegal procession. Another amendment, Amendment No. 16, relates to Clause 14 and addresses itself to the punishment available for those who break up or attempt to break up public processions.
The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the fact that there are stiffer penalties available to the courts for someone who breaks the conditions laid down for a legal parade, whether he is the organiser or somebody taking part in a legal parade. Someone who breaks the conditions for a legal march is faced with potentially stiffer sentencing than the person who attempts to break up a public procession or, for that matter, someone who organises a wholly illegal march. That does not seem to me to be balanced: nor indeed does it seem to be sensible.
Apart from anything else, there is an incentive, at any rate of a sort, to someone thinking of organising a protest march of some kind not to give notice but just to hold an illegal protest march, knowing that the maximum sentence that can be given is six months' imprisonment, whereas if he organises a legal march, gives notice properly, has conditions laid down and then breaks the conditions, he can be sent to prison on indictment for up to two years: a much longer sentence for that offence. So there is a small incentive to hold illegal parades rather than legal ones as a result of the disparity in the punishments available. It is not fair that the legal organisers of a parade or those who legally take part in a parade but find that it goes wrong should face higher sentences than a group of people who are protesting and trying to stop that legal parade and trying to break it up.
It seems to me unwise to have different sets of penalties available to the courts for these two very similar offences. In addition, it sends a message that the Bill is an anti-parades Bill rather than an anti-protestors Bill. I believe that that is not the message that the Government or this House wish to send. It is not how we expect that the commission will behave in practice. I therefore hope that the two sets of fines and sentences of imprisonment will be brought into line for the different offences. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, most of your Lordships will have noticed that, earlier, I tabled

1197
an amendment on similar lines. However, I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is more effective and likely to be more easily understood. For that reason, I warmly support it.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, when this matter came before your Lordships at Committee stage there were, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said, two amendments. One was to equalise up, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested, to two years; the other was to level down, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, suggested, to six months. The key point is to achieve a degree of equity. It seems unfair to penalise more severely those who digress on legal parades than those who wilfully digress on illegal counter-demonstrations, and I believe it would send an unhelpful and inappropriate message. For my part, I would take the line of making it six months for both rather than two years. It may be that the Government wish to consider the matter and strike a bargain on 12 months. For me, equity is the issue, not the length of sentence. The issue is an important one and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, it occurs to me that there must be a misprint in Amendment No. 5 as printed on the Marshalled List. The word "on" appears twice, in relation to both conviction and indictment. I feel it would be valuable to have a distinction between summary conviction, on the one hand, and indictment, on the other, so that the charge can be brought in the appropriate court and an appropriate level of penalty can be imposed if the charge is proved.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may explain to him, with regard to the question of "on" appearing twice, that the amendment is drafted in the same terms as subsection (9)(b) of Clause 8 at the bottom of page 5 which deals with offences and punishments in the case of those who organise or take part in processions and break the conditions. I followed entirely the precedent with which I wish to balance the punishments. That is why "on" appears twice. I also think it is better English.
Lord DubsMy Lords, I have some sympathy with the thinking behind these amendments. In drafting the Bill, we carried forward the existing penalties set out in the Public Order order. I recognise that there is an anomaly here, with those organising illegal public processions and those seeking to break up legal public processions facing a lower maximum penalty than those who fail to comply with conditions imposed on the procession or those failing to comply with a banning order. It is generally agreed that these are all serious, or potentially serious, offences. At all times a balance needs to be struck between demonstrating that the rule of law must be respected and ensuring that sentences are proportionate.
I note that at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, took the rather more liberal line— I hope I am not damaging his reputation by accusing
1198
him of having been liberal—of proposing that all the maximum sentences in the Bill should be reduced to make them punishable on summary conviction only. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, took a more robust line in wanting the possibility of convictions on indictment throughout the Bill. I wonder how the noble Lord, Lord Cope, brought the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, round to his sterner way of thinking.
We are still considering the questions sent to us, and I apologise for the fact that we have not yet made a final decision on which way they should go. There is a difficult balance to be struck. I am sure that many of your Lordships would share my reluctance to see disproportionate sentences for offences under the Bill. While there is the potential for conviction on indictment for offences in the Public Order order, such as defying conditions set by the police, in practice the summary procedure has been seen as the most appropriate way of pursuing offenders.
We also need to ensure that penalties remain in line with those for comparable public order offences. Increasing the maximum sentence to two years on indictment for offences which do not involve violence, such as organising a parade which has not been notified, could well seem disproportionate if offences such as disorderly conduct—which normally involve violence, or at least the threat of it—were still punishable with a maximum of six months on summary conviction only.
I can assure your Lordships that we shall consider how best to bring sentences into line. We are reminded at this stage to look seriously at Lord Molyneaux's original, rather more liberal line. If we conclude that we can adopt this approach, we shall seek to introduce government amendments as soon as practicable, perhaps at Third Reading. On that basis, I urge your Lordships to withdraw the amendment at this stage, on the understanding that we shall consider most carefully the thinking behind it.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, that seems to be another wise decision by the Minister and his colleagues. As to whether the sentences should be equalised up or down, while I am not entirely indifferent, that is a secondary question which I am happy to leave to the judgment of the Minister. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on this matter and agreeing that at a later stage the punishments for the different offences will be brought into line throughout the Bill. On the basis of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 33, after ("procession") insert ("or likely counter-demonstration to a proposed public procession").
The noble Lord said My Lords, Clause 11 deals with the Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions. It is worth pointing out to those who have not followed the debates closely that the commission has no power, and is not due to have any power under the Bill, to ban a public procession. It can lay down

1199
conditions about the route, and so on, but it cannot ban it; only the Secretary of State can do that. The Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions already exist in the Public Order order but have been used extremely rarely.
The Minister made clear in Committee that—obviously depending on circumstances—it is hoped that the powers will not be used any more extensively in the future than in the past. One hopes that, if the parades commission satisfactorily takes some of the anger and steam out of parades, the power to prohibit parades will be used even less in the future than it has been in the past. Nevertheless it is important that the powers to be given to the Secretary of State should not be weakened by comparison with the powers he already enjoys under the Public Order order. In my opinion, they are weakened a little in two respects. The main one we shall discuss under the next group of amendments, headed by Amendment No. 7. So far as concerns Amendment No. 6 and the amendments grouped with it, Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 13, the intention is to make sure that, before banning a public procession, the Secretary of State considers the effect of counter-demonstrations.
Generally speaking, no procession, when it is not a counter-protest, will create trouble. The big trouble occurs only when there is a vigorous counter-demonstration as well as the procession itself. It therefore seemed to me right that we should write into the clause the reference to counter-demonstrations for which Amendment No. 6 and the others provide.
It would mean that the Secretary of State, in the case of any proposed public procession or counter-demonstration, should have regard to possible disorder, damage and to the other matters laid down in the Bill. It is obvious that the Secretary of State will consider counter-demonstrations in deciding whether or not there is likely to be damage, disorder and so forth. It is probably better, therefore, to put that on the face of the Bill rather than it should be implicit. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, I am happy to report that on this occasion there was no conflict between the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and myself. We each tabled our amendments on the same lines and on the same points in the clause. It may have been a case of great minds thinking alike, but we are at one on this issue. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord DubsMy Lords, we are now dealing with the power of the Secretary of State to prohibit public processions. It would appear that the intention of these amendments is to ensure that there is a parallel and balanced system for dealing both with public processions and with proposed counter-demonstrations to those public processions.
I recognise that there has often been considerable violence associated with counter-demonstrations to parades coming from both sides of the community. Clause 11 is not intended to put parades in a disadvantageous position compared with such counter-demonstrations. Indeed, the Secretary of State already has powers to tackle the potential violence and
1200
the burden on security force resources which can result from violent counter-demonstrations. Those provisions are set out in Article 5 of the Public Order order. Schedule 3 of this Bill amends those powers to bring them broadly into line with the corresponding power in Clause 11 to ban public processions. In addition, the amendments would not actually enable the Secretary of State to ban counter-demonstrations. In order to achieve that, the words "or likely counter-demonstration" would need to be inserted after "procession" in line 44 at the end of the clause but such an amendment has not been tabled; but perhaps I should not be so helpful to the noble Lord in making that suggestion.
I feel that the practical effect of these amendments might be the opposite of what noble Lords intend. The amendments as drafted would in practice require the Secretary of State, when considering whether or not to ban a parade, to have regard to the disorder, damage to property or adverse impact on community relations which would be caused by a demonstration against the parade. In other words, a threat of violence from counter-demonstrators might result in the banning of a parade. That would not seem a just outcome, and I am sure it is not what noble Lords are intending to achieve. Indeed, these amendments might have the effect of giving those opposed to a procession an incentive to threaten violence, disruption and relationships within the community.
This Government fully recognise that the violence associated with parades is not always the fault of the organisers or those participating, but can result from the actions of those protesting against the parade. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject this amendment, however understandable the motives underlying it.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, the Minister is being extremely helpful, even when he does not agree with us, in the sense that he is hinting what we may do on Third Reading or perhaps in another place to improve our amendment.
The noble Lord made a shrewd point, particularly at the end of his remarks, in relation to the possibility that if the amendments are included in the Bill they may produce an effect opposite to that desired. It would therefore be better for me to withdraw the amendment and I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 35, after ("any") insert ("serious").
The noble Lord said My Lords, in moving the previous amendment I referred to changes in the threshold which must be reached before the Secretary of State bans a procession. The threshold provided in the Public Order order was that the Secretary of State had to consider whether it was likely that there would be serious disorder if the procession took place, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community and so forth. But when the provision was redrafted so that it could be included in Clause 11, the word "serious" was omitted throughout.
As the Bill is drafted the Secretary of State must have regard to,
"any public disorder or damage to property … any disruption to the life of the community … any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community; and any demands which the procession may cause to be made on the police or military forces".
To lower the threshold which has to be reached before the Secretary of State can impose a ban is a mistake. It implies—probably wrongly—that the Secretary of State will ban parades more frequently on less evidence of less trouble in the future than has been done in the past. That is not the signal the Government wish to send. On the contrary, it would be better to maintain the word "serious" in the various subsections and that is what this set of amendments seeks to do.
I am speaking primarily to Amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 12 and 14 insert the word "serious"—or in one case "undue"—in the relevant parts so as to achieve the changes I wish to achieve and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, the question for me in this modest set of amendments was to maintain and respect the terminology currently used in the legislation now in force. It does not seem to be helpful to omit words which have a great deal of significance. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Molyneaux, explained, these amendments would ensure that the Bill conforms to the words of the existing 1987 Public Order order. The wording in that order was surely wisely chosen. If the words "serious" and "undue" are not included, there is a danger that a parade which has been taking place for 100 years or more may be banned on the grounds that a couple of youths might throw empty lager cans at the parade as it passes or it requires the attendance of an extra constable. That surely would not be acceptable.
Lord DubsMy Lords, I fully support the thinking behind these amendments. Clause 11 sets out the Secretary of State's power to ban public processions. We have already discussed the proposal that this clause should be extended also to cover counter-demonstrations. It has, however, been noticeable in discussion in Committee that many believe the change in wording between the Public Order order and the Bill is a sign that the Government are intent on lowering the threshold at which parades can be banned. In some eyes that may seem to confirm the impression some appear to have that this Bill is intended to be "anti-parades". I can assure your Lordships that that impression is mistaken, and perhaps it would be worth explaining in a little more detail than I have done so far why there have been changes in the language since the Public Order order.
Article 5 of the Public Order order sets out the Secretary of State's current powers to ban both public processions and open-air public meetings. Under Article 5, if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that,
1202
"the holding in any area of place of any public procession or any open-air public meeting is likely to cause: (i) serious public disorder, (ii) serious disruption to the life of the community or, (iii) undue demands to be made of the police or military forces"
she may make an order prohibiting such a procession. Your Lordships will notice that those criteria are overwhelmingly public-order based. A high threshold of disruption, disorder etc. is set, but after that threshold has been reached, the Secretary of State may make an order.
One of the main insights of the North Report was that the exclusive reliance on public order factors in the current legislation has provided a perverse incentive to disorder to both sides. The North Report calls instead for public order factors to be balanced against the wider community relations picture, both in deciding whether or not to impose conditions and whether to impose bans on public processions. What the report proposed was that the authorities should be able to take all the factors into account and balance them one against the other. That meant, however, that the current provisions in the Public Order order needed to be restructured. As they are set out at the moment, they are effectively criteria. If any one of the criteria, for example, serious disruption, serious disorder and so on is fulfilled, the condition imposing or banning provisions can immediately be activated. What the report recognised, however, is that there may be circumstances in which the various factors point in different directions. It would be for the parades commission and, in the case of the banning power, the Secretary of State, to balance those various factors and come up with whatever decision is best overall in the public interest.
Accordingly, we thought it would be better for the Secretary of State to be able to take into account all of the factors, even when they are relatively insignificant. All disruption might be relevant, not just serious disruption, although if the disruption is not serious clearly as a factor it will not weigh very heavily in the Secretary of State's thinking. What Clause 11 does not do, however, is reduce the threshold for which the banning power comes into force. After all, in the Public Order order, if any of the criteria applies the Secretary of State is immediately empowered to take action. In Clause 11, however, the factors of disorder, disruption and so forth, are not in themselves enough. The Secretary of State must believe, having regard to all of those factors, that it is necessary in the public interest to impose a ban. That is wholly in line with procedure in Strasbourg when measures are challenged under the European convention. The Government need to demonstrate that any infringement of civil liberty, of which banning a parade is a clear example, must be demonstrated to be necessary and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
We recognise that banning parades is an emotive subject. As I made clear in Committee, the power to ban parades is serious, raising fundamental questions of civil liberties and rights. The banning powers have only been needed in exceptional circumstances in the past, and I can assure noble Lords that that will remain the case and nothing in the drafting of Clause 11 was intended to detract from it.

1203
We do, however, recognise that Clause 11 as drafted is open to misunderstanding. We want there to be no doubt in anyone's mind, whether they be organisers, objectors or indeed those applying the law, that the Bill is not seeking to make the banning power an everyday tool to deal with contested parades. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to put structures in place to avoid our ever needing to use last resort powers such as banning. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment in principle. We will look once again at the wording to see whether that proposed in this amendment is the most appropriate, and bring forward government amendments, preferably on Third Reading.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting once again the wording that we have suggested. I was slightly surprised by some of the arguments that he used, because he said that, as a result of the insights in the North Report, it was thought wise to take all the factors into account, not merely public order factors, when considering what action to take in connection with a parade. I accept that entirely. That is what has been put in place as regards the commission, and the decisions that it has to make about rerouting, and so on.
However, when, in Committee, I sought to move another amendment, which I have not pursued at this stage of the Bill, to add "traditionality" as one of the conditions in this part of the Bill for the Secretary of State to take into account in deciding whether to ban a parade, the Minister rejected it on the grounds that one should not look at "traditionality" when considering whether to ban a parade; it was such a serious decision that one should look only at what I can summarise as being public order matters. That is the opposite argument to the one that he has just been using. However, as he agrees with the amendments, I had better not quibble about that, at least at this stage. I do not claim that the drafting is necessarily perfect, and I am happy to leave the Minister to reorganise it, if he so wishes. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Control of alcohol at public processions]:
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 9, line 24, at end insert?
("( ) Where a person to whom subsection (1) or subsection (3) applies fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (1) or subsection (3), a constable may use such force as may be reasonable in the circumstances to seize or dispose of any intoxicating liquor in the possession of that person.").
The noble Lord said My Lords, in Committee—it is referred to in the Official Report at col. CWH 78I raised with the Minister the powers of the RUC should it be confronted with a minibus load of people attempting to take part in a procession who had chanced to bring along with them a number of cans of intoxicating liquor. I ask him what would be the position of the police if they tried to remove the offending cans on the reasonable assumption that if the marchers were
1204
to proceed without the alcohol they would he likely to be less disorderly than if they proceeded with the alcohol.
The Minister clarified the position in the following column. He pointed out that the police could remove the offending alcohol, but only with the power of arrest. That leaves the RUC in an invidious position. I shall look briefly at the type of circumstances that the police are likely to find, particularly around the time when parades are commonly held. We may find large numbers of minibus loads and carloads of Orangemen and others descending upon a particular locality, and, usually, to protect themselves against the vagaries of Northern Irish weather and to provide themselves with a little amusement, they bring along some sustenance, and, indeed, something with which to wash it down.
If the police were to stop such a minibus load of attempted paraders, and point out to them that it would not be in anyone's best interests for them to bring those large consignments, and they frequently are large consignments, to the field—as it is often described—it may be that those normally law-abiding citizens would immediately consent, and indicate to the police that they would happily convey themselves to the nearest police station on the following day to collect the cans of lager, or whatever, and consume them in a more appropriate place.
On the other hand, in certain circumstances the would-be paraders might not accede so readily, particularly if they had already opened the consignment and had gone some way towards consuming it. There are a number of possibilities for the police. First, they could accept that they were unable to remove the lager, and they could proceed to issue a summons at a later stage. That does not seem to be helpful in terms of dealing with the immediate problems of the day of the march, because the police know well that if they remove the alcohol they would probably remove the danger of a problem arising.
The police could, of course, just arrest them on the spot. That would be likely to put that particular minibus load of paraders out of action for the day, but they are frequently accompanied by colleagues, who may come in minibus loads behind. If one bus load is stopped and arrested, one might be sure that their colleagues would make clear their view that that was not well-advised action by the RUC. What started as an attempt to remove some danger from the situation would create a greater danger. However, if the police were to have the possibility of simply removing the cans of lager, or whatever it might be, and telling the paraders that they should proceed on their way, and quickly too, or they would be late for the march, it would be much less likely that either they or their colleagues coming behind would create anything like so much trouble. The police would thus have the power to defuse the situation rather than be forced to use the power of arrest, which is much more likely to inflame the situation.
I have explained the amendment in some detail because I readily accept that there is a degree of inelegance in the terminology I have struggled with. However, I think the House will understand the point

1205
I am trying to make and the power which I hope will be made available to the RUC. I believe myself, although it will be for others to make a judgment, that this would be a useful power to confer on the RUC. It has frequently been remarked on that when paraders are entirely sober they are often easier to deal with than when they have consumed one or two, and on occasion more, cans of lager. Arrest is using something of a sledgehammer to crack the nut. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, I know that, through no fault of his own, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is not as yet a member of what people refer to as the Loyal Orders. Perhaps I may correct any impression, particularly as one of the right reverend Prelates is present, about one of those main institutions which I have the honour to lead. They are under strict instructions, and have been for many years, that if it is reported to me or any of my senior officers that they have been transporting intoxicating liquor to, or consuming it at, the venue, in the field or recreation ground or in the vicinity of such, the unit concerned—whether it be the lodge or the band—will never walk again in my lifetime. I hope that that will entice the noble Lord to apply for an application form, which I would be very happy to supply.
Lord FittMy Lords, anyone who knows Northern Ireland would have to question the sentiments expressed by the mover of the amendment, and particularly the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I have lived in Belfast for most of my life. It may be that noble Lords will not understand the geographic designations. The parade takes place on 12th July. It starts off at Carlisle Circus. It passes by Donegall Street into the main arterial road of Royal Avenue and Donegall Place. At the beginning of the parade the vast majority of the people taking part are sober. They then proceed to the field. If I were to believe what I do not believe and accept what the noble Lord. Lord Molyneaux, said about drinking at the field or in surrounding areas, there would be mass expulsions from the Orange Order. There would be very few of them left.
Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that when they go to the field they have already established their traditionality and what they are there for. They have paraded to the field. They have then to stand there and listen to the most boring speeches they have heard all year. There will be all kinds of resolutions—loyalty to the Queen, loyalty to the Crown and loyalty to all kinds of other people—and religious acclamations as well. One has only to look at the pictures in the Belfast Telegraph that evening to see the expression of terrible boredom on the faces of those people who are unfortunate enough to be there to listen to the awful speeches being made. What else are they going to do during the interminable one or two hours there?
I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, what they do. They set about opening up these cans and consuming them to the best of their ability as the speeches come through the loudspeakers. Is that an offence? The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, says that it
1206
is. I do not believe that it is against the law for people to take part in a parade and sit down in a park, a field or wherever it may be, and consume alcoholic liquor. It is not an offence; nor should it be an offence. If the police apprehend a minibus or van which is taking some cans of lager or perhaps something stronger and the occupants of that minibus or van are stone-cold sober—this is the beginning of the parade and they have not heard all the boring speeches that are liable to drive them to drink—the police will then speak to the occupants who are there to do their traditionality without causing offence to anyone. It would be terribly wrong for the police to say, "You haven't got that there for decoration. You are going to take it somewhere and drink it." That is exactly what they are going to do.
What is more worrying about Clause 11 is that it says that the police can confiscate the alcoholic cargo and dispose of it in whatever way they think fit. That puts a great onus on the police. There will be quite a lot of police present. They will seize lots of cans of lager. They could confiscate it in their own interests. That would cause quite a lot of trouble in Northern Ireland. I can see people turning up at the police station to say that six, and not two, cases of lager had been confiscated.
I do not think it should be an offence for Orangemen to drink at the field. They have been doing it for many years. They continue to do it. I do not think it would be right to place a legal restriction on them. They will have marched five or six miles. They bring their wives and the female members of the family. Some of the women I know who take part in the parades are just as big drinkers as some of their husbands or boyfriends taking part in the parade. I do not think that any restriction should be placed on people who are obviously sober. I hope that that gets me in well with the Orange Order.
4.45 p.m.
Lord LyelIMy Lords, it is difficult to try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I shall make a humble attempt so to do. Those of your Lordships who attended the Committee will remember that I moved a somewhat mischievous amendment to subsection (5) about what would happen to the alcoholic liquid in cans. Are they called alcopops or something of that nature? I suggested that some members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should take responsibility for the disposal of the liquid. I paid close attention to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will go by the name of "Mineral Water Molyneaux". I served for six happy Orange occasions in Northern Ireland and I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that many of the parades were official Orange parades. I was quickly disabused of that notion by being told that there were all kinds of unofficial and independent Orange parades, let alone the Apprentice Boys, who were more militant than many of the others. I just wonder whether there is a more serious aspect to the amendment.
Seventeen years ago I was in the position of the Minister, having to move amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill 1980, dealing with what might be in the context of this Bill something akin to a cultural

1207
identity. which was confiscating large amounts of alcohol moving about Scotland—indeed, past my home—on arterial routes. Members of the warring tribes, if I may call them that, north of the Border, were attending matches where their favourite football team was playing. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has it absolutely right. It was not necessarily the content of the alcohol. In Scotland we call them "controlled containers". One can throw them and make use of them. That applies even to mineral water or alcopops, let alone what had been taken by the participants in these cultural identity parades and football matches before anyone even arrived at them.
It seems to me that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, gives a grain of flexibility to the police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to take action swiftly, on the spot and without further ado. In moving the amendment it was suggested that there could be problems. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, went on to ask about what happened to the can of lager which was not the one that was sent along. It was a different one and there would be an argument about that. There was a grain of good sense in the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. The Minister very kindly put me in my place when I moved an amendment which was akin to the one that we have today. He very tactfully and kindly said at an earlier stage that he could perhaps look on the amendment favourably or might give some argument as to the flexibility which perhaps the RUC and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, are looking for.
Lord Howie of TroonMy Lords, perhaps I may take my normal place astride the fence, being neither for nor against my noble friend on the Front Bench. I was greatly impressed by the speech made by my noble friend Lord Fitt on the virtues of strong drink, to which I adhere. I was also greatly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I was drawn to my feet by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who recalled our debates of some years ago on the Scottish situation where we were dealing with quite a different matter. We were not dealing with marches devoted to religious or quasi-religious, political aims, but with football hooliganism. It was thought that the Scots were given to strong drink and therefore to unreasonable behaviour. I found that a very odd idea for people to adhere to, but it seemed to be widespread. We have had debates in this House about alcoholic drink. That is exactly what my noble friend Lord Fitt was talking about—namely, the confiscation of alcoholic drinks before football matches and events of that nature. It was thought that the Scots were likely to become unseemly in their behaviour. I cannot see why that should be thought, but it was.
In the course of those debates my late lamented friend Lord Ross of Marnock, whom the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will remember with affection, argued very strongly against the confiscation of drink as an interference with civil liberties. But if we look at the situation as it has developed since the distant days of about 10 to 15 years ago—I cannot quite remember, being in my declining years—we shall find that the
1208
atmosphere in Scottish football as regards alcoholic drink and other quite desirable refreshments has changed. Scottish football supporters are renowned throughout the whole of Europe, and possibly throughout the world for all I know, for their abstemiousness and good behaviour. That partly derives from their own good nature and possibly from the prohibition. It may well be that prohibition has turned out to be advantageous in that limited sphere. The Scots are, I am quite sure, much better behaved than the Northern Irish. What brought the Scots—I shall not say "to heel"—to better behaviour might be applicable to Northern Ireland. I do not wish either side in Northern Ireland the slightest harm and I hope that I have not annoyed any of them in any way by entering into this debate.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I had the pleasure, while a Minister in Northern Ireland, of seeing a parade of the Royal Black Preceptory in Carrickfergus, I believe it was. A more sober and respectable group of gentleman on parade I could not imagine. Therefore, I leap to the defence of my noble friend Lord Molyneaux as regards that group.
However, I saw a parade on 12th July which was towards the end of the marching part of the day. It was about to reach the field which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, described so vividly a few moments ago. By that time the parade was moving relatively slowly and not evenly. There were long pauses because of confusion up ahead. That always happens when one has many people and vehicles in procession. I noticed that some members of the Orange Order were taking the opportunity given by the pauses to go into local hostelries, which happened to be open nearby, even before they got to the field.
The only conclusion that I draw from the two experiences, among others, of watching parades in Northern Ireland is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will need to carry out the powers that it is given in the clause with great discretion and care. I note that the constable is being given the opportunity to confiscate alcohol rather than the duty to do so on the various occasions provided for. The RUC will need to use it with discretion.
Lord FittMy Lords, this is a serious matter that could lead to trouble. Clause 12(5) says,
"A constable may dispose of anything surrendered to him under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate".
That leaves the situation wide open to abuse. If there is no abuse there will be allegations of it. The RUC will be charged by all kinds of ill-intentioned persons of behaving in a way which is not appropriate. After the constable has taken the drink away it should be clarified as to what he is to do with it.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Lyell drew specific attention to that in Committee. It seems to me that if the RUC is to have this power it needs to be a practical one which it can use with the minimum of difficulty. The points that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made in moving this amendment

1209
suggested to me that it, or something very like it, is necessary to enable the RUC to use the powers which it has rightly been given by this clause.
5 p.m.
Lord DubsMy Lords, a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave us a very entertaining insight into what might happen on a hot afternoon in Northern Ireland in the middle of July. It is not for me to comment from the Government Front Bench on whether the speeches on such an occasion will be compelling or tedious. That would be inappropriate. However, the noble Lord asked what the marchers would do when they got to the field. Having looked ahead in my diary, I believe that 12th July is the day of the World Cup final, so I wonder what will happen with regard to the competing attractions on that day.
I turn now to the serious issue raised in the amendment. The Government recognise that alcohol is often the cause of many difficulties experienced at contested parades in recent years. Indeed, the North Report's recommendations in this field were so popular that the previous government moved to implement them early to ensure they were in force in time for the last marching season. In drafting the powers in this Bill we bore in mind comparable legislation on the confiscation of alcohol from under-age drinkers, and provisions for those travelling to sports events in Great Britain.
In Clause 13 as it stands the police have a power to require the surrender of alcohol from those at the vicinity of, or on the way to, a public procession if they reasonably suspect that such a person is consuming intoxicating liquor. Failure to comply with an instruction is a criminal offence, and a police officer can arrest without warrant. What this amendment proposes is that the police should have an additional power to use force to seize alcohol.
Although I sympathise with the wish to tackle the problems of alcohol, I believe that giving the police seizure power would not be appropriate in these circumstances. For one thing, it would take this legislation out of line with comparable UK and GB legislation. More importantly, it would be quite unprecedented for the police to have powers of seizure in cases where possession of alcohol is not a criminal offence. We have considered making possession an offence, but feel that it would be quite disproportionate and extremely difficult to draft. One would not want to see a circumstance where somebody walking back from the off-licence and passing a public parade inadvertently committed a criminal offence. We believe the power to arrest without warrant is already sufficient to deal with this problem, and I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is clear that the Government have considered the matter and that they have encountered something of the same difficulty as I encountered when trying to draft an amendment. I hope that the Government will continue to look at this because it seems to me that on this matter (as on so
1210
many others) the experience of Northern Ireland is a little different from experience in the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that such a power would be of some advantage to the RUC.
The Minister has been extremely helpful. I am struck by his advice, which will no doubt be transmitted by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, to the Orangemen for 12th July next year. Perhaps extra large television screens should be erected at the field so that the Orangemen can participate both in the 12th July and observe the World Cup final. From the noble Lord's comments, I gather that instead of singing "You'll never walk alone", they will sing "You'll never walk again".
I am grateful for your Lordships' consideration of this matter which, although amusing, has also been serious. I know that it has received full consideration. Given the somewhat inelegant nature of the amendment and the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that I still have some way to go to reach full accomplishment in the art of the parliamentary draftsman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Breaking up public procession]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert ("and includes cavalcades or processions of motor vehicles along any public highway").
The noble Lord said My Lords, the previous debate was most satisfactory from a recruitment point of view and I shall remember to bring a stock of application forms with me at the beginning of next week.
The amendment is intended to close what I regard as a serious loophole in the existing law and in this Bill. Cavalcades are a fairly recent innovation among paramilitary bodies. They get around the restriction on marching feet where no notice whatsoever will be given if they are mobile. In some respects, the cavalcades have the capacity, by reason of their mobility, to stir up apprehension, fear and reaction in a matter of hours and over wide areas of the Province—in fact, right across the Province—almost simultaneously.
I give an example of what has horrified me. On one occasion two years ago, in the late afternoon when the bereaved relatives of a chap who was shot by terrorists were attending the grave in the cemetery, seven motorcars appeared adorned with certain flags and those inside hurled insults in the name of the organisation which had assassinated the deceased. That incident and others like it are what I have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said—I agree with him—that it is somewhat illogical to build into the Bill controls over walks while ignoring the far greater menace of motorised columns. When I raised this point in the Grand Committee the Minister undertook to look at the need for some changes and possibly to introduce an amendment at some stage. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, this seems a sensible amendment. It arises from the definition of

1211
"public procession" which is given on page 11 of the Bill, just before the place where this amendment is to he inserted. It states:
"'public procession' means a procession in a public place".
One wonders why the draftsman bothered to define the phrase if that is its only definition. However, that definition of "public procession" differs from that given in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which the Bill replaces. The order states:
"'public procession' means a procession in a public place, whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances".
I must admit that before I read that part of the order alongside the Bill I had assumed that as it was not stated that "'public procession' means a procession on foot in a public place", it probably included vehicles. However, whoever drafted the order found it necessary to make it clear that the definition included processions involving vehicles and I am sure that we all want to include processions involving vehicles as well as processions on foot in the provisions of this Bill. There are some important examples, including some connected with the sporting events which take place in Northern Ireland.
There are also examples relating to protests. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, drew our attention to what happened in May 1974 when a cavalcade of vans, tractors and other vehicles descended on Stormont and had a very decisive political effect. That was obviously a perfectly legitimate protest, but it was a cavalcade or procession of the sort that should be covered by this Bill. In addition to its provisions relating to processions on foot, it is important that the Bill also covers that point. I believe that it would be better if the Bill covered it specifically, as did the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order, rather than leaving it to be implied in the wording.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, I have great sympathy with this amendment, particularly in the light of the terrible incident in the churchyard to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred. My only worry is this: what about motorised funeral processions? They can often be political or quasi-political in nature, and not only in Northern Ireland. Many years ago I found myself in a self-drive car stuck behind the massive funeral cortege of a Mafia boss. It consisted of at least 50 large, mainly black, shiny cars which were being driven very slowly. It was obviously meant to intimidate the inhabitants of the many mountain villages through which it passed. It was made quite clear to me by the locals that it would be extremely unwise to try to overtake it. That was an example of a funeral procession and a political procession rolled into one. Having said that, I recognise that trying to regulate funeral processions of any nature is a highly delicate matter and I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
Lord Alderdice:My Lords, this appears to be a reasonable proposition on two counts. First, I do not believe there is any reason why in terms of the regulations there should be any distinction between parades on foot and cavalcades in motorised vehicles when effectively they are for similar purposes. Secondly, by the removal of Clause 3 we have sought
1212
to find other ways to ensure that the Bill is seen as a balanced measure. I believe that this is, together with other amendments that have in effect been accepted, another way in which that can be achieved. I look forward to the response of the Minister in regard to this amendment, which we on these Benches support.
Lord Dubs:My Lords, I am grateful that this amendment has come back. As I mentioned at Committee stage, we accept that the existing definition of public processions in the Bill is not as clear as it might be. We want to ensure that it covers this kind of cavalcade with vehicles to which the noble Lord referred. We shall introduce an amendment at a later stage, possibly at Third Reading and if not in the other place, although it will probably not be along the lines proposed. What we intend to do—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, got it right—is to restore the definition in the 1987 Public Order order which describes a public procession as,
"a procession in a public place, whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances".
I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead:My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic consideration. I am happy to agree with his suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("paragraph 4") and insert ("paragraphs 4 or 9").
The noble Lord said:My Lords, we now come to Schedule 2 to the Bill. The particular provision to which this amendment is directed is that which provides for the way in which alterations to the code of practice, the procedural rules and the guidelines—three separate documents—are brought before Parliament. The Bill provides that the original documents shall be brought before Parliament under the affirmative procedure but that when amendments are made to them they shall be subject only to the negative procedure.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation of this House looked at the Bill as a whole and drew the attention of the House to this particular provision. The committee recommended that the House should,
"consider whether the Bill should be amended to allow Ministers the option of using either the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure for variations [to the documents]".
I have tabled this amendment in perhaps a slightly "overkill" manner. It provides that all amendments shall be subject to the affirmative procedure. As a matter of fact, that is not my intention. My intention is to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee, but that is very difficult to draft. Initially it seemed to me to be better to bring it before the Committee in the form in which it appears in the Marshalled List today. As I was given an assurance at that time that the Government would amend the provision as recommended by the

1213
committee in respect of the guidelines, it appeared to me that by this stage a draft would be available to implement what the committee recommended, at least in respect of the guidelines. The committee made its recommendation in respect of the guidelines, the code of conduct and the procedural rules—all three documents—although the current undertaking from the Minister relates only to the guidelines.
The Select Committee does not make recommendations on these matters lightly. I believe that this House should take very careful note of the recommendations that it has made about this particular provision. All that my amendment seeks to do is to bring that recommendation of the Select Committee before your Lordships in the hope that the Government will say what they propose to do about it. I beg to move.
Lord DubsMy Lords, I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, means something different from his amendment. To be serious, I have sympathy with the drafting point to which he refers. I am grateful for this amendment which touches on the very important issue of parliamentary scrutiny of statutory documents issued under the Bill. As explained in Committee, in drafting the Bill the Government needed to strike a difficult balance. On the one hand, we recognised that documents like the code of conduct, guidelines and procedural rules were potentially of great interest and deserved maximum parliamentary scrutiny. But, equally, changes of a fairly technical nature might need to be made to them in future. We do not want to waste parliamentary time by requiring a full debate, save for minor changes in the procedural rules of the Parades Commission. We therefore propose using the affirmative resolution procedure for the first issue of the document and the negative resolution for any subsequent amendments.
However, we had before us the work carried out by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. For that I am most grateful. That committee came up with a very interesting suggestion as to how the Government could deal with amendments to the statutory document. It proposed that the Government should retain the option of affirmative or negative resolution procedures; namely, to use the affirmative procedure for matters of substance and the negative procedure for minor matters or matters of a purely technical nature. We have a good deal of sympathy with that proposal and we are considering it very carefully. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment so that we can have a little more time to consider how to proceed.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, in view of the helpful nature of the Minister's reply and indeed his helpful responses throughout today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Sudan
5.16 p.m.
Lord McNairasked Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude towards the recent moves to end the civil war in the Sudan, the historic links between the United Kingdom and the Sudan, and the case for an end to sanctions.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the subject of Sudan and to bring some of the recent developments within that country to the attention of the House. I declare an interest in this debate. I have visited Sudan on a number of occasions as a guest of either the Sudanese Government or the Sudanese Parliament.
Britain and Sudan have a long history of association. That history includes the fact that Sudan is one of the few countries to have defeated the British Army in battle. As a result, there has been mutual respect over a number of years. My Question covers three distinct points: peace, historic links and sanctions. Before I discuss these points perhaps I may point out that I have one pleasure and one sadness in introducing this debate. The pleasure, and indeed honour, is that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford has chosen to make his maiden speech in my debate. I welcome his contribution and the measured views that I am sure he will express. My sadness is that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has chosen not to speak in this debate. No debate on Sudan would be complete without a contribution from the noble Baroness, but I am sure her point of view will be ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks.
I believe that there are four contentious issues that emerge from any discussion of Sudan: political repression, religious persecution, slavery, and the training and harbouring of terrorists and the allegation that Sudan is exporting terrorism. I should like to touch on each of these matters because it is possible that noble Lords who follow me in this debate may try to undermine what I believe to be the most important matter that we should discuss—the call to progress the peace process. Indeed, I have organised a seminar which will take place tomorrow. Various people, including people in opposition, will attend to discuss the peace process.
I shall deal first with the issue of political repression. One index of a country's state of political health is the number of political prisoners. Despite the fact that Sudan has been involved in a civil war for almost 40 years, the US State Department, in its latest report on the Sudan, stated that although the Sudanese Government denied having any political prisoners it believed that there were several. I believe that, after 40 years of civil war and a coup eight years ago, compared with many other countries in a similar state of political and economic development Sudan has a good record.
I am particularly sensitive to issues relating to religious tolerance. I have therefore been interested to visit Christian churches and to speak with Christians wherever and whenever I have travelled in Sudan. While there is undoubtedly competition between the two major

1215
religions in Sudan—the Christian and Islamic faiths—in the parts of the country I visited I heard or saw nothing to substantiate the claims of religious oppression. I recently visited north and south Kordofan.
I found it interesting that in 1995 the Roman Catholic Church recorded with some pleasure that 6,000 adults were baptised at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Khartoum on Easter night alone. That is quite a throughput. I also note that between 1989 and 1993 500 new churches were built in Khartoum State. Many consist of only one room, hut they serve their Christian communities among the millions of southern Sudanese who have flocked to the capital. Anyone who has visited the refugee and squatter camps which surround much of Khartoum will see dozens of such small chapels scattered around the settlements. That is all in the heart of northern Sudan.
Furthermore, 4 per cent. of the Sudanese population is Christian. Christians make up 15 per cent. of the population of southern Sudan, with a similar percentage being Moslem and the majority being animist. Christians are disproportionately prominent in Sudanese affairs. The Vice-President of Sudan and several federal Ministers are Christians. One of those Ministers is also an Anglican bishop, Bishop Gabriel Rorich. There are scores of Christian members of the federal parliament. Christians are prominent throughout the administration and the army. Those are simple facts.
I turn to the issue of slavery. I wish to touch on it as an example of the misrepresentation of the human rights issue in Sudan. I refer to the allegations, heard on a regular basis in this Chamber, that the Government of Sudan are either sponsoring or conducting the taking of slaves and are party to some kind of slave trade in Sudan. Those are strong allegations. In October I travelled 1,500 kilometres in central and western Sudan, within Kordofan and the Nuba mountains, in the course of investigating allegations of slavery and slavery-like practices. I was a guest of the human rights committee of the Sudanese parliament and I was accompanied by a southern Sudanese Pentecostal minister. I found no evidence whatever of the allegations of slavery.
It is ironic that the very conditions that have seen a resurgence of abductions and ransoming are brought about by the very gunmen who some in this House unconditionally support. In any instance, these conflicts and this behaviour is unacceptable, but it does not constitute slavery. Many in this House would appear to have accepted at face value views and statements by groups such as Christian Solidarity International which have subsequently been dismissed by professional human rights activists as misinformed. Mr. Alex de Waal, the director of African Rights, has, for example, described the claim of Christian Solidarity International in respect of slavery as "over eager" or "misinformed". He has further added that such claims have played upon lazy assumptions to raise public outrage. For the record, Alex De Waal has clearly stated that there is no evidence for centrally organised, government-directed slave raiding or slave trade.
Perhaps the oldest human rights organisation in the world, Anti-Slavery International, in its 1997 report on Sudan, stated that the charge that government troops
1216
engage in raids for the purpose of seizing slaves is not backed by the evidence. The Anti-Slavery International report also stated that a rigorous inquiry into claims that the Khartoum government were engaged in a slave trade would not be able to demonstrate a policy of slave trading.
Perhaps I should also touch on the Baltimore Sun expedition. It related to a visit to Sudan to areas not controlled by the government which was organised by Christian Solidarity International. Journalists from the Baltimore Sun claim to have bought two slaves out of captivity. That received coverage around the world. Both African Rights and Anti-Slavery International have been critical of such claims. De Waal stated that the journalists were in fact paying a ransom to a go-between in a scheme where families pay, through a middleman, for their hostage children to be redeemed. They were not in a slave market. It is a horrible practice, but it is not slavery. De Waal accused the activities of such American newspapers of supporting sensationalist stereotypes.
Both Anti-Slavery International and African Rights warned that such sensationalist expeditions run the risk of inflating the ransom for kidnap victims beyond what local Sudanese families can afford and may even create an incentive for further raiding and abductions. Anti-Slavery International quoted a southern Sudanese closely involved in retrieving hostages and kidnap victims as saying that such outside intervention with big sums of money may make matters worse and can encourage others to capture and facilitate the retrieval of more children for economic motives. That is what the Sudanese would call a harmful traditional practice. This member of the Dinka retrieval committee was saying that westerners were making the situation worse. That is one example of how Sudan's human rights record has been grossly distorted by groups and individuals outside Sudan.
The present United Kingdom Government have said that the observance of human rights is to be the key element of British foreign policy. I welcome that, but in Sudan human rights is a very complex issue. The biggest need of most of the population is for a just end to the civil war. Attention to human rights, although correct in itself, must not be allowed to absolve the Government of the need to think clearly in the search for a political way forward to stop the war.
That leads me to the issue of peace. I must again declare an interest. I am unreservedly committed to the cause of peace in Sudan and I will do everything that I can to help to bring peace and justice to that country. The political and constitutional problems that have beset the people of Sudan, and which lie at the heart of the civil conflict that has blighted Sudan since before independence in 1956, are in a large measure the result of British colonial policy when the British Government ruled Sudan as two separate countries and then tried to stitch the two together at independence.
Every government since independence have been caught up in the civil war in the south. From 1972 to 1983, there was peace in Sudan. The peace resulted from the granting of autonomy to the south. which is in

1217
fact very similar to the measures proposed under the general peace agreement signed in April 1987. The peace ended when Nimeri revoked the arrangement for various internal political reasons. It was that act and not the subsequent imposition of Sharia law which caused the civil war to start up again. That war has cost probably a million Sudanese lives.
My Lords, I apologise, but I was told by the Government Whips' Office that I should have 15 minutes in which to speak. However, it seems that that is not the case and I must wind up. I feel very strongly that the position which Her Majesty's Government are taking on the issue of sanctions is rather transparent and unhelpful. If one looks at what happened in relation to the attempted assassination of President Mubarak and the subsequent events, any clear-sighted examination of that issue will indicate that the British Government and the United Nations are asking the Sudanese to do something which is quite impossible; namely, they are asking them to extradite people who are not in their country. It seems to me that the British Government, possibly following the American Government, simply do not wish to see an end to the war in Sudan and an end to the problems in that country.
5.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of BradfordMy Lords, I am profoundly grateful that this opportunity has arisen to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House. My first wish is to thank very sincerely all those—not least the Officers of your Lordships' House—who have offered extremely necessary and welcome encouragement and support.
I too have had the privilege of visiting Sudan and I work in a diocese with very strong links with Sudan. I am among those deeply concerned about the agonising situation for the whole country and not least for the Christian community and the people living in the south of Sudan.
It is almost impossible for most people in this country to imagine the suffering inflicted in a civil war which lasted from 1955 to 1972 and in the renewed warfare of the past 15 years. I believe that that is the longest running war this century. It is in a country which is the size of a continent; which borders on nine other African countries; and thus having considerable implications for the regional stability of the Horn of Africa and East Africa.
It is difficult to obtain reliable data on the number of deaths due to three decades of war. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, may have been slightly on the conservative side in his estimates. I have seen estimates ranging between 1.5 million to 2 million. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are about 2.5 million displaced people of whom about 1.8 million live in or around Khartoum. Like the noble Lord, I too have visited many of those townships—Jebel Aulia and others—and have seen the suffering and also the attempts to provide aid in those townships. There are also 450,000 refugees in neighbouring countries.
1218
At a meeting on 13th November, the New Sudan Council of Churches stated:
"Our heart-felt distress is that the escalation of fighting. hostility and war continues to cause death on an immense scale, massive social displacement, famine and hunger and devastating psychological, social and material damage. We express concern that the war may escalate to unimagined levels of killing and violence.
That is a chilling prospect for a country which already has had so much suffering and warfare.
As always, it is the children and women who have borne the brunt of that suffering. It is little wonder that when I journeyed both in the Khartoum area and in the Nuba mountains, in towns and villages alike, the universal prayer of everyone I met was for peace. To be wholly dependent on others for food and drink, for shelter and medicine and to have to place your life wholly in the hands of other people is to be vulnerable indeed. Stories of appalling violence abounded and accusations were made against both the government forces and those of the Sudan People's Liberation Army.
Church leaders who have visited the Sudan, including the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury twice in recent years and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and others, would not normally impress your Lordships' House as being military strategists, political analysts or diplomatic specialists. I make no claim whatever in any of those fields. Nevertheless, the Churches and development and mission agencies in that and other countries have a long-term commitment to all the people of Sudan and we can articulate some of the anxieties of the people in between—that is a phrase worth pondering, "the people in between"—the fighting whose main concern, indeed, whose whole concern, is simply that of survival.
It is a long-standing and complex conflict. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, indicated, it is most certainly not a war between Christians and Moslems for there are people of each faith fighting on both sides. There will be no speedy resolution and certainly not from outside. The situation, however, cannot continue; it cannot wait until the killing ceases. The people, particularly of southern Sudan, need development aid from governments such as our Government have provided within the framework of Operation Lifeline Sudan. They need the continued support of the aid agencies, the Churches and other people with good will.
Debt relief is also needed. Sudan carries a heavy burden of debt but I believe that must be done in a way which does not mean that more funds are available for the purchase of arms. There is, I suggest, a need for a fully water-tight international arms embargo going beyond the European Union arms embargo which the Government rightly support.
The people in Sudan want peace but not peace at any price. The great fear which was articulated time and time again in tiny villages in the Nuba mountains and in Khartoum itself is that they will be forgotten by governments and people in the rest of the world. After all, there is so much suffering. It is my wish, in all honesty, to be able to say to people in Sudan when I hope to meet them next month, "You are not forgotten". Today I look for assurance that I can say that, and say it in good faith.
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of SandwichMy Lords, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford for injecting a note of good sense, sincerity and wisdom into our debate. I hope that we shall hear from him many times in the future. It was indeed a wonderful speech. I must mention the fact that the right reverend Prelate started out as a messenger boy with Unilever. I hope that he will not mind me singling that out because he was obviously at a cornerstone of the Empire, as it was in those days, and had much to do with the Sudanese economy.
I am especially pleased to follow the right reverend Prelate because he has been concerned with the ecumenical world for so many years. For 14 years he was the diocesan ecumenical officer and bishop's adviser in ecumenical affairs in the Newcastle diocese—a post which he held until 1978. He was Bishop of Maidstone in 1987 and worked closely with the then Archbishop of Canterbury in that diocese. I hope that we shall hear again from the right reverend Prelate on this and many other subjects related to ecumenism and overseas aid.
Sudan deserves a better response from Britain and the European Community. This great country, sprawled along the Nile with many different peoples and thousands of miles of semi-arid bush, is obscured by as much prejudice and negative image as it is by natural geography. It also furnishes many instant experts like myself who, from one unforgettable visit, are able to spin a one-day web of profound experience.
The country seems to attract much expertise and to have two debates on the subject in one fortnight may be some small compensation for our neglect of a country with which we have had many associations. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing this debate. I am sorry, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is not present here to share in our discussions. In fact, I registered my disappointment with the Whips' Office on Friday that two debates on the subject had been tabled. If we cannot gather two or three of our prominent speakers on the same subject in the Chamber, how can we expect the two sides of the Sudanese civil war to come together in one room in Nairobi?
There is a great deal of wishful thinking about the imminent fall of President al-Bashir along the Laurent Kabila model. Over the past few years peace and war have succeeded each other like yo-yos across the battle lines of the southern south-eastern and eastern frontiers. As we speak, the SPLA commanders are threatening to attack Juba. Moreover, as we speak, the Ugandans are preparing to contain the Lords Resistance Army and the northern coalition is bracing itself for further government bombing in the Nuba mountains and along the Eritrean border. On the face of it, there is nothing really new. Yet I accept that there has been a shift in government policy and that there are elements in the April peace agreement which hold out hope for the thousands of citizens who have
1220
already suffered the loss of their families in violent massacres and human rights violations perpetrated by both sides over many years.
I must declare an interest in that I was on the staff of Christian Aid from 1974 to 1986, and later worked with Save the Children and CARE International. I am also a new council member of Anti Slavery International, but I do not see the word "slavery" on the Order Paper. I shall, therefore, pass on that one today.
When I fist joined Christian Aid there was a strong sense of optimism after the Addis Ababa agreement in which the Churches played a prominent role: would that the same conditions prevailed today! A few years later I travelled the whole length of the country and saw for myself some of the effects of the war in areas of the south which were potentially rich.
In the Upper Nile I was especially impressed by a health programme. Ironically, this was at Bentiu, the very spot on which Chevron was expecting to turn the semi-desert into the South's greatest asset—but that has been one of Sudan's longest and cruellest mirages. I there learned not to write off communities which were so poor that it seemed impossible for them to survive on their own. This is still the case in many parts of Sudan, where a lot of positive work is being done despite the civil war. That is often because of the resilience which comes with sheer survival.
It is nearly seven years since we, the United Kingdom, suspended our development aid programme early in 1991. I do not have any quarrel with our Government's renewed support for sanctions under the most recent Security Council resolutions on terrorism. Sudan's diplomatic isolation, albeit under considerable American pressure, is understandable as long as President al-Bashir maintains his unholy alliance with Iran, Iraq, Libya or whoever will pay for his crippling civil war and debts to the IMF. Nevertheless, in such a hostile environment it now seems that there is a difficulty in funding the most basic kind of development aid. That is the dilemma with which I take issue: the dilemma between the securing of real aid to the poorest people and the safeguarding of human rights as presented by the new White Paper.
I do not suggest that we put more money into giant agricultural schemes and plantations. However, given our historic role, we ought at least to be able to do better than the French and find ways to promote trade at the right level and cultural exchanges such as those which the British Council continues to organise. I hope that the Minister will refer to some of those more practical forms of private aid and investment—that is, aid for appropriate technology, for example, which benefits the local economy and the poorest people at the same time. I am thinking of things like water pumps, agricultural tools and stoves.
However, I understand that there has been a more serious move away from that kind of development aid. Until recently the non-governmental organisations believed that this Government were committed to humanitarian aid in Sudan. But it appears from my conversations with at least two agencies that the European Community has begun to hold up food aid allocations

1221
even to the non-governmental organisations on the grounds of sanctions. I shall quote from a letter received by an NGO from Brussels only last week, dated 24th November. It states:
"The situation in Sudan, in particular the position taken by [a] Government which is not conducive to resolve issues relating to the food security in the country, does not provide the proper frame for meaningful food aid interventions by the European Commission".
I am sure that the authors of the White Paper would not want to discourage aid through our most experienced NGOs to people who desperately need it. In fact, my information from the dozen or so agencies in the Sudan, both British and international, is that, on the whole, they are operating well and have enjoyed good working relations with the Sudanese Humanitarian Affairs Commissioner and with the regional.governments where they work. The difficulties are in Europe and the United States, not in Sudan.
Apparently, this year even the world food programme only had 1,000 tonnes of grain to spare for western Darfur, an area of particular need, and the EU has been unable to make up the shortfall. There is even some uncertainty as to whether ECHO or DG8 has responsibility for it. In one case there was near farce when an early warning system received funding to ascertain that there were acute shortages but not the actual food. This is a critical situation, given the fact that next year we may see Sudan on the danger list.
There are also some wider but related concerns. Support for the NGOs in the past few years has fallen drastically as official donors have squeezed them towards the emergency end of the spectrum. One agency, Care International, had to cut its programme by nearly two-thirds in 1994-1996. This not only hit some of its best work but it threatened the viability of the entire programme which goes under the heading of humanitarian assistance. This is the work which I believe is described in the White Paper and is part of the Government's central objective.
NGOs with DFID support have been able to carry out highly imaginative schemes almost in spite of the civil war, such as guaranteeing water supplies through rain catchment and hand-dug ponds, offering small business credit and even healthcare in areas where there are already food security and emergency food distribution projects. All I ask of the Minister is that she gives an undertaking that, in principle, those programmes should not suffer and that the DFID staff continue to apply flexibility wherever possible. The workers in the field are best placed to decide whether a programme is benefiting the people. Strange as it may seem, even in the midst of civil war and demonstrable human rights violations, the NGOs are often the only means of meeting human need.
I declare one more interest as a member of the Anglican Church in Salisbury Diocese, which next year celebrates a 25 year link with the Episcopal Church of Sudan. The link is essentially Christian but it shows no prejudice towards traditional Islam. In my experience, there is a particular effort among the Churches to build bridges with Moslems who reject Sharia law and respect Christian traditions too. The Churches have close relations with
1222
leaders on both sides of the conflict, north and south, and any final settlement is likely to benefit from their close personal ties which transcend religion and politics.
There is no way that we can know about all the various emergencies which occur in Sudan, but where we know about them and can help it is surely important to keep people alive. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister that Britain also supports Sudanese refugees in Kenya and Ethiopia and ensures that help arrives in time. The best hope, as we all know, is a long-term solution to the civil war through the IGAD process, but in the meantime we must encourage the existing efforts of our non-governmental organisations and aid agencies who bring direct aid to those who most need it.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount BrentfordMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing this subject today. I propose to concentrate on the peace issue and not branch off on to slavery. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his fascinating speech. We appreciate that he speaks from personal experience, having visited the country. He made an interesting speech. I look forward to hearing from him again on many occasions. Reference has been made to the absence of my noble friend Lady Cox. I believe that I read that she had to be in Russia at the present juncture as she had a commitment that she could not break and she was sorry not to be able to participate in this debate. She is not absent for any reasons of churlishness. As I said, she has to be abroad.
I believe that I am the first speaker in this debate who has never visited Sudan. I confess that grievous sin to the right reverend Prelate. However. I have a great many connections with East Africa. I have discussed the Sudanese situation with people who travel in and out of Sudan from time to time. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, quite rightly said; namely. that this is in no sense a religious war. There are many Moslems fighting against the government forces. It would be much more apt, or nearer to the mark, to suggest that this is a genocide by the Arabs of black Africans. However, that is a gross over-simplification of the situation. Certainly, Moslem leaders who are not supporters of the government plead with Moslems not to fight for the government forces against the southern Sudanese and others with whom the GOS is fighting.
It was a pleasure to have the presence of His Excellency the Sudanese Ambassador at the National Prayer Breakfast last week. That is undoubtedly a Christian prayer event. However, he is a charming Moslem and his support of the breakfast was welcome. The April peace agreement, to which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred, is, I believe, pretty ineffective. The war has continued irrespective of that because, as the government admitted, the SPLA was not a party to the agreement.
I wish to mention three key concerns of the Christian Churches at the present time. First, there is the question of human rights. The Churches are active in checking and publicising any breaches of human rights whether by the government forces or by the SPLA. The Churches do this in an even-handed fashion. The Churches will publicise the actions of anyone who breaches human rights. This

1223
step is effective with regard to the SPLA. Certainly, Mr. Garang has made great efforts to try to discipline his people as he does not wish to incur the bad publicity which would arise if the Churches publicised breaches of human rights by his people.
Secondly, there is much concern about intimidation of and pressure on the Churches and the Sudan Council of Churches in Khartoum in the wake of the American sanctions. The government appear to be venting their anger at these sanctions on the Churches. I shall return to the question of sanctions later. A third concern is the repeated reports of the production of poison gas and the possibility of its being deployed by the government. There have been reports of this in the Sunday Times. The Churches fear that possibility at the present time.
I turn now to three recommendations. First, the IGAD process is the only viable peace move at present in the eyes of the Churches. IGAD is the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development. A round of talks took place last month. Cannot they be resumed before April, the date given by the noble Baroness in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lady Cox of 24th November? Is there no way in which our Government can bring influence to bear for the resumption of talks at an earlier date than April? If a date were given for early in the new year, that would surely be an encouragement to people who are working for peace. A regional solution is required, not the limited "peace from within" of the GOS policy. Certainly the British Government have authority and influence to bring to bear. I hope that they will continue to do so.
Secondly, I return to the question of sanctions. Although the Churches are suffering because of the sanctions they believe that the sanctions are positive in that they maintain pressure on GOS and encourage more flexibility in negotiations. Therefore at the present juncture the Churches do not want the American sanctions to be eased. "Please let us talk" is what they are saying. Thirdly, I make a plea for strengthening the role of the Churches in the peace negotiations. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, rightly pointed out, the Churches are flourishing in these difficult times. The Anglican Church, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, is growing both in numbers and spiritual maturity, despite the appalling difficulties that are faced at present. Do the Government consider that the Churches are being used adequately in the peace process?
East Timor is another country with a difficult human rights situation. Bishop Belo has played a prominent part in peace negotiations in East Timor. I quote from Timor Link:
"What is needed is a mechanism for consulting far greater numbers of ordinary East Timorese people, particularly women. A peacebuilding initiative that works from below, complementing the top-down approach, would be timely and could have a lasting effect. although no one should underestimate the difficulties".
There could be great support for the peace process if those working for peace through the IGAD principles were able to consult people at the bottom so that there could be a growing consensus to work for peace upwards from people at the grassroots as well as those working from the top down. I hope that the Churches, Christian people and
1224
Moslem people from the ground upwards could be more involved so as to bring about the peace and justice for which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, rightly asks.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Cocks of HartcliffeMy Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the way these debates have been arranged, because the more we debate situations such as those in Sudan, the better it is. To have two debates so quickly is not at all a bad thing, because the situation is serious.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, said that I might he speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I liaise closely with the noble Baroness. whose work I greatly admire, but I am speaking for myself tonight, and I know that he will accept that. I join in the congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford, whose speech I greatly welcomed. The participation of the Bishop's Bench in debates of this nature is extremely welcome, because only today I came across the information that a report published in July revealed that the persecution of Christians is thriving around the globe. That report was produced by the US State Department.
An author, Paul Marshall, stated that maltreatment was widespread:
"I would say in the last five years there has been persecution of Christians in 40 countries. By persecution I mean there may be physical beatings, imprisonment, church burnings, maybe death, I don't just mean discrimination".
He went on to say that the persecution of Christians was most common in Islamic countries and countries that remain under strict communist rule. The report was prepared on behalf of the US Congress, which demanded a detailed summary of US policies in that field. I understand that the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has instructed her delegations and embassies throughout the world to be especially vigilant on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, mentioned allegations in this Chamber with regard to slavery. He was not terribly flattering about Christian Solidarity International. Let us therefore go to other authorities which might carry a little more weight with him. Dr. Gaspar Biro, the UN rapporteur on human rights in the Sudan said in February 1996:
"There has been an alarming increase in the number of reports…of slavery, servitude, the slave trade and forced labour. I regret the total lack of interest shown by the competent Sudanese authorities".
More recently, in November this year, the UN Human Rights Committee lambasted six nations, two of them in Africa, for their poor human rights records. One of them was the Sudan. The committee held sittings for some three weeks. It produced its report, and the abuses in the Sudan which it listed included the crucifixion of convicts, slavery and the press-ganging of children into the army. The committee's chairwoman, Christine Chanet, said:
"Sudan's failure to respect international human rights agreements 'cannot be excused by custom or domestic laws—.
She was speaking after 18 experts had examined Sudan's record of respecting civil and political rights. She singled out extreme cases of abuse such as corporal

1225
punishment, the crucifixion of some convicts sentenced to death, abductions, disappearances, torture, slavery and the forced call-up of children into the army. She said that she welcomed the resumption this week of the peace negotiations between the Islamic military junta ruling Sudan and the Southern rebels waging the 14 year-old civil war in the country.
That is a question of the human rights of individuals. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, mentioned the report in The Sunday Times of 16th November. This matter is so serious that it merits a little more detail than he gave the House. The article is headed:
"Behind women and children Iraq making lethal gas in covert Sudan pact".
Earlier this afternoon, in relation to a question about the Middle East, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the Israeli people living under the threat of chemical and biological warfare. We are all aware of the recent inspection crisis with regard to sites in Iraq, and how that now appears to have been resolved. If the report is correct, Iraq is apparently moving into the Sudan. The article states:
"Iraq is manufacturing poisonous gas at a secret location in Sudan. Bypassing the ban on weapons of mass destructions which the United Nations imposed on Baghdad after its defeat in the Gulf War …"
The report gives the location of where mustard gas is being stockpiled, production having been said to have begun in 1995 under a clandestine deal between the Khartoum and Baghdad Governments to circumvent the UN's military and trade embargo on Iraq.
If that is true, the situation is appalling. It should be brought to the attention of the international authorities. The article concludes:
"Sudan is internationally isolated for dabbling in terrorism and for human rights abuses—"
those already referred to—and in particular it is a rogue state in the Middle East because it harbours terrorist movements and was involved in the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak. That is a serious situation, and one which should have detailed and urgent attention.
Early this morning, quite by chance, I was watching the estimable BBC 24-hour news service. As the vice-chairman of the BBC, I have to say that, but the programme is actually extremely good. I saw an interview and report on the recent visit to Egypt of Colonel John Garang. He is the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Army. He was invited to go to Egypt to see the president—it was his first visit—because President Mubarak wished to find out more from Colonel Garang about his attitude towards the situation in Sudan. He reported that he talked of his commitment to the unity of Sudan: that there was no wish to create two separate countries: that there should be unity, but that it should be a unity which included all citizens on the basis of the incorporation of their various diversities and creeds. He explained that the real threat the country faced was the insistence by its Islamic rulers that there should be no tolerance of other ethnic groups and religions. I believe it is helpful that Colonel Garang
1226
has now had this meeting. He said that the president and officials showed great understanding of the position that he had outlined.
It is my hope that the situation can be resolved. Sudan is an enormous country in physical area. I believe that it is some 20 times the size of this country, although the population is only about half ours. If there is more effort and more goodwill, I believe that conditions may become more tolerable. I hope that our small contributions in this House will give encouragement and hope to people outside the House when they read and consider them.
6.10 p.m.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, I endorse the congratulations already expressed to the right reverend Prelate on his remarkable maiden speech, and on the way he painted in such vivid colours the agony of the people of Sudan in what he described as the longest running war of the century. I wish also to express my warmest appreciation of the positive recommendations he made. The first was that the embargo on arms supplies to Sudan should be made universal. Secondly, the right reverend Prelate said that we did not want peace at any price. I shall come to that point later, if I may. The contribution that the right reverend Prelate made to our debate was significant. We hope very much to hear from him again, not only on Sudan but on other matters relating to human rights in Africa and other parts of the world.
We are also grateful to my noble friend Lord McNair for having initiated the debate. It gives us the opportunity to look at those human rights situations and the peace process in Sudan. We have more than enough to do in discussing one or the other. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said, it is no bad thing that we shall have another debate later when we can perhaps discuss in a little more detail some of the human rights issues on which my noble friend touched.
My noble friend was good enough to send me a copy of the report he made on a visit he paid to North and South Kordofan as the guest of the Sudanese Parliament. He is right to emphasise that that body is not independent. It is an organ of the state, whose primary concern, I believe, is to deceive the international community about human rights in Sudan.
My noble friend described the meetings he had with people in North and South Kordofan and his review of the literature from which he concludes that there is no slavery in those areas. He misses out some important sources, in particular the report of the special rapporteur on Sudan, Dr. Gaspar Binó whose most recent report was presented to the third committee of the General Assembly in October. The special rapporteur takes note of the denials of slavery in the Nuba mountains area but points out that in previous years the reports of these practices were mostly from the south, in particular from areas under government control to which neither my noble friend nor the special rapporteur have gained access, such as Al Dein and Gogrial. The special rapporteur states that for the past eight years international NGOs have been forbidden to go into these

1227
areas. He quotes the Special Committee of the Government as saying that it, too, was unable to gain access to these places, or to Nyamlell and Aweil. Those places are all in the province of Bahr El Ghazal in the south-west of the country, bordering on the Central African Republic.
The special rapporteur makes a number of recommendations in relation to the activities of the Special Committee on Slavery in Sudan, but says that none of them has been implemented. He promises that he will report on the issue in detail to the Human Rights Commission next spring, but that in the meanwhile there is enough evidence to show that slavery and slavery-like practices are alive and flourishing in parts of Sudan, as the United Nations General Assembly found. The UN Human Rights Commission, too, said that it was,
"deeply concerned about continued reports of slavery, servitude, the slave trade and forced labour, the sale and trafficking of children and their abduction and forced internment, often at undisclosed locations".
However, in the time that remains for the debate, we should concentrate perhaps on the peace process. Not being part of the Government, my noble friend and I are at liberty to offer some observations on the dispute. Once again, on this subject I am afraid that we shall have to disagree. I believe that our support for the peace process does not mean that we have to endorse the formula that has been presented by the regime and embodied in an agreement between the Government of Sudan and some of the smaller factions in the south, in particular the South Sudan Independence Movement of Commander Riek Machar. Last year I asked Riek Machar's organisation whether he and others were allowed to form political parties. I also asked the ambassador whether those people would have offices in Khartoum or parts of the south-east. I asked also about the co-ordinating council which was to be established according to the declaration of April 1996. Would it have a secretariat? Where would it be located? The new agreement again provides for a co-ordinating council consisting of a president, 13 ministers and 10 Southern Sudan governors, but there is nothing in the agreement about how those people are to be elected or selected, and what their powers are to be.
The agreement says that there is to be an internationally monitored referendum in four years which will give the people of the south the choice between federation and independence. "The south" is not defined, and wherever the boundary may be drawn the agreement does not give people on either side of the boundary any separate right to choose whether they would prefer to be part of the north or south. That could be of material importance if the south decides in the end that it will secede.
The agreement is also silent on how the south will be administered in the four years leading up to the referendum. If the SPLA lays down arms and submits to the NIF in the regions it now controls, how can it be sure that there will be freedom of expression and of assembly during the transitional period so that the arguments for the two constitutional proposals can be thoroughly explored? To make this part of the agreement work, should there not be a neutral
1228
administration in the south for those next four years? The co-ordination council, to judge from its name, will not have power to regulate law enforcement or to determine the limits of political freedom. That was one of the sticking points in the IGAD talks because the SPLA wants the NIF regime to stand aside and to yield to a government of national unity in Khartoum.
I understand that at the very last moment in Nairobi the regime offered a federal system during the period of transition, but the SPLA held to the confederal proposals which they had agreed, and from which they cannot depart because it is part of their pact with the northern parties in the NDA. Either way, the co-ordination council would have to be replaced by an elected authority for the south, but to make free elections possible it means that the NIF forces would have to withdraw. Given the political will, they could be replaced by peacekeeping forces supplied by IGAD just as ECOWAS provided peacekeeping forces in Liberia, for example, leading up to its peace process. Though some bad mistakes were made in that process it led in the end to free democratic elections.
Ultimately, according to the Khartoum agreement, freedoms of movement, assembly, organisation, free speech and the press are guaranteed in accordance with the laws in force in the country and with "relevant international treaties". Formally, that is already the case throughout the country, but in practice there are no remedies for detention without trial, torture and many other violations of fundamental human rights, in the north as well as in the south. Mention has already been made of the latest phenomenon: the press-ganging of school leavers. No fewer than 65,000 of them were conscripted into the army, according to the Foreign Minister of Sudan. He makes the excuse that only 1 per cent. of them complained. That is 650 children who were conscripted violently into the army against their will. I take a serious view of that. It led to large demonstrations in October in Khartoum which were viciously repressed by the state.
Sudan is prepared to engage in dialogue with the international human rights agencies, and an extension of this transparency so as to allow unrestricted access of NGOs and reporters to the whole country would be very welcome as a further contribution towards peace. There is still some distance to go but I hope that the difficulties which stand in the way of a genuine peace will be resolved through the continuation of the IGAD process, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, mentioned, and through careful attention by the government to the advice given by the Special Rapporteur, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Commission and all the thematic rapporteurs.
6.20 p.m.
Lord MoynihanMy Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for initiating this debate. I congratulate too the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bradford on his maiden speech, a moving, sincere and eloquently expressed contribution that appeared spontaneous whatever text he may have

1229
had in front of him. It was, if I may say so, deeply sensitive in respect of all the people caught up in the Sudanese crisis.
From the contributions we have heard today it is apparent that we are talking more about a tragedy than about a country. The heart of the tragedy is a state which promised prosperity to its people when it was founded but is now racked by civil war, natural disasters and both political and economic failure. The two most recent events to affect Sudan are the failure of the recent peace talks to secure an end to the civil war in the south and the decision by the United States to impose sanctions on the government. If I may, I shall come to those issues later.
I am pleased that today's debate asks us to take note of Sudanese history and Britain's contribution to it. Many of the geostrategic decisions taken in the past have a continuing validity today. In many respects, for the United Kingdom then you could substitute the United States and the United Nations now. Britain was drawn to the Sudan because of our relationship with Egypt. The stability and well being of Egypt is as important to the western world now as it was when Britain first ventured there to defeat Napoleon. In 1821 all the northern and central districts of the Sudan were taken under Egyptian control and the country, as we know it today, took shape.
When British interests were threatened by a nationalist coup in Egypt the government bombarded Alexandria, defeated the Egyptian army at Tel-el-Kebir in 1882 and effectively took over the running of the country. With the government of Egypt came responsibility for the Sudan, and in the Sudan there was a popular religious-based uprising against the Egyptian government led by the Mahdi. The first British response was one which we have all heard before: depart and leave them to get on with it. The Liberal Government of the day dithered—today we would say that they were carrying out a review of their Sudanese policy—and as a result British forces embarked too late on one of those heroic but futile campaigns for which politicians rightly receive the blame.
However, Sudan's strategic position means that the country cannot and must not be ignored, let alone the humanitarian consequences, which should come first. The actions then of the Mahdist government, which included attempted invasions of both Ethiopia and Egypt, brought home this fact. So too did the scramble for African colonies and the widespread belief that France was going to seize control of the Nile waters, holding Egypt to ransom. These were the spurs for the Anglo-Egyptian invasion and indeed the conquest of Sudan, which culminated in the battle of Omdurman, so vividly described by Sir Winston Churchill in his book The River War.
The theme then, as in today's debate, is that the combination of instability and tyranny in the Sudan is not in anyone's interest. I hope the Minister will agree with this analysis and renew the pledge of the previous government to work for a settlement between Sudan and its neighbours and indeed within the country itself. One of the key problems for the Sudan is that the vast
1230
cultural differences between the north and the south seem unbridgeable. The predominantly Arab-Moslem north and the primarily black non-Moslem south had been carefully isolated from one another, not least by the British, but are now expected to work together in the new state. It is an academic question to ask whether the task to find an acceptable constitutional compromise would have been easier if the Sudan had stuck to a democratic system of government and the rule of law. However, the succession of military governments and authoritarian regimes has deprived the people of the Sudan of the opportunity to test the theory. The tragically divisive decision by Nimeri in 1983 to introduce the Sharia—Moslem law—was another example to the southerners of perceived northern arrogance and this, alongside regional and tribal grievances, re-ignited the civil war.
What has come through this debate to me is the fact that the civil war is a complicated mosaic of competing interests and personalities. One good omen is that the Government of the Sudan and the rebels have both indicated that they are unlikely to achieve a military solution. However, as the recent negotiations show, that does not mean that they can break the military stalemate with a political settlement which suits all sides. Matters are further complicated by the fact that the rebels themselves are divided. There are those who support a unified secular Sudan and those whose aim is secession. It becomes even more bizarre to me when leading secessionists are now allied with the Khartoum Government to pursue a vendetta against rival southern factions.
The key division is between those who believe that the Sudanese Government is sincere in offering a federal constitution and guarantees for the participation of southerners in federal institutions and security arrangements and those who do not. No fewer than six factions signed up to a peace agreement with the government earlier this year; but two of the most influential, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and the umbrella National Democratic Alliance have reportedly not. I would be grateful if the Minister could give more details of the recent talks in Kenya between the SPLA and the government. Can she confirm that the stumbling block was not the Sharia but the Khartoum Government's opposition to a confederal constitution for Sudan, and can she give the Government's view of the sincerity of the Khartoum Government's proposals?
The next complication is international. When the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and the National Democratic Alliance launched their offensives this year they did so from Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda. They did so with support from those countries. In return, the Ugandans allege that the Sudanese Government is backing the somewhat inappropriately named Lords Resistance Army. Wars by proxy are unpleasant and destabilising and they make the resolution of what was a civil war even more difficult. In Sudan the opposition is certainly divided—to the point that some opposition leaders talk of the complete disintegration of the Sudan, following in the wake of Somalia. That would be a

1231
major disaster for Africa as a whole. It is not in our interests or those of the continent to create new fault-lines for potential conflict and instability.
However, the sad experience of Somalia is still fresh in people's minds and there is no appetite for intervention. That is probably for the good, and I am sure the Minister will agree that the United Nations should not intervene because it does not have the consent of the warring factions and because straightforward intervention under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter would be untenable in logistical terms.
So what should the United Kingdom's role be in all this? As was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the previous government championed the 1994 European Union arms embargo and tried to help the peace process by using the Intergovernmental Authority on Development's Partners Forum. One of the problems of IGAD is that it contains many of the countries which the Government of Sudan complain of invading it. Therefore does the Minister agree that confidence-building measures should be the first steps and, once they are agreed and implemented, that a complete ceasefire in the region should be the next?
The humanitarian crisis has dominated your Lordships' debate, and it is right that it has. It will not have escaped the House's notice in the context that the political initiative is based on IGAD, which is a development authority. This shows how desperate the economic situation in the Sudan is and how long it has gone on. The economic infrastructure of southern Sudan is in ruins because of the civil war, while the northern part of the country is ravaged by inflation and commodity shortages. Millions of people are dependent on aid as their lives are disrupted by the war. Some have livestock stolen and crops destroyed, while others are forced to flee the fighting and live as refugees. All of this is on top of the challenges of farming in a region which is prone to drought and desertification.
The previous government suspended all but emergency aid for the Sudan in 1991. I very much hope that the Government will continue this policy and will ensure that the aid is disbursed by NGOs and the United Nations' "Operation Lifeline Sudan". Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to increase the current levels of humanitarian assistance to this region? Can the Minister also say what steps are being taken to ensure that aid is not used as a tool of war by the different factions as they manipulate the flow of aid to complement their military strategies?
Even if an end to the war can be achieved, there remains much to be done before the Government of the Sudan can shake off their pariah status. Everyone agrees that freedom of speech and religion is seriously restricted in Sudan. Amnesty International is rightly outspoken in its condemnation of the Khartoum Government, which it says runs a policy of,
"detention without charge or trial and the ill treatment of political prisoners in the North—
Can the Minister confirm that hundreds of political opponents of the government have been imprisoned in this way, with the most recent mass detentions taking
1232
place at the beginning of this year? Will the Minister also take advantage of the debate today to join me in praising the work of organisations such as Amnesty International which campaign for the release of these prisoners?
The Sudanese Government's actions should remind the House of the real nature of the regime. The presidential and parliamentary elections held in 1996 were not free or fair. Does the Minister agree that the most serious abuses of human rights are related to the civil war and that there is overwhelming evidence that both the government and rebel forces are using brutal methods to achieve their aims?
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, a special rapporteur from the UN Commission on Human Rights investigated reported abuses and recently reached some conclusions. I will not rehearse the rapporteur's recommendations, which were so ably and competently outlined to the House by the noble Lord this evening. Can the Minister tell us the Government's position on those conclusions and update the House on the rapporteur's most recent work?
The question of terrorism and United States sanctions is very important and well known to the House. British trade with the Sudan is small, but has the Minister received representations from British firms doing business in the Sudan? Can she confirm that they will not be penalised at a later stage by the US Government should those firms conduct business in the United States?
I believe that this debate has served a useful purpose. It has enabled many Members of this House to show their deep commitment to the Sudan and its people. I pay tribute, for example, to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has worked tirelessly to bring the world's attention to the country and its sufferings.
I remind the Minister that the UN General Assembly resolution sponsored by Britain and condemning the Sudan has not, to my knowledge, been tabled. It would be a strange turn of events for a government who inform the world of their foreign policy with an ethical dimension at its centre to forget to condemn the Khartoum Government in the way that their predecessors did.
Finally, we all hope that one day we shall be able to send messages of congratulations to a democratic, peaceful and stable country. In the meantime it is incumbent on the Government to continue to work with international partners to bring relief to those who are suffering, to help pave the way towards the resolution of the civil war and to let the Khartoum Government know that we shall keep up the pressure until it accepts democracy and respects human rights.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I too add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for introducing the debate this evening. I also add my congratulations to those extended to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford on his very fine maiden speech. I thought it was clear-sighted and compassionate—two highly

1233
prized virtues in speeches in your Lordships' House. I am sure that we all look forward to many more such powerful and impressive contributions from the right reverend Prelate in the future.
The current situation in Sudan is tragic and complex, but regrettably not new. Nor is the suffering in that country new. The revolt by much of the south of the country, Christian, Muslim and Animist, against the north has, in its latest incarnation, lasted now for 14 years. Today, the main southern rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, control much of the south. There is a general expectation that they will soon try to capture Juba, the principal city of the south. That may well unleash further human suffering in a region which has already seen too much of it.
The revolt in the south was sparked by Nimeri's abolition of the south's regional government and the imposition of Sharia law, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. But its roots lay in the persistent refusal of the north of Sudan to treat the south of the country fairly, going back to the time of independence.
The conflict has been complicated, first, by tribal and other divisions between southerners, and also by the coup which brought the current regime to power. The parties of the previous democratically elected government have formed, with the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the National Democratic Alliance, of which your Lordships' House has often heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The National Democratic Alliance has undertaken military operations against the current Sudanese Government in eastern Sudan. The conflict has thus become more than simply north versus south, although it was never really that.
There have, of course, been a number of attempts to stop the war. The most recent initiatives have been on two tracks. The Inter-Governmental Authority for Development, as it is now called, launched an initiative in September 1993 to mediate an end to the civil war in southern Sudan. Five meetings with the parties were held in 1994 and two in 1995. In May 1994 IGAD adopted a Declaration of Principles for the settlement of the conflict, including the right of self-determination for all Sudanese and separation between religion and state. The Government of Sudan rejected the Declaration of Principles. The previous administration, along with the governments of the Netherlands, Norway, Italy and the United States, formed the Friends of IGAD to support IGAD's efforts.
The IGAD process ground to a halt in May 1995 in the face of the Sudanese Government's rejection of the Declaration of Principles. The Friends of IGAD, and latterly the IGAD Partners Forum, has continued to encourage the IGAD process but has not attempted to replace it. The IGAD Partners Forum has repeated the offers of material assistance to the IGAD secretariat.
The Government of Sudan has meanwhile pursued a separate track of "peace from within". In April 1996 it signed a political charter with a number of the smaller southern armed groups. It followed this with the Khartoum Peace Agreement of April 1997 to which the
1234
noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred. That agreement promises respect for human rights and a referendum on self-determination after an interim period of four years.
Under military and diplomatic pressure, in July of this year the Government of Sudan agreed to renewed IGAD talks on the basis of the IGAD Declaration of Principles. The first round of such talks was held in Kenya from 29th October to 11th November. A further session is scheduled for next April, with contacts continuing in the meantime. I was asked during the course of the debate whether we had to wait until April next year. I assure your Lordships that the contacts are continuing between November and April.
We believe that the regional approach offers the best chance of a comprehensive settlement to the conflict in Sudan that the people of Sudan need so much. I say "a comprehensive settlement" because the conflict in Sudan is about more than north versus south. A number of ethnic groups, including the Nuba and Beja, have joined the struggle against Khartoum. A settlement that did not take into account their position and that of the other parties in the National Democratic Alliance would be unsatisfactory. The Government therefore continue to support firmly the IGAD process.
My honourable friend the Minister of State made clear our welcome for the renewed talks in the IGAD framework on 30th September. We were a party to the EU statement of welcome and encouragement at the start of the talks. We have been in touch with the parties to those talks, urging that they approach the talks constructively and in good faith. We applaud the renewed engagement of President Moi and the Kenyan Government in the search for peace in the Sudan.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, said that he is a supporter of the peace agreement signed in Khartoum in April. Indeed, he has organised, as he said, a seminar to promote that agreement, to be held tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for the Government's views.
I agree that the April peace agreement contains some positive language. Those southerners who have signed it believe that it offers a good settlement, with a referendum on independence after four years, as the noble Lord indicated. But it is not yet an agreement with the Government's main opponent. The SPLA prefer to negotiate through the IGAD process. That caution is perhaps understandable in the light of the history of disappointed hopes from other peace initiatives.
The British Government and the international community viewed the April agreement with interest. But we have yet to be sufficiently convinced by the April agreement to advocate it warmly. The Government made it clear to the Government of Sudan that the parties to that agreement must implement its provisions on human rights and improve its treatment of southerners if they wish to convince the international community that their intentions are genuine rather than tactical. Unfortunately, we remain to be convinced.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asks also about the historic links between the United Kingdom and the Sudan. There remains, an abiding affection in Sudan for the UK and concern about our opinion; continuing links

1235
of history and language that should make us natural partners. In the United Kingdom there is a continuing interest and concern for the Sudanese people, as your Lordships' contributions this evening have evidenced. That can be seen in the activities of the many Church groups interested in the Sudan; in the continuing efforts of the Sudan Pensioners Association to raise funds for the Sudan over 40 years after independence; and in the large mailbag about human rights and the civil war in Sudan which my department receives in spite of limited media coverage on the subject.
But such relationships, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, are primarily about peoples, not necessarily about governments. We would be betraying the trust of the majority of the Sudanese people, who have not chosen their government, if our relationship with the government of Sudan was uncritical. I must say frankly to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that to do so we would have to ignore our grave concerns and those of many noble Lords who have spoken in our debate this evening about the human rights abuses in Sudan, north and south, and about the Sudanese Government's refusal to countenance multi-party democracy; about that government's involvement with terrorist groups and regional insurgencies that threaten its neighbours; and about the aggressive way that the government of Sudan has pursued the civil war.
We cannot do that. We have made clear our concern about those issues and our need to see real improvements if bilateral relations are to improve. Our concerns are shared by our EU partners: there is an EU arms embargo on Sudan and EU partners have joined us in co-sponsoring resolutions on human rights in Sudan at the United Nations.
But there is no question that we have in any sense abandoned Sudan. We maintain an Embassy in Khartoum where our Ambassador works hard to maintain links and also to report and lobby on human rights issues. There is a British Council office and library in Khartoum. There is a Department for International Development providing relief assistance to those in greatest need in Sudan, north or south.
Indeed, the United Kingdom is one of the biggest donors, giving £135 million to Sudan and Sudanese refugees through Operation Lifeline since 1991. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether we intended to increase that aid. We are willing to consider increases, should they be necessary, and are supporting the interventions through a number of NGOs mentioned in your Lordships' House this evening, particularly Oxfam, Care, the British Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières. We will continue to keep that under review.
Moreover, a senior official from my department visited Sudan in July for discussions with the Sudanese both for and against the government. We keep open links also with the Sudanese opposition. My honourable friend the Minister of State has, in the past seven months, met former Prime Minister Sadiq al Mahdi and NDA leader Muhammed Osman al Mirghani as well as the Sudanese Ambassador. And we maintain links with NGOs with an interest in Sudan and with the UN Commission for Human Rights about the proposal to establish a UN human rights monitors in Sudan.
1236
The United Nations Security Council last year introduced visa restrictions on members and officials of the Sudanese Government and of its armed forces. We have abided conscientiously by those restrictions. We of course make exceptions for humanitarian and compassionate reasons; and to facilitate contacts designed to bring about an end to the civil war. The historical relationship means that those targeted by the sanctions are sometimes particularly anxious to travel to London. Our implementation of the UN restrictions means that they cannot. That is not a negation of the historical relationship. Rather it is both an example of the importance we attach to the Security Council and a mark of the seriousness with which we take state involvement with terrorism.
Many noble Lords mentioned sanctions. The UN sanctions on Sudan are diplomatic and visa sanctions. There is no humanitarian impact. The case for an end to the sanctions rides solely on the issue of compliance. The Government of Sudan have complied neither with the demands to hand over three suspects nor, substantively, with demands that they cease support to terrorism.
We heard conflicting views from the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on the one hand, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, among others, on the other in relation to persecution of Christians and the possibilities of the Government of Sudan being involved with slavery. There is perhaps a way that we will get a little closer to the truth where we might all be able to use the same text. We remain concerned about the repeated refusal of the Government of Sudan to allow access to a number of locations in Sudan. The UK strongly supports the efforts of the UN to continue to press the Government of Sudan to lift their restrictions and allow humanitarian assistance to be delivered to all people in Sudan who are in urgent need. That would have the added merit of ensuring that we were able to see first hand what is really going on in relation to some of the points where your Lordships' House has not been able to agree.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked a number of questions. I am afraid the clock is against me and perhaps I may reply to the noble Earl in writing on the important points he raised on Kenya and the effect of sanctions on humanitarian aid, though I believe I was able to cover some of those in my reply so far.
The noble Lord's Question is wide-ranging, but in essence he would like Her Majesty's Government to be more sympathetic to the Sudanese Government. We would certainly like to have political relations with Khartoum commensurate with the historical relationship between our two countries; but that is very difficult while the authorities in Khartoum pursue policies that are so much at odds with our legitimate concerns.
I stress that the Islamic nature of the government in Khartoum is not a problem: the Government are keen to build understanding between the West and the Islamic world. But the policies of the government of Khartoum towards their own citizens, and towards neighbouring countries, make it very difficult for us to build that stronger relationship.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.

  Scotland: Inward Investment
  Scotland: Inward Investment
  UN Special Commission (UNSCOM)
  UN Special Commission (UNSCOM)
  No Fly Zones, Iraq
  No Fly Zones, Iraq
  Iraq Sanctions: US Policy
  Iraq Sanctions: US Policy
  Northern Iraq: Turkish Military Action
  Northern Iraq: Turkish Military Action
  UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Anglo-Russian Centres: Annual Report
  Anglo-Russian Centres: Annual Report
  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  General Affairs Council, 24–25 November
  General Affairs Council, 24–25 November
  Railway Ownership
  Railway Ownership
  Sparrow Population, London
  Sparrow Population, London
  Trawler "Gaul"
  Trawler "Gaul"
  Damage to Countryside by Four-wheel Drive Vehicles
  Damage to Countryside by Four-wheel Drive Vehicles
  Protease Inhibitors and the Honey Bee
  Protease Inhibitors and the Honey Bee
  Equine Sales in the EU: VAT
  Equine Sales in the EU: VAT
  The Horse: EU Classification
  The Horse: EU Classification
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Young Offenders: Interval between Arrest and Sentence
  Young Offenders: Interval between Arrest and Sentence
  Firearms Act 1968
  Firearms Act 1968
  Victoria Tower: Union Flag
  Victoria Tower: Union Flag
  Eliminating World Poverty: Discussions
  Eliminating World Poverty: Discussions
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Medical Treatment: Advance Directives
  Medical Treatment: Advance Directives
  UNSCOM: Reserve Forces Volunteers
  UNSCOM: Reserve Forces Volunteers
  Museum Entrance Charge Data
  Museum Entrance Charge Data
  MGN plc: Flotation
  MGN plc: Flotation
  Life Insurance Companies: Breakdown of Assets
  Life Insurance Companies: Breakdown of Assets