Sitting of 16 December 1997

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

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Miller: If he will make a statement on his review of the mechanism of local government finance. [19393]
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We announced the review of local government finance in July, taking forward our manifesto commitments, in close collaboration with local government, business and other representative organisations. We shall shortly consult more widely on possible changes and set out our proposals on local government in a White Paper next spring.
  Mr. Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and assure him that the long-overdue review of local government finance is widely welcomed in my constituency. When progressing towards greater localisation of the business rate, will he take into account the views of the business community?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. He will recall that, in our manifesto, we said that there were sound reasons why domestic rates should be decided locally. Any system must command the support of the business community, which is why we are consulting both the business community and local authorities about how we shall achieve that.
  Mr. Yeo: As this year's local government financial settlement was clearly designed to penalise certain inner-London boroughs, as well as councils that serve rural areas and those that have prudently repaid their debt, will the Secretary of State now confirm that the aim of his review is simply to give more cash to Labour councils, no matter how incompetent or corrupt they may be?
  Mr. Prescott: No, I cannot accept the conclusion drawn by the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of this Government is to be fair in determining local authority financing, and we spelt out precisely how that was so in
  112
  the recent settlement which we brought to the House. I am bound to say that most local authorities have accepted our conclusions.
  Mr. Barnes: There were two great Tory fiddles over local government finance when they were in government. One was the area cost adjustment and the weighting given to that figure to top-slice sums from shire counties. The other, affecting district councils in particular, was the enhanced population figures. Those meant that places such as Westminster and certain seaside resorts received excessive sums because of the people who moved into those areas; whereas areas such as north-east Derbyshire, where people had moved away for work purposes, lost out considerably. Will those matters be taken into account in the forthcoming review? I hope so.
  Mr. Prescott: I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we shall do. As I recall, during the statement on local authority financing, he mentioned a different sort of formula, which we are quite prepared to discuss with him during the review, and we await his contacting us.

  New Housing (Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin: What representations he has received on the need for new housing in rural Essex. [19394]
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Secretary of State has received representations from the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Officials in the Government office for the east region hold frequent discussions with local authorities and other bodies on housing and planning issues in Essex.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that an extra 45,000 houses in a handful of parliamentary constituencies that are predominantly rural represents an unwarranted intrusion of urban building into the rural area? With our roads already clogged with traffic and severe water shortages, is not what is required completely new thinking on how to deal with housing demand in the south-east, rather than sprawling estates destroying communities and our countryside?
  Mr. Caborn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that has not happened in the past seven months and that some of the problems existed during the previous Administration. More important, the county council's proposals for the scale and distribution of new houses in Essex will be the subject of full public scrutiny. It is not central Government who determine those matters—they are determined at regional and local level.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Minister accept that Essex already has one of the highest housing densities in the country, and that the projections for the next 10 to 15 years show that that density will grow more than that of any other county, apart from Devon? Does he therefore agree that we should look to regional distribution of new housing and concentrate on urban renewal and brown-field site development, instead of continually going for green-field sites in the towns as well as the countryside?
  Mr. Caborn: The Government subscribe to that general point of view, and we are working hard to achieve

  113
  those objectives. The previous Administration issued a consultation paper, and we are reflecting on the 700 responses to it. The Government will make our position clear early in the new year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Greenway: What estimate he has made of the likely levels of council tax bills in shire districts in 1998–99. [19395]
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): For the first time in four years, we have increased provision for services delivered by shire districts. I cannot predict the actual council tax levels for shire districts in 1998–99, as those will depend on the spending decisions of individual local authorities.
  Mr. Greenway: Why are the Government robbing rural areas? Does the Minister realise that, if the North Yorkshire county council is to meet the Government's target for school budgets, it will be forced to spend not to standard spending assessment but to the cap limit'? That will involve a 14 per cent. increase in council tax. Does that not show that the Government's claim to have funded the schools spending increase is a complete sham; and will not voters blame the Government when they get a council tax rise of four times the rate of inflation?
  Ms Armstrong: This year, for, the first time, the additional money is being directly funded by central Government and has gone to every education authority. Ultimately, those decisions are local ones. It is at local level that councils will decide what quality of services they are prepared to provide for the amount that local people are prepared to pay. By contrast with last year, the additional spending on education has been provided by Government grant to local authorities.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the shire of Northumberland faces an 18 per cent. Increase—which is even worse than what the Tories gave us for 18 years? Is the Minister prepared to meet a delegation from the shire county council to discuss those matters?
  Ms Armstrong: Of course I shall—or at least I shall have a meeting with all authorities that want one. We are encouraging many of them to save council tax payers' money by holding their meetings via video conferencing. That is better than making the time-consuming and costly journey to London from Northumberland.
  I can assure the House that we shall hold proper discussions with authorities. I remind my hon. Friend that the money for education, including Northumberland's, has been funded directly by central Government. The previous Administration, in their spending targets for this year, included a redistribution from central to local government that would have meant an increase of 7 per cent. in council tax—but the actual amount is up to each local authority.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister cannot shuffle off responsibility, not even by videolink. Will she accept that the Government's settlement has discriminated against shire districts? The result will be that council tax bills will average over 10 per cent., with some councils forced to
  114
  go even higher—as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has just pointed out. Does that not go back on Labour's promise to be fair to the shire areas?
  Ms Armstrong: The shire districts have been treated more generously this year than for the previous four years, so I shall take no lessons on that from those on the Conservative Benches. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the Conservative party said to its members last year. In a question and answer programme, it was asked:
  "Is Labour right to claim that the Chancellor is paying for national tax cuts by increasing local taxes?"
  The Conservative research department answered:
  "No. The Chancellor does not set local taxes: that is a job for local authorities. For its part, the Government has provided a fair settlement."
  This year, an even fairer and more generous settlement has been provided. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman shouts and cries, but he knows that the previous Government delivered a poor deal for local government and we are trying, in seven months, to put right the poverty of 18 years.
  Mr. Tipping: Did not the previous Government have a deliberate policy of transferring responsibility for council tax from central Government grants to local council tax payers? Will the Minister confirm that the previous Government predicted council tax increases of 7 to 8 per cent?
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Moreover, the additional money that the Government have put into education this year is equivalent to £50 protection per council tax payer, because it comes directly from central Government and the burden is not being put on council tax payers.

  Kyoto Conference
  Mr. Brake: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the climate change conference in Kyoto. [19396]
  Mr. Bayley: If he will make a statement about Government policy on climate change. [19402]
  Mr. Prescott: The Government are committed to tackling the threat of climate change, and the role that we played in securing a deal in Kyoto demonstrated that to the world. I shall make a statement to the House on the outcome of the Kyoto conference after these questions.
  Mr. Brake: I welcome the fact that a statement will be made later today. However, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how the appointment of Keith Taylor of Esso—who is on record as being extremely dismissive about global warming—to the Government's cleaner vehicles task force will help the Government achieve their 20 per cent. reduction target?
  Mr. Prescott: I do not know enough about the individual referred to, but, before the Kyoto conference, we met business men at a summit at No. 10, and they made it absolutely clear that they supported the Government's objectives, wanted to talk to us after

  115
  the Kyoto agreement, and believed that, if the Government could provide leadership, they would be prepared to follow a practical policy. That is precisely what we are doing and together we shall achieve the objectives that we agreed in Kyoto.
  Mr. Bayley: I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister's shuttle diplomacy, without which there would have been no agreement whatever at the Kyoto conference. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rich countries such as Britain face a simple choice: pay now to cut greenhouse gas emissions; or pay later to clear up the mess of flooding in coastal areas and crop failures? Will he give the House a clear assurance that, even though other countries have not signed up to our ambitious target of a 20 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the Labour Government will stick to that target?
  Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. I shall wait for the statement to give the details to the House, but let me just say that it is not all about pain; it is about gain, making things an awful lot more efficient and making people's quality of life much better. My hon. Friend must bear in mind the fact that the developed countries produce more than 50 per cent. of greenhouse gases, and Kyoto was about making the first down payment on their contribution. It was a successful formula.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I recognise and welcome the Government's commitment to cut emissions by 20 per cent., based on 1990 figures, by 2010. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should come clean in another sense and tell the House precisely what additional measures he will take to ensure that that objective is reached? If he cannot do that now, will he mention it in his statement?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, I shall refer to the matter in the statement later.

  Local Government Finance
  Jane Griffiths: What representations he has received in response to the changes in economic and social needs indices announced in the 1998–99 local government settlement. [19397]
  Ms Armstrong: We have received a number of representations from local authorities and others in response to the changes in the economic and social needs indices announced in the provisional 1998–99 local government finance settlement.
  Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that, following this year's local government settlement, the two very different shire district authorities that form part of my constituency of Reading, East—urban, Labour-controlled Reading, which has a number of social need and deprivation indicators, and suburban and semi-rural Wokingham, which has few—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—not reading—have received help with the difficult and costly transition to unitary authority status?
  Ms Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that different authorities have very
  116
  different needs, and it is right that those needs should be properly reflected when we consider the allocation of money to those authorities. The economic and social indices used by the previous Administration were believed and trusted by no one. We have tackled that as an important part of achieving fairness this year, as can be seen in the results for Wokingham and Reading.
  Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister bear in mind the need for eventual changes in the area cost adjustment, in the light of the Elliot report? Does she accept that, although we may generously allow her and the new Government a year to review the situation, by this time next year counties that do not benefit from that adjustment, such as Northamptonshire, will be looking for action?
  Ms Armstrong: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will allow me at least one year. He was prepared to allow his Government a lot longer—I know that they struggled with the area cost adjustment for every year that I have been in the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have announced further research into the area cost adjustment, and we shall return to the matter next year.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for the Government's generous contribution to local government in the form of education funding. Will she take note of the fact that local government care for the elderly still faces substantial need? In view of the new challenges confronting local government in looking after the elderly, when she considers the formula for 1998–99, will she give special consideration to the social needs facing many local authorities, especially my local authority, Wakefield?
  Ms Armstrong: The settlement this year included a final transitional amount of £350 million for community care. Also, this year we changed the SSA for social services for the elderly. I recognised, as did my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when he made the statement, that, although we had got a better and fairer settlement, it was a tough settlement for local government. It will take us some time to begin to catch up on the 18 years of deficit.
  Mr. Lansley: When he plans to meet representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss the 1998–99 settlement. [19400]
  Ms Armstrong: I am currently planning to meet them on Wednesday 14 January.
  Mr. Lansley: When the Minister meets the Local Government Association, will she explain why, when the Deputy Prime Minister said that the purpose of his statement was fairness, the Government proceeded with the rampant unfairness of not implementing the changes to the area cost adjustment that were promised by the Prime Minister to the Cambridge Evening News in April this year before the election? Cambridgeshire has the lowest SSA per head of any shire county, and the failure to implement the review means that Cambridgeshire is not properly compensated for the cost of providing services.
  Ms Armstrong: As I have already said this afternoon, there has been less agreement about, and less support across local government for, area cost adjustment than any

  117
  other single issue. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has tried to make changes this year that can be upheld properly and credibly. Those changes have general support across local government—even if individual authorities have not benefited from them.
  There is no consensus or agreement regarding the area cost adjustment and the Elliot review, and we are not able to achieve that at present. Therefore, we have commissioned additional research into actual costs and we shall examine that matter, together with all other suggestions, with local government next year. We gave a commitment that we shall examine whatever changes are proposed, but those changes must be robust and must stand the test of time.
  Mr. Hoyle: Can the Minister explain the concept of fairness, as Chorley is the only council in the north-west that has suffered the double blow of reductions in SSA and in revenue support grant? Could there have been a mistake? Will the Minister hold an urgent meeting with the local authority—around the table and not by video link?
  Ms Armstrong: Any change always means that there are winners and, unfortunately, losers. I predicted that outcome before the settlement: it was bound to happen. I shall, of course, be happy to meet Chorley council. I am simply trying to make life easier for it and for council tax payers by suggesting a simpler method. However, we want to ensure that every authority is treated fairly within a formula and a set of formulae that achieve general agreement across local government and in this place.
  Mr. Burstow: When the Minister meets the Local Government Association in January, will she take the opportunity to reassure it that the Government have no plans to ask local authorities to provide services to disabled people while scrapping the disability living allowance to pay for that?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is pushing his luck: Social Security questions were yesterday. I assume that he missed being called then. We are of course keen to work with local government and to discuss a wide range of topics with it. I am sure that the Local Government Association will bring many matters before me on 14.January.
  Mr. MacShane: In her meetings with the Local Government Association, will the Minister assure the House that she will convey a message of partnership and of respect for the work of our 12,000-odd local councillors? Such an approach would be in stark contrast to that of the Conservatives, who, for 18 years, patronised, derided and sneered at them, and treated them as the enemy within. Services provided locally are a vital part of the community, and everyone—certainly those in my constituency of Rotherham—is delighted to see a Minister finally treating local government as an equal partner.
  Ms Armstrong: We meet local government representatives on a regular basis because we believe that local government is a legitimate and proper democratic tier of government. It ill behoves hon. Members in this place to criticise the behaviour and activities of those at
  118
  another level of government. It is important for all who believe in democracy to support local government and achieve the best service at local, as well as central, level.
  Sir Norman Fowler: If the Minister believes that, will she accept that, in addition to the other costs imposed by the Government, the Chancellor's pension tax is currently costing local authorities £300 million a year? Why will the Government not tell local authorities who will bear that cost?
  Ms Armstrong: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman obviously has not been able to keep up with the level of on-going negotiations between central and local government. The Local Government Association is currently conducting a survey to establish what the precise cost will be. [Interruption.] There is no point seeking to guess the survey's findings when they have not yet been delivered. No one in local government has yet formulated the cost. We have agreed that when that cost is known and when we are aware of the actuarial costs of the revaluation, those factors will be taken into account next year during the settlement process.
  Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the improvements that have been made to the standard spending assessment system this year? Will she accept also that the people of St. Helens will be laughing in the aisles to hear Conservative Members talk about fairness when their Government introduced a system that meant that Westminster, which has the same population as St. Helens, received far more grant than St. Helens? If St. Helens had received the same level of grant as Westminster, no council tax would have been levied. Indeed, we would have been able to give a £1,000 rebate to every member of the St. Helens community.
  Ms Armstrong: As I have already said, the changes that we have made in the SSA this year were arrived at after full consultation with local government during the summer. It was widely accepted that changes in the economic and financial indices and those related to commuters and visitors would make the system much fairer. I accept that there is still more work to be done, but I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition that this year's settlement is much fairer and better than those arrived at in previous years.

  Decentralisation
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: If he will make a statement on progress towards decentralisation of government within England. [19401]
  Mr. Caborn: On 3 December, we published our White Paper entitled "Building Partnerships for Prosperity", which outlined our proposals for regional development agencies. We see RDAs as the first step on the way to establishing greater decentralisation of government within England.
  Mr. Kennedy: As part of the regional development agencies strategy, will the Minister revisit and reconsider the future role, remit and, most important of all, the budget of the Rural Development Commission? There is a profound sense of anxiety throughout rural England

  119
  especially that, effectively, the commission is being dismantled by the Government. It is feared that the budget will not be transferred fully towards the sort of projects that benefit particularly the west country, Yorkshire and elsewhere, as under the present arrangements.
  It must be said that the attitude adopted by the Deputy Prime Minister when he introduced the White Paper offered no reassurance. Will the Government revisit this issue? There is a profound sense in rural Britain that we have an urban Government with urban attitudes, who are not sensitive to the interests of rural Britain.
  Mr. Caborn: First, it is unfortunate that, obviously, the hon. Gentleman has not read the White Paper and the Bill. Secondly, I do not know where he is obtaining his information. I say that in response to the White Paper on rural communities. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that we are bringing forward a comprehensive spending review of the rural areas. Discussion is starting, and that will give reassurance to the rural communities that they will have a far better deal than they would have received under the fragmented arrangements that were operating over the past decade or more.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give guidance and direction to regional development agencies so that they might address disparities within regions? For example, East Anglia is often seen as a relatively prosperous region, yet, within it, especially Lowestoft in my constituency, there are high and sustained levels of unemployment. There are levels of deprivation that have been described by the director of public health as being comparable to those of inner cities. There are large areas of derelict industrial land which are in need of regeneration. Will my hon. Friend ask regional development agencies to take up those problems?
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend knows that the object of the exercise is to decentralise power from the centre down to the regions. We have made it clear that decentralisation must take place also within the regions. Overheating of some parts of the economy and under-utilisation in other parts is unacceptable and is an economic model that was left by the previous Administration. The result was that only two of the 10 English regions achieved the European average of gross domestic product per capita. Only two regions marginally reached the average. By definition, eight regions were well behind. Cornwall achieved only 69 per cent. of GDP per capita. That is the legacy of the past 18 years of Tory government.
  Mr. Townend: Does the Minister accept that where I come from—East Yorkshire—there is no demand for another tier of government, no demand for a regional assembly and no demand for the extra bureaucrats and politicians who will have to be paid for by the taxpayer? The people of East Yorkshire do not want to be run from Leeds or, even worse, from Manchester.
  Mr. Caborn: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes back and discusses it with some of his colleagues in the Conservative party in the north, because they are very active members of the Yorkshire assembly. Led by the Conservatives, and with the Liberals and the Labour party, they have formed a Yorkshire assembly. I suggest that he gets in touch with the grass roots of his party.

  Rail Fares
  Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement about the regulation of fare levels for rail passengers. [19423]
  The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Fares regulation is a matter for the franchising director. The current requirements are set out in the director's contracts with the train operating companies. We intend to establish a national rail authority which will take over the functions of the franchising director and develop the network as part of our integrated transport policy.
  Ann Clwyd: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that with cut-price air fares it is now possible to fly the Atlantic for the same price as going by rail to Pembroke? And why does a train ticket last for only one month when a return air ticket lasts for three months?
  Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. If we are to get more people to travel by rail, which is our objective, fares are an important factor. The duration of rail tickets is also a matter that should be considered.
  Mr. Ottaway: Does the Minister agree that the success of the privatised railways represents the best way of getting passengers off the roads? [Interruption.] Wait for it. Is the Minister aware that the cheapest return ticket to Liverpool is £19? That is half the cost of a car journey. By holding their fares at less than inflation, the railways have seen a 7 per cent. increase in passenger use since privatisation. Is it not ironic that the only bit of railway line that the Government control—London Underground—is the only one which has seen a fare increase above inflation? What does that say to the travelling public?
  Dr. Strang: I do not think that the British people will recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the privatised and fragmented railway that the Labour Government inherited. That is why we are determined to set up a national rail authority and to achieve effective regulation so that the taxpayer gets value for money.
  Mr. Pike: Is it not a fact that as a result of the fragmentation of the railway system passengers are very often not offered the cheapest rail ticket for their journey? Do we not need greater regulation to ensure that passengers get the best possible value and are offered the cheapest possible ticket when they go to buy one?
  Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be aware that a recent survey showed that as many as one in 10 people are not given accurate information when they seek information about a journey, the best way to travel or the price. We need to address that. It is vital, especially now that we have one telephone number for national rail inquiries, that people are given proper information when they inquire.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: If he will make a statement on the contribution of transport policy to the (a) Government's carbon dioxide reduction targets and (b) the Government's commitments made at the Kyoto conference. [19424]
  Mr. Prescott: As the Kyoto negotiations have now been completed, I shall be making a statement shortly.
  Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that "In Trust for Tomorrow" promised a detailed environmental statement on the Government's new legislation and major policy announcements? As the Government's White Paper on transport will be vital to their strategy, will he ensure that there is an assessment of its impact, including a carbon budget, so that we can judge how the policies are intended to meet the Government's carbon dioxide reduction target?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes.

  A34 (Noise Pollution)
  Dr. Harris: What representations he has received on the noise pollution caused by the surface of the A34 passing by Gosford, Watereaton, Islip and Kidlington; and if he will make a statement. [19425]
  Dr. Strang: I have received numerous representations requesting that this section of road be resurfaced to reduce traffic noise. Traffic noise is one of the issues being addressed by the wide-ranging transport review that we are undertaking at present.
  Dr. Harris: Will the Minister consider holding a meeting with me and others to discuss the measures necessary to reduce noise on that road? Does he agree that one reason why the surface is the noisiest in Britain is the use of too-deep brushing for surfacing, which was recognised as a problem but not legislated against when the road was built?
  Dr. Strang: The level of noise is certainly greater than was predicted by the Transport Research Laboratory when the road was built, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that serious traffic noise occurs in many other parts of the country. However, if he would like to discuss the matter with me I shall be delighted to see him.

  Bridges and Trunk Roads
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: What is his Department's policy towards the maintenance of bridges and trunk roads; and if he will make a statement. [19426]
  Dr. Strang: Our priority is to maintain public safety through a cost-effective programme of capital maintenance, to provide an effective, reliable and environmentally acceptable trunk road network.
  Later this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be announcing the Department's spending plans for next year. They will include a substantial increase in money available for the maintenance of the trunk road network.
  Mr. Robertson: I remind the Minister that it is extremely important to maintain bridges. I understand that
  122
  Gloucestershire is bidding for help to strengthen its bridges and that failure to provide such help will lead to the imposition of weight restrictions and great disruption, not only around those areas but to the local economies. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into account?
  Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As he is aware, we are due to accept the heavier lorries on 1 January 1999, so it is vital that the bridges are up to strength. I can assure him that the Government are determined to achieve that for the bridges on the trunk road network.
  Mr. Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the national road condition survey showed a deterioration in the condition of motorways and trunk roads in 1996? Does he agree that his Tory predecessors failed to give sufficient priority to expenditure to maintain the condition of the motorway and trunk road network?
  Dr. Strang: Yes, I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for raising that. We inherited a neglected maintenance programme and we are putting that right. Conservative Members must understand that the neglect of road maintenance means that in the long run more money is paid out because one has to pay for the corrective work and for the overall maintenance as well.
  Mr. Chope: The right hon. Gentleman is not right to say that road maintenance was neglected by the previous Government. At the beginning of this year, a report confirmed that the condition of the road network had improved significantly under the Conservative Government. Where is the right hon. Gentleman getting the extra money to invest further in road maintenance? Is it at the expense of other Department of Transport programmes? He has made much of the fact that he inherited a budget from the previous Government which gives him no flexibility, but he seems by his announcement to be saying that he has found some flexibility. I should like to know at whose expense.
  Dr. Strang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that our approach is no longer automatically to build new roads. The challenge is to use our existing road space and road network more effectively. That is why we are determined to improve maintenance.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I suggest that he reads the evidence given to the Select Committee about a year ago, when the then Minister for Railways and Roads admitted that the Government were failing to maintain the trunk road network adequately and, furthermore, that the Government had failed to provide adequate money for the maintenance of the network. That is why we have so substantially increased it, as the hon. Gentleman will see later this afternoon.

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with the railway inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. [19427]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive officials, including the chief inspector of railways, on 16 October. We made it clear that the Government look to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, as the railway safety regulators, to ensure that safety standards are maintained and, indeed, improved.
  Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that railways in Britain have some of the highest safety standards in the world? Is she aware of the remark made by the chief inspector of railways that if the railway companies were allowed to do what they wanted, safety standards would go down? Will she take steps to ensure that they are not allowed to do what they want?
  Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This issue was highlighted in the Health and Safety Executive's most recent report, which fired a warning shot across the bows of railway companies, saying that they must not put commercial considerations ahead of safety. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made it clear in his response to the Health and Safety Executive's report that the Government share and endorse that view.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: We welcome that assurance. Will the Minister examine closely an excellent ten-minute Bill introduced in the House not long ago which proposed a national authority for transport safety, with the right of individuals to make known any breaches of safety at any level in any transport authority and to have them investigated?
  Ms Jackson: I was privileged to be in the House when that ten-minute Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with her usual perspicacity, wit, information and intelligence. The Government's approach to safety has less to do with structures than with vital regulation, regardless of mode, which we believe will ensure safety. Existing safety structures allow individuals to raise their concerns if they perceive a lapse or deterioration in safety.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Perhaps I may intervene in this love-in for 30 seconds. Will the Minister confirm that railways remain one of the safest ways of travel in this country and that there is no evidence privatisation has led to a reduction in safety standards? If we want more people to travel by rail—as I assume everyone does—we should emphasis that achievement and not snipe at it.
  Ms Jackson: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman's opening remark was not touched with a tinge of the green-eyed monster. If he wishes to be part of a love-in, I am sure that arrangements can be made.
  The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the safety standard of railways as a means of surface transport is very high, but it would be wrong for this or any other Government to ignore what the Health and Safety Executive said in its most recent report. I repeat that it fired a shot across the bows of the privatised companies and highlighted the fact that they must not sacrifice safety
  124
  standards for what may seem to them to be a short-term financial advantage. The Government strongly endorse and support that approach.
  Mr. Snape: Does my hon. Friend accept that I possess none of the virtues attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? Does she also accept that the railways inspectorate has for many years commanded the respect of all those involved in the railway industry? Will she ensure that in future legal involvement in railway accidents follows rather than precedes the inspectorate's report? The less legal involvement early on in a railway inquiry, the more likely we are to find the truth behind those accidents.
  Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend somewhat disappoints me. I had intended to say that I was second to none in my admiration for the contributions—based on expertise and experience—that he inevitably and invariably makes to debates on this subject. I hear what he says, but I am sure he would agree that although there are very few serious accidents on our railways, on occasion the police, for example, are involved in the resulting examination. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes a valid point and, as always, we shall give due consideration to what he has said.

  Road Infrastructure Improvements
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the improvements that his Department assesses to be required in the trunk road and motorway infrastructure. [19428]
  Dr. Strang: Future improvements to the trunk road network are being considered in the roads review, which is part of the integrated transport policy review.
  Mr. Winterton: I think that everyone accepts that an integrated transport policy is of the greatest importance to the country, not only environmentally but in respect of value for money. Does the Minister accept, however, that trunk road and motorway improvement projects are vital to the on-going economic success of the country? In my constituency, the Macclesfield to Poynton A523 improvement, the Poynton bypass and the Manchester airport link roads east and west must be constructed if we are to minimise the impact on my area of the expansion of Manchester airport—especially the building of the second runway, which I have warmly supported.
  Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous advocate of the case for the road schemes that he mentions. As he will understand, they are all being considered as part of the roads review. As for his wider point, of course more investment in roads is needed, as is some further road building, but the Government's approach is no longer to opt automatically for a road solution. We must look at other options and, where appropriate, give consideration to public transport and more effective traffic management.
  Mr. Stevenson: In considering what improvements are necessary to the trunk road system, will my right hon. Friend note that the regulations governing compensation claims for businesses and properties, and the noise

  125
  insulation regulations, are now outdated and anomalous and certainly do not reflect the justifiable claims of those whose properties are affected by trunk road building? As part of the reassessment, will my right hon. Friend consider the anomalies, and the serious misgivings that many of us have, and report back as soon as possible?
  Dr. Strang: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a particular interest in the matter. He feels that adequate compensation has not been paid following the building of a road in his constituency. We shall continue to consider the matter, and I will take what he has said fully into account.

  Hammersmith Bridge
  Dr. Tonge: What progress has been made on plans for reopening Hammersmith bridge; and if he will make a statement. [19429]
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is responsible for progressing plans for reopening Hammersmith bridge. I understand that the repairs are programmed for completion by the end of summer 1999 and that while the works are in hand the borough intends to initiate discussions on the future use of the bridge.
  Dr. Tonge: Is the Minister aware that the closure of Hammersmith bridge has acted as a catalyst in making people move out of their cars and on to public transport? Is she aware that the provision of public transport over the bridge is woefully inadequate? Does she accept that it would be worth helping London Transport to cope with the demand from the general public for bus services because in general that would be a very good way of encouraging people to get out of their cars and thus reduce the amount of road traffic?
  Ms Jackson: The hon. Lady makes a valid point, which is borne out by experience. I understand that while the bridge has been closed to private vehicles bus patronage has increased by nearly 17 per cent. The number of buses per hour increased by almost 6 per cent. She may be interested to know that Hammersmith and Fulham borough is consulting even internationally on whether the bridge should, post repair, maintain the present system or be returned to carrying all vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes. I understand that these questions are appearing on the internet.

  London Underground
  Mrs. Laing: What assessment he has made of the effect of the continuing public ownership of London Underground on its ability to attract adequate private capital. [19430]
  Ms Glenda Jackson: We are urgently assessing how a public-private partnership can attract private capital for the Underground. We wish to harness private finance and skills and build on the Underground's public service record.
  Mrs. Laing: Is the Minister aware that my constituents in Epping Forest will be disappointed to hear that the Government's plans to improve the London Underground, on which my constituents depend, are again being reviewed and delayed? There was laughter from Labour Members earlier when the success of rail privatisation was mentioned, but although the Government have the power to reverse the previous Government's railway privatisation they have not done so. Does that not implicitly tell us that the Government have changed their policies and their principles in relation to the railways, as they have on many other policies and principles that they held before the general election? Given that that is true—[Interruption.] Given that that is true, why will they not give up their dogma in relation to the Underground? [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Why will the Government not admit that privatisation is the only way to raise the amount of capital needed for the London Underground? Privatisation is what my constituents want.
  Ms Jackson: I can only assume that the hon. Lady's injury has caused a fever to her brain and that she is confusing the actions of the previous Administration with those of this Government. We have made it abundantly clear that we do not intend to have a wholesale privatisation of the Underground. We are dealing with surface rail as we find it, and we are committed to ensuring that the more than £2 billion of taxpayers' money that goes into our railways produces a high quality service.

  Thames Watermen
  Mr. Efford: What representations he has received on behalf of Thames watermen regarding unlicensed individuals employed on the Thames. [19431]
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I have not received any representations about the use of unlicensed watermen on the Thames. The licensing of watermen on the Thames is a matter for the Port of London authority.
  Mr. Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for the answer. Is she aware that Thames watermen undergo a five-year apprenticeship to qualify to pilot boats on the Thames? Does she accept that safety on the Thames should be a central part of any regeneration in that aspect of London? Will she therefore accept that Thames watermen who are licensed and qualified to pilot boats on the Thames and who are currently unemployed have a legitimate argument in asking the Port of London authority to address the fact that unlicensed individuals are taking their work away from them? Will she bear that in mind in any future discussions with the authority?
  Ms Jackson: I have no information that the jobs of licensed watermen are being taken away by unlicensed individuals, which I understand would contravene the byelaws that govern the Port of London authority. If my hon. Friend would care to furnish precise details, I shall be happy to examine the position.
  Mr. Robathan: I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are keen to encourage the use of the Thames. Will she therefore resist the plea to perpetuate that most extraordinary closed shop,

  127
  the five-year training scheme, and try to introduce training schemes that mean that people can pilot boats on the Thames safely but much more quickly than by taking part in the five-year training scheme —the old closed shop from old Labour?
  Ms Jackson: I find it quite extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should propose an expansion of use of the Thames, be it for pleasure or for transport, without ensuring that those responsible for carrying people on the river are properly trained and that safety standards are in no wise eroded. That is a further demonstration of what the Government have long argued—that the Conservative party had no commitment whatever to education and training to ensure this country's competitive edge in an international market.

  Rail Freight
  Sir Robert Smith: What action he is taking to increase the proportion of freight transported by rail. [19432]
  Dr. Strang: We aim to increase the amount of freight carried by rail. We have already taken action to boost the take-up of freight grants and we are working to get a better deal for Railfreight through the channel tunnel.
  128
  The House may like to know that tomorrow I shall be opening a new freight spur to Manchester airport which will mean that the bulk of the materials for the new runway will be carried by rail.
  Sir Robert Smith: In trying to encourage more freight on to the railways, is the Minister concerned that brand new class 92 locomotives are lying idle in sidings because they do not have a safety case to travel north of Wembley? What action are the Government taking to try to ensure that that does not persist and that the class 92 locomotives go north of Wembley?
  Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am sure that he is not suggesting, however, that safety is not an overriding priority. In terms of his constituency, the prospects for increased rail freight are most exciting. The distance to the channel tunnel and the investment that is taking place mean that we can look forward to a significant increase in the amount of material that is taken by rail, particularly from northern Scotland.

Kyoto Summit
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the United Nations conference on climate change, which I attended last week in Kyoto, Japan, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.
Man-made climate change is the greatest environmental threat facing the world today. In the United Kingdom, we have suffered record drought for the past two and a half years. This year, the world experienced the highest average temperatures that have ever been recorded. Terrible floods have engulfed central Europe, and droughts and storms have followed this year's El Nino. Forest fires have caused deadly pollution in south-east Asia and Australia. Our polar ice caps are melting, and only this weekend Mexico was hit by freak snowstorms.
Already, our sea levels are rising as ocean temperatures increase and the waters expand. If that continues, some island communities will disappear into the sea. A third of the world's population lives within 40 miles of the coast. Whole swathes of Britain's east coast could fall victim to rising sea levels.
The human race risks playing havoc with the world's weather systems. Unless we act now, we shall be condemning our children to a world of drought and crop failures, rising seas, mass migration and spreading disease. Nature is no respecter of boundaries. This is a global problem demanding a global solution, and the very justification for the Kyoto conference.
The main purpose of the Kyoto conference was for the developed countries to set legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2010. Success was by no means certain. Consensus had to be achieved among 160 different nations, and the conference started with the major players poles apart. The European Union proposed a 15 per cent. cut; Japan a 2.5 per cent. cut; and the United States proposal was for a zero cut.
After long and gruelling negotiations, the protocol was agreed on Thursday morning, and will be open for signature in March. For the first time, developed countries, which account for over half the world's greenhouse gas emissions, will commit themselves to legally binding targets. The agreement will produce a cut of more than 5 per cent. in their emissions below 1990 levels by 2010.
I said before negotiations began that political will would be needed to deliver a successful agreement. The outcome of hard negotiations was that America moved from zero to a cut of 7 per cent.; Japan moved from a cut of 2.5 per cent. to 6 per cent.; and the European Union set the top standard with a cut of 8 per cent., a standard which was adopted by a total of 26 countries. The outcome demonstrated beyond doubt that genuine political will did exist in all those countries, and a political breakthrough was achieved. I have placed in the Library a full copy of the Kyoto protocol, which lists the figures for each country.
In four to five years' time, there will be a chance to review and, if possible, to improve the targets. The targets will cover the six main greenhouse gases, not only carbon
130
dioxide. The protocol also provides a number of measures that will help countries to achieve their targets. The measures include the possibility of trading in permits for greenhouse gas emissions; limited allowances for absorption of carbon dioxide by forests, which act as so-called "carbon sinks"; and provision for developed countries to gain credit by helping developing countries curb their emissions.
Fears—genuine fears—were expressed that those provisions might amount to loopholes in the agreement. That is why we, the United Kingdom, proposed the concept of a "window of credibility" for countries to demonstrate their firm commitment to the agreement; and it is why the European Union insisted that clear rules for all the provisions must be developed over the next two years or so.
The conference fully recognised that the developed world must take the lead in curbing global warming. It is now necessary to discuss how developing countries can become more involved in the commitment to that process. That is necessary for long-term success in tackling global warming.
The United Kingdom played a major role in ensuring that Kyoto was successful. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), for the part that he played in agreeing the Berlin mandate in 1995, which set the parameters for Kyoto. He was, indeed, a member of the United Kingdom delegation.
The Government have demonstrated at the highest levels their commitment to environmental issues. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister highlighted climate change at the G8 summit in Denver, at the Earth summit in New York, and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has put the environment at the heart of his foreign policy and worked for the successful conclusion at Kyoto. At the request of the Japanese hosts, I myself chaired the meeting of the developed countries that was held last month in Tokyo. In the run-up to Kyoto, I met the leaders of a number of developed and developing countries.
I should like to praise the efforts of the Prime Minister himself, who was in telephone contact with other world leaders to secure the final agreement. I should like also to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who played a key role with our European partners. Finally, the agreement would not have been achieved without the sheer professionalism and commitment of British civil servants. It was a really strong British team effort within a powerful European contribution.
We must turn our minds now to implementation. The United Kingdom will assume the European Union presidency at a crucial stage. Over the next six months, we need to agree how the European target of an 8 per cent. reduction will be shared out among member states; policies and measures at a European level to help achieve those targets; and the European position on rules for the various issues that I mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is today discussing those very matters at the Environment Council in Brussels.
Previously, the European Union had agreed proposals to achieve an average 10 per cent. cut in emissions. There were different contributions from different member states.

131
Germany, for example, agreed a minus 25 per cent. target, whereas Portugal agreed a 40 per cent. increase. We need to renegotiate those figures in the light of the outcome of Kyoto. We shall not be certain of the legal target applying to the United Kingdom until that share-out has been determined. We shall, of course, accept our legal obligation as our first priority, but shall still work for our aim of 20 per cent., as set out in our manifesto.
We are already working on plans to achieve our targets, taking into account the outcome of Kyoto. Next year, we shall publish a consultation document. In setting out our programme, we shall consult widely—particularly industry, local authorities and environmental groups, which will all have key roles to play in delivering the reductions. I reassure industry—as the Prime Minister did at our business summit—that we shall not take any unilateral measures that will unduly damage UK competitiveness.
Tackling climate change is about opportunity and gain, not pain. It goes hand in hand with building a better, more modern and affluent Britain. It is about improving transport systems in a way that will give us a better quality of life and cleaner cities; improving the housing stock, which will give us warmer, more comfortable homes and tackle fuel poverty; using less energy in a way that will make our industries more efficient; and ensuring that the UK is at the forefront of the world environmental technology market so that we can create new jobs and business opportunities. It is good for the environment, good for the economy, good for people and good for jobs.
I believe that Kyoto will be remembered as the place where the world, in a United Nations forum, faced a crucial decision and made the right choice. Failure, which many had predicted, would have condemned future generations to untold misery and disaster. We have taken the first, but only the first, crucial step to curbing climate change. There is still much to be done, but I am certainly proud of the role that the United Kingdom has played in this achievement.
We do not own this world; we hold it in trust, to hand on to our children's children. We owe it to them to build on the Kyoto agreement to safeguard their future.
Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome the fact that there was an agreement in Kyoto last week because, surely, that reflects a growing acceptance by national Governments that international action is needed to tackle the problem of climate change. I endorse what the Secretary of State said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and his contribution.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will recognise that the agreement is a long way short of the objectives stated by the Government and the European Union, and that that has led to disappointment being expressed by bodies such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Against that background may I ask the right hon. Gentleman some short questions?
The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the Government still intend to aim for a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2010. Will he say more about the exact policies by which that target will be reached? How will he ensure that industry, for example, is not disadvantaged because Britain is aiming for a more stringent target than other developed countries? Will he confirm that any
132
increase in green taxes will be compensated for by tax reductions elsewhere and that green taxes will not be seen simply and exclusively as a general revenue raiser?
On emissions trading, what safeguards and checks are there to ensure that countries taking credit for emission reductions have actually achieved those reductions rather than their having been brought about because of temporary industrial depression in a particular economy? If we are to cut carbon dioxide emissions, that will involve planning policies aimed at preventing as many people as possible from having to make long commuting journeys into work. Is not that another reason why we should do all we can to preserve the green belt in this country and put energy and resources into developing the brown-field sites in our towns and cities?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House—he touched on this—how Britain intends to use its presidency of the European Union and exactly what policies and measures he intends to propose for the detailed implementation of the Kyoto agreement? [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister for London and Construction realises that we are seeking to be constructive.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that on both sides of the House, with the exception of the Minister for London and Construction, the importance of making urgent progress is recognised and fully shared?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the agreement. I think that both sides of the House will endorse that. It was important to get an agreement on legal targets, and establishing that legal framework was probably the main contribution of the conference. Most of the environmental non-governmental organisations have made that sound point. It is a first step and no more, but it is an important first step. It is right to call it historic.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how we intend to achieve our aim of a 20 per cent. reduction. I made it clear in my statement that that is a target which we set for ourselves and that it was not dependent on Kyoto. We have already embarked on the policy changes necessary to achieve that. Indeed, the Government's scientific advisers have told us that it is possible and we have already produced the first paper for the Cabinet Committee, to show how that can be done. Methods include improving renewables and an integrated transport system—all of which will involve Government statements and a new planning framework.
I am pleased that planning is no longer an ideological issue of dispute between the two parties. Planning is essential if there are to be positive targets for industry to achieve. That point was made by representatives of business when they met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; they wanted practical targets, and we agree. We hope to produce a statement on that subject as a beginning, next year. We shall consider what happens in the negotiations that take place in Europe, based on the legal targets and Europe's legal commitments.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he will make more statements about the taxation framework in the Budget—he also made that clear in the recently published Green Paper. Taxes will play a part in the process, just as fuel duties did under the previous Administration.

133
Trading emissions are a matter of concern. It became clear to me, as I toured various parts of the world and talked to leaders, that each country had conditions relating to how it would achieve the target. New Zealand's conditions involve forests; Australia's involve land clearance; America's involve trading emissions and the new funding arrangements for using credits. In those circumstances, it was clear that no agreement could be achieved on that subject within the negotiating period at Kyoto.
The Americans had also made it clear that Congress would not endorse the target unless the developing countries signed up, which meant that there had to be a further period within which the rules could be worked out. It was important that the measures should not be seen as loopholes—the agreement's credibility very much depends on that. I do not believe that the American Congress will endorse the agreement unless the rules are worked out. There will be an opportunity for people to sign up in March and agree a period for ratification—some three or four years from now, after the presidential elections, when we can work out all the details.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is right to say that the agreement's credibility is very much linked to flexibility. That is why we shall use our European presidency, which begins in January, and our leadership of the G8 countries, which meet here in the next six months, to place on the agenda—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been doing—environmental issues and how we sort out the rules, what the rules are and whether we can bring the experts together quickly. We are rightly considering those issues as a matter of priority. I hope that our policy enjoys the full support of the House, as it is necessary, and I welcome the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield's words of support.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment on all their hard work during the negotiations. When will the treaty begin to work? What are the prospects of the United States ratifying it? What mechanism is there for the process to be reviewed, particularly if the evidence of climate change gets worse and public opinion around the world demands faster action than was originally agreed?
Mr. Prescott: Those are essential questions and I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support, particularly as he is the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which will have an opportunity to question us further in future. We have placed the protocol in the Library. The conference is likely to be called within four years, but within 12 months I believe that a conference will be called—I am afraid that the country's name has slipped out of my mind.
Ms Joan Walley: It will be in Buenos Aires.
Mr. Prescott: Buenos Aires—I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That conference will be called within
134
12 months, and we can begin to assess how far the agreements have gone, what we have done about the details and the rules that will apply—that is equally as important as the legal targets that were achieved at Kyoto.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will agree that there was a risk of the process collapsing, and I join others in welcoming the agreement that was secured in those circumstances. Nevertheless, the net outcome of the figures agreed is that global warming will continue to worsen and the agreement will not reverse the position. Further action therefore needs to be taken to secure a tighter international agreement.
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government will stick by their manifesto commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, although the agreement is about a basket of gases? Will he explain what he means by saying that the priority will be the legal obligation rather than the UK Government's target of a 20 per cent. cut? It is not clear how that figure will be met if the concentration is on a much lower figure.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with the Prime Minister to use the EU presidency to ensure that the EU sticks, at the minimum, to its current 10 per cent. reduction policy—and ideally, with the 15 per cent. cut that it offered—rather than simply reverting to the legal obligation of 8 per cent., which would be a step back for the European Union as a whole?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. He is right to say that the legal obligation is neither as ambitious an achievement as many of us would have wanted nor as ambitious as the European target of a 10 per cent. cut or the hoped-for 15 per cent. cut. The conference was, however, about getting 160 nations to agree. The hon. Gentleman may know that the conference could not settle its differences by voting; everything had to be done by consensus, which made matters far more difficult.
The real point is the net reduction of greenhouse gases. The reduction in greenhouse gases by developed countries—only the developed countries have agreed to such a reduction—is more than 5 per cent. That is a considerable achievement; most people predicted a far lower figure. The hon. Gentleman is, however, right to point out that greenhouse gas emissions also come from developing countries. They were not prepared—indeed, this was part of the Berlin mandate—to sign up to reductions. They made it clear that they wanted the major polluters to sign an agreement and that they would then make their decision. The ball is now in their court. If we want a real global solution, we have to get everyone in it, not just the developed countries, and that will make a real contribution.
People will begin to see that many opportunities can come from the changes involved in meeting the targets. That will encourage them to go further and to set even more stringent targets. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the first set of targets under the Montreal protocol was easily achieved, and that the countries involved met again and set further targets. That is a useful example to us; we must get on with the job.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about countries having targets different from the legal ones. It is our responsibility to observe our legal targets before the

135
voluntary ones. We have not, however, waited for the legal target. We are setting a target of 20 per cent., as we promised, and we are already implementing the programme to achieve that. We are advised by Government scientists that that target is possible, and that is why we made our commitment.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, in Europe we have to negotiate changes internally in what is known as the European bubble. Reductions in greenhouse gases—six rather than three are considered under the new protocol—will affect countries such as Germany, which will want to renegotiate its position. We shall have to consider the differential targets within that framework. That will be a consideration for us to bear in mind, but at the moment, as is our commitment, we are working on the 20 per cent. target as well as recognising our legal target. If other European countries are prepared to join us in having not only the legal target of 8 per cent. but a higher one, they will, once again, be joining Britain, which has set the lead. We hope to encourage Europe to come that one step further with us.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is engaged in an almost insoluble problem? Most countries do not operate on an interventionist basis. In fact, most of the problems of global warming and all the rest of it have come about simply as a result of the use of market forces and businesses' freedom to do as they like.
I believe that the problem can be solved only be intervention, red tape and regulation, which is totally contrary to the views of Conservative Members and, indeed, those of Liberal Democrat Members. I wish my right hon. Friend well, but I believe that he knows as well as I do that without proper intervention by every country and without every country acknowledging the need to do something as opposed to uttering abstract statements, the Kyoto conference will be like Rio and many before it.
Mr. Prescott: I certainly hope that that is not the case and that it is in our hands to do something about it. The more united we are in achieving those objectives, the better.
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact that planning, intervention and targets are part of an intelligent and rational approach to the problem, but I also have to recognise that, as the Americans would be quick to point out, trading emissions is an area in which there can be an element of market trading without the involvement of massive bureaucracy. I am quite prepared to consider that, given that I know that it worked quite well in America in respect of sulphur emissions. It may be a possibility—I do not know. We shall have to look at the rules, but I am prepared to keep an open mind on those matters, as long as we achieve the reduction in greenhouse gases that we all want. If we do not achieve that, we shall continue toward the disasters predicted by our scientists, which will result from the climate change brought about by ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. John Gummer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and congratulate him on his success. Does he agree that we ought to congratulate the officials, who became very important to the whole European Community, on the work that they have done?
136
Can the right hon. Gentleman help me on two matters? First, would he be willing, over the next year and with the developing countries, to seek a means of creating a system of convergence that recognises that, if in the end we have to share out the emissions that are possible, we shall have to share them out on a fair basis at some point in the next century? We need to start working on that before Buenos Aires. Secondly, would he be willing to bring into his office representatives of American-owned companies in this country, such as Vauxhall or Esso, to see whether we can exert some pressure on the mother companies in the United States, which have taken so strong a view against doing something about global warming? British companies operating in the United States, such as Shell, might well play a part in that effort, if the right hon. Gentleman were willing to take that as one of the issues on which we could get some progress.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support. Just before he entered the Chamber, I had paid proper tribute to the civil servants, who were absolutely brilliant in assisting in our bringing about the agreement, but one cannot say too much. Both the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree on our tremendous admiration for the ambassador who chaired the conference, who actually achieved the agreement. He was quite remarkable and, in my view, the agreement would not have been achieved without his ability to get 160 nations to come together on an issue on which there were very difficult differences between countries. I certainly want to make it clear that his contribution was very considerable indeed.
I agree with my right hon. Member—with the hon. Friend; forgive me, the niceties of the House are lost on me from time to time. As long as you understand the point, Madam Speaker, and I am sure my hon. Member—[Laughter.] Yes, why do I not say it? He was a right hon. Friend over there—he joined in a British cause to do something about the environment and, as I said, his record shows his commitment to that cause.
We have to move on from here and ask how to achieve the settlement. The British presidency gives us a great opportunity, as does leadership within the G8. There was some small criticism of Russia's contribution, but there is a chance for Russia to reconsider its position. It was hoped that Russia would have had a reduction, but it did not achieve that. If it had settled for the minus 5 per cent. recommended by the conference, we would have had an even more substantial contribution. It is now time for us to talk to all parties and ask, "Do you think that you can make a better contribution than you do at the moment?" I am sure that the G8 gives us an opportunity to open up that debate. We shall now start those discussions, to make sure that we can do even better than we do at the moment.
As for the criteria that will be used to monitor emissions, they clearly need to be fair. If they are not, we shall lose credibility; if there appear to be loopholes, people will feel that the whole possibility of agreement has been undermined by failure to secure fair means and rules, not only for emissions trading, but for carbon sinks and all the other flexible areas in the agreement. We shall do our utmost to ensure that they live up to the standards that we set at Kyoto.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on

137
all his work, but do I take it from what he has said that the mechanism for policing the buying and selling of emissions is not likely to be put in place until the meeting in Argentina next year?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I hope that, through our presidency and other means available to us—we must not underestimate the contribution by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which suggested that more could be done between developed and developing countries—we shall work on that formula. We shall not wait until that conference; indeed, I hope that, in the 12 months before then, we shall work out the principles and details needed to make a start on getting a fair agreement, especially in respect of the rules affecting emissions.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, and the fact that he is pressing ahead towards a 20 per cent. reduction. Did the 15 per cent. represent an original bargaining position on the part of the European Union, so that Europe could pride itself on the 8 per cent., which went beyond what the other countries wanted? Had the average of 10 per cent. already been worked out? Is there not a place for moral leadership by Europe in this matter? As it is alleged that the United Kingdom's emission reductions have coincided with the decline of our coal industry, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that we can reach the targets that we are setting ourselves?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I believe that the 8 per cent. does represent moral leadership; indeed, we tried to press the others to go for a higher figure. Bearing in mind the fact that the Americans had to travel from zero to 7 per cent., that represented quite an effort. There was never any question of the Americans agreeing to Europe's 15 per cent. That figure was a target to aim at. The European Union had gone for 10 per cent., as many of the negotiators were well aware. They were also well aware of Europe's bubble principle, allowing for distinctions to be made within the bubble. That gave rise to a number of difficult arguments during the negotiations.
Europe still has the chance to hold the moral high ground. We started from the position that there should be parity between Japan, America and ourselves, but it was clear that Japan would go no further than 6 per cent., while the Americans were prepared to go to 7 per cent. We went one step further, to 8 per cent. If we had gone any lower, quite a number of countries would have been prepared to go down to our level, and any agreement on net emissions would have been a failure.
We can continue to argue with other countries. There is no reason why we cannot set a target higher than the legal one, and use that as a means of pushing and shoving some of these other countries to agreeing to increase their targets beyond the legal targets as well. Europe must lead the way. As the measurement is given in terms of the proportion of the targets that is reached, one can assume that Europe has already given a greater lead than America—although we still welcome the overall agreement.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this country would be
138
greatly assisted in meeting its targets if, in addition to consulting local authorities and environmental groups, he were to consult in due course the proposed regional development agencies and regional chambers, so that their contribution could be considered in matters such as the integration of public transport and the production and manufacture of environmentally beneficial technology for industry?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regional development agencies will play their part in the greening of the United Kingdom and in encouraging companies to take advantage of the technology that will arise in response to the environmental changes necessary to meet the targets. This is about gain, not pain. As other countries have done, we should recognise the advantages of the process—we have yet to grasp the full potential of the changes.
We shall talk to the local authorities and environmental groups. The regional development agencies will play their part in setting regional priorities for integrated transport systems, and in the regional planning framework—deciding where industry and housing are to be located, for instance. Determining how people move from A to B can make a significant contribution to controlling greenhouse gases.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that in our zeal to improve the environment, we should not imperil our domestic industries in favour of those of other countries that will not share his degree of commitment? Does he further agree that, far from being perverse, our American allies are seriously considering alternative views on global warming, including views based on research produced by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and correlated in the American media by the American Global Climate Commission, which has considerable influence on the American Government?
Mr. Prescott: Not much influence, I suspect, judging by the fact that the Americans reached an agreement. There is no serious argument about the research any more; most people are fully aware of its implications. A great deal of work has been done, although of course people must make up their own minds. Certainly, most countries agree on the subject, and the conclusions of the research pushed those countries to reach an agreement more ambitious than the one that had been predicted. I certainly would not want us to pursue a policy that disadvantaged our industries against their competitors. However, there are many advantages to be gained from having more efficient industries, a better transport system and people living a better quality of life.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the far from simple question of the carbon sink, does my right hon. Friend know that while he was pursuing his task with commendable energy, the President of Brazil and his entourage were in Britain and that some of us had the good fortune to talk in depth to Senor Dr. Martins, who is the head of Ibama? He said that if the world was so concerned about the rain forest as its lungs, the rest of the world had certain obligations to look after its lungs.

139
Were those obligations in terms of international debt raised in Kyoto, and what, realistically, can we hope to do to look after the planet's lungs?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend reminds me, by using the word "lungs" with regard to forests, of a lecture that I heard by the famous Jacques Cousteau—I have an interest in diving—when he said that the oceans were the lungs of the world. Anybody who looks at climate change and at what is happening to the forests, the weather and the oceans cannot but be impressed by the tremendously sophisticated system that produces our climate.
While we need to be concerned about the rain forests and the oceans, those matters were discussed at the UN Earth summit in June. We could not reach an agreement on forests because a number of countries opposed it, but we reached an agreement on oceans, and next year is designated the Year of the Oceans.
While I was in Australia, I took the opportunity—I confess that it was on a day off—to dive on the barrier reef. It was quite an experience to see all the fish and living coral; it was nature at its greatest. When I dived in the Mediterranean, I saw no fish, just a Coke bottle and a plastic cup. That is the reality. Many of our oceans are dying and our rain forests are under threat, which is why people no longer doubt the seriousness of the scientific projections on climate change. I am proud that this Government are to the fore in making the changes.
Mr. David Prior: In view of the massive predicted increase in the burning of coal for coal-fired power generation, particularly in India and China, will the right hon. Gentleman put his considerable weight behind efforts to beef up clean coal technology in the UK?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. All Governments have failed to give the support to clean coal technology that was desperately needed. That subject is part of an on-going review of energy policies. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that China, with its tremendous coal resources, did a deal with America to build 150 nuclear plants. I presume that that represents the influence and pressures that there will be between trading nations. Such deals will be influenced by environmental considerations, which is one of the points that was made with regard to trading emissions. We must be careful to ensure that the rules are absolutely clear, because if we leave loopholes, they will undermine the credibility of any change and damage our achievements in Kyoto.
Ms Joan Walley: I appreciate all the work that my right hon. Friend has done. It is clearly teamwork, and we can be as proud as if we had brought the World cup home because, in the end, any achievements will be there for all the people of the world. Has my right hon. Friend considered how Parliament could be used to take the issue further forward? If we need the consent of the whole world to go forward with the proposals, Parliaments around the world have a part to play. We desperately need education, so that all the nations of the world can back up their Governments in making urgent progress.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I welcome the agreement, and we should all be thrilled
140
by it. It is an important step forward. I do not know whether it can be equated with the World cup, but that reminds me that I was a member of the House of Commons team that beat the German parliamentary team by two goals to one, so at least we held our end up politically.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Changes are necessary in attitude and approach, and Parliament will be at the centre of such changes. How we manage change and meet the challenge is crucial. The Environmental Audit Committee will play an important part. We have also established a Cabinet Committee to make sure that all Government Departments are aware of the changes that will take place.
Our initiative in establishing the Environmental Audit Committee emphasises the fact that we shall have a Committee snapping at our heels to ensure that we live up to our fine promises in carrying out the detail of our policy. The House will play a major part in persuading the nation that it is right to go along that road. Frankly, I think that the nation is ahead of us. People know that changes are needed, and we shall bring them about.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I pay tribute to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman who, I believe, cares greatly about these matters. Must not the detailed policy take account of two issues, which were raised with me this morning? First, the Energy Saving Trust is scheduled to take a cut of about 50 per cent. in its funding. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that decision was made by the previous Government, but will he now take action to reverse it, especially as he spoke about using less energy, which is what the Energy Saving Trust is about?
The second point concerns the suspension of planning permission for new power stations. That is holding up 700 MW of capacity for combined heat and power. If that 700 MW of CHP came on stream, 700,000 tonnes of carbon emissions would be saved each year. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that carefully and further encourage CHP?
Mr. Prescott: Those matters must be taken into account. The fine phrases and the targets to be set are all very well, but what will count is the detail of those policies. Whether there is a change in the funding of the Energy Saving Trust, and who introduced it, is not the point. We must reconsider much of our expenditure and our priorities. We have now accepted an agreement from Kyoto that sets legal targets. All our policies will have to be judged by their contribution to that, because we intend to enter seriously into our legal target, and into the target of 20 per cent. that we set for ourselves.
We are considering the moratorium on the power stations in the context of our energy policy. It is an essential part of any agreement on the environment. We shall make a statement at the appropriate time.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I share the concerns that he expressed in his opening remarks, when he suggested that if action is not taken, humanity will destroy our world. It is therefore important that we take note of the points made in his statement.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that certain communities, such as the mining community, have made substantial contributions to reducing pollution of the

141
atmosphere? Will he take the lead, as he is doing in many other respects, in ensuring that clean coal technology is developed in the United Kingdom, for use throughout the world?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which we are taking into account. I am concerned about the consequences of change resulting from environmental policies. When I visited mining areas in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), I was struck by the consequences of living in communities that have been denied their main source of employment. We have set up the coalfield community task force to look at how we might help to provide the jobs necessary to reverse the decline that we witness in those areas. We have an obligation to help the parts of our communities that might well be affected, and to see whether the opportunities arising from the agreements could be directed to those areas. We are examining all those aspects.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: We welcome the fact that there has been an agreement and that the momentum is being maintained. We share some of the views expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister about the progress that remains to be made. We are delighted with the enthusiasm that he has shown in the House today for going further, and we shall encourage him at each step of the way.
I shall press the right hon. Gentleman on one or two points. He referred to the difference between the legal target of 8 per cent. and the voluntary manifesto target of 20 per cent. I put it to him that in achieving the 20 per cent., we shall easily achieve our legal requirements. Therefore, is not that the target on which to focus British policy and the target which we should take into our discussions with the European Union?
I refer to one or two specific points. The Energy Saving Trust has been mentioned.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, made quite a long contribution earlier, to which he received a considerable reply from the Deputy Prime Minister. Hon. Members should ask one question each—that is what this process is all about. Mr. Prescott, will you respond?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for his remarks—although he is having difficulty keeping up with the pace that we have set. We shall do our best to achieve the targets.
The hon. Gentleman made a serious point. The legal target in Europe will be achieved in a certain way, and we have an obligation to achieve it in that manner also. That will have some implications for the 20 per cent. target, but it should not prevent us from continuing with our programme—which we are spelling out at present. We have an obligation to the legal target, but that will not deter us from achieving a higher target, which we shall
142
set for ourselves and which we are currently working out. I shall make a statement about that to the House at the appropriate time.
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I join hon. Members in warmly welcoming the Deputy Prime Minister's statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local energy advice centres, which are funded by the Energy Saving Trust, play a significant role in combating global warming? Does he further agree that, under the previous Conservative Administration, those centres—including my local centre in Peterborough, which has been highly praised nationally—had a very insecure funding future? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of those centres when he takes his imminent decision about the funding of the Energy Saving Trust?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. The Energy Saving Trust and the local centres will be very important in achieving our targets. Many decisions that have been taken must be reassessed in view of the targets that were set in Kyoto. It is true that all communities must make an effort to achieve the targets that we have set for ourselves, and we shall bear that in mind during the review.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on helping to secure any agreement at all in Kyoto. I also congratulate him on advocating a higher level of cuts around the world and on ensuring that the words "contraction" and "convergence" were included in the agreement in the final hour of negotiations. They will prove to be the cornerstone of any workable progress in this area in the century ahead.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that two points are raised during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union and in discussions with the G8? First, the targets cannot be met acceptably by transnational companies simply relocating to the developing world and being allowed to get away with production methods that increase, rather than decrease, pollution. Secondly, in approaching tradeable permits, we must examine not the exchange of cash with the developing world but a gift relationship in sustainable technologies. That will allow development in the southern hemisphere according to the best standards for the next century rather than the worst standards of this century.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The agenda of the EU presidency, and particularly discussions in the G8, will be decided by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend may be assured that I shall push to ensure that issues relevant to Kyoto are discussed. That is essential if we are to achieve the desired framework for the timetable in which the groups will work out the rules for trading emissions. It would be a wasted opportunity if such discussions did not occur. My hon. Friend will be aware that the agendas are decided by the Prime Minister and by other Prime Ministers and Presidents involved in the process. Nevertheless, those matters will play an important part.
My hon. Friend referred to transnational companies, their contributions and the tradeable permits that will be involved in exchanges with different countries. Those matters go to the credibility of the rules. Those rules are

143
important, and about 40 developing countries were prepared to make a voluntary commitment on trading in Kyoto. However, that matter was not included in the agreement. It is a sign, however, that they see it as a possible way forward for themselves.
My hon. Friend was fair-minded when he talked about industrial processes in the third world. We must recognise that third-world countries will produce more CO, gases as part of the industrialised process. It would be wrong for developed countries to say, "We have come through this process the dirty way. We know that it is a dirty way from which to come, so you cannot have the benefits that come from the industrialised process."
We must achieve a proper balance and recognise the differential contributions that must be made by both developed and developing countries. In effect, the Kyoto agreement states that the developed countries can say, "We have made our commitment and we want you to make yours." In that process, the developed countries will have great opportunities to work with the developing countries, provided that there is an agreement that that should happen and that it is done voluntarily. It must be recognised as part of the procedure of improving the prosperity of the peoples of the developing countries in the process of industrialisation. I am talking of the gains that come from these processes, and they must be brought home to the public.
Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's efforts, which have been substantial. It is good to see Britain losing its "dirty man" image. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman regards national targets as important, and at the same time we know that vehicle emissions make a significant contribution to greenhouse gases. Against that background, will the Government be supporting the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill?
Mr. Prescott: It is important that the owners of vehicles can make one of the largest contributions to the reduction of CO2 emissions, and that is a problem which we must consider. The White Paper will take up the problem and the Government will make our predictions within an integrated transport policy and establish what we think is the appropriate balance. Within such a policy, it is necessary to balance everything that it is hoped to achieve over a period. We welcome the debate that continues to take place, and we are not making recommendations one way or the other. Right hon. and hon. Members can make up their minds about the private Member's Bill. The Government will set out their view in the White Paper on an integrated transport policy, which will be put forward in May.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I thank my right hon. Friend for answering the question that I put to him at Question Time, by giving a commitment that Labour will continue to back the 20 per cent. reduction.
Since the Kyoto agreement becomes legally binding when countries ratify the treaty, what authority will deal with the countries that break their legally binding obligations, and what penalties will be imposed? Could
144
consideration be given to penalties that will help to repair the damage that is done to developing countries, such as the flooding of coastal areas, crop failures and the spreading of diseases, to which my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. The protocol is in the Library, along with the details of how we approached it. As for sanctions, we begin with the hope that the countries involved will set out to achieve the targets to which they are legally bound. If they fail to do so, there are means by which they can be pursued within their own courts. That applies especially to America. One of the Americans' arguments was that if they signed up to legal targets, they could be sued much more effectively within their own courts than within the European courts. To some extent, they were right.
The sanctions that are envisaged in the international treaty apply to trading. There was talk of fines, the proceeds from which could be used to assist third-world countries. There was talk also of the denial of votes in future decisions. Those may not seem to be powerful enough sanctions, and perhaps they will be reviewed. An important step forward has been taken in achieving a legal agreement. Where we find that it is not sufficient, there will be continuity of assessment. Insufficiency can be examined if we find that there is a failure in achieving the targets that have been agreed.
We set the overall target for 2010, but a review conference will review the progress that countries have made. That means that we shall not have to wait until 2010 to ascertain whether there has been failure. We shall know what progress has been made well before then.
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the deregulation of buses in 1986, there has been a considerable increase in the number of buses that cause pollution on our roads? Indeed, about 15 per cent. of buses now cause about 50 per cent. of pollution. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to take some of these polluting monsters off the road as part of our contribution to the Kyoto agreement?
Mr. Prescott: That is one of the measures that we are considering in our White Paper. It is quite true—the evidence is clear—that deregulation has meant that there are more buses, but fewer people per bus, and fewer services, which forces more and more people to use their cars instead of public transport. We very much need to address that.
We hope that travel by bus will become more reliable, and that buses will be better and, in many cases, newer than the ones that we currently have, with an engine that meets environmental requirements. We are also talking about the fiscal framework with regard to vehicle excise duty. All those points are being considered in the White Paper. The bus has a major part to play in providing not only a better transport system but a better environment, which would arise from an integrated system. It is very much at the heart of the White Paper that we shall produce in May.

Water Industry (Scotland)
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the outcome of the Government's review of the Scottish water and sewerage industry.
As hon. Members will know, our manifesto contained a commitment to return the Scottish water industry to local democratic control. In an answer on 5 June, Official Report, column 233, I said that I had asked my officials to conduct a review of the water industry and to report to me by November, which they have done.
The review team had extensive consultations with the three water authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. We also issued a public consultation paper, which produced 91 responses. I am very grateful to all who responded so constructively, and I shall place their responses in the library of St Andrew's house. The review team also held discussions with a variety of other interests, and commissioned research into water industry models across the world. We have listened very carefully to what has been said before reaching our conclusions.
In conducting the review, we were guided by a number of important principles. Apart from the central theme of improving democratic accountability, we also wanted to facilitate investment, promote efficiency, ensure continuity of public water supplies, protect public health and minimise disruption to the industry. The importance of these principles, and the importance of the industry for all of us in our day-to-day lives, was demonstrated only too dramatically by events in recent days in the west of Scotland.
Those events are very serious, not least in terms of the severe dislocation caused to everyday life for some 60,000 people. I can announce today that Mr. Robert Fraser, a distinguished figure in the water industry and, until recently, director of water and drainage for Borders regional council, will lead an exhaustive inquiry into the circumstances. I have asked him to address the following points: first, to review the causes, nature and extent of the disruption to public water supplies in the area served by Burncrooks water treatment works, including the impact on the vulnerable sectors of the population, food industries and other water users; secondly, to review the West of Scotland water authority's response to the incident; thirdly, to consider the lessons to be learned for the future from such an event, in particular whether advice to the public needs to be given earlier, whether better arrangements need to be made for the provision of alternative supplies of drinking water, and whether improved arrangements are required for co-ordination within and between public authorities, and with the media; and, fourthly, to report and make recommendations.
I fully understand the great public concern and the sense of irritation over this incident. I have spoken personally to both the chief executive and the chairman of West of Scotland Water today. I am glad to be able to report that contamination levels are falling steadily, and I understand that 17,000 of the 22,000 households originally affected now have clean water. I have been assured that lessons will be learned, but I shall want to look hard at Mr. Fraser' s report. Because of the urgent need to get the facts and learn the lessons, I am anxious
146
to have a tight but realistic timetable. Therefore, I have asked for the report to be completed by the end of March. I shall not make judgments before I see it, but if further action is required, I shall not hesitate to take it.
This episode does, nevertheless, serve to remind us that the water industry faces two immediate and major problems. The first is water purity—the stark fact being that the purity of Scottish water is far down the United Kingdom league; indeed, the three authorities in Scotland are in the bottom five when comparisons are made across the United Kingdom.
The second problem is the chronic need for investment, especially in sewerage, to meet the requirements of European directives. Although the period of local authority control is looked back on as a time when the ownership of the industry was generally acceptable, we have to accept that the infrastructure—often Victorian—was allowed to decay, and the consequences of that now mean that very great sums are required to bring the industry up to a satisfactory level. We have to consider how we can best assist the industry in its task to meet the real demands ahead.
I come now to the various options that emerged during the review. We looked carefully at a wide range of proposals for the industry. Splitting the three authorities between the 32 separate unitary authorities was quickly ruled out. It is clear that disturbing the three-authority structure would have disproportionate costs.
A leading option, however, was to seek to improve accountability by transferring responsibility for water and sewerage services to joint boards of local authorities. Joint boards can be an effective way of providing strategic services, and the water authorities undoubtedly provide a vital public service. However, the water authorities are also large businesses with massive investment requirements and just three authorities cover Scotland's 32 local authorities. I have therefore had to reject this approach. The last local government reorganisation made those options virtually impossible.
We also carefully considered the imaginative case advanced by some consultees to convert the public water authorities into private non-profit-distributing companies such as mutuals. Such bodies would be freed from the capital controls of the public sector, but at a cost. That cost would be freeing them from answerability to any democratic body. I do not believe that that is what the Scottish people want. It would be entirely outside the public sector. The industry would effectively be privatised.
A mutual would be nominally controlled by its membership, but how effective control over the boards would operate is much less clear. I am also not convinced that a mutual, monopoly water authority would be under sufficient pressure to be efficient, as all experience tells us that individual customers will not be motivated to protect their interests. Nor am I convinced that unwelcome pressures to demutualise could be avoided. In the short term, it would be very disruptive for the industry. I have therefore also had to reject that way forward.
Despite that, it is clear to me that, if the investment needs of the Scottish water industry are to be met at a cost the consumer can afford, we shall need to harness private capital and expertise, within a framework of continuing public accountability. Let me first deal with the crucial issue of accountability.

147
Since we launched the review, the Scottish people have given a resounding endorsement to the concept of a Scottish Parliament. Our White Paper on Scotland's Parliament made clear our concerns about the number of public bodies in Scotland being run without clear democratic oversight. It said that we saw the new Parliament as a means of bringing them under strengthened democratic accountability. Responsibility for the water and sewerage industry will pass to the Scottish Parliament. In the longer term, the Parliament may wish to look again at some of the arguments for change, but those could not and should not be options for today and tomorrow. In any event, I would expect that it will wish to allow the system to settle, and to perform, before considering any further options.
The Scottish Parliament will be able to bring the water authorities under the proper level of scrutiny that a modern democracy demands, through its oversight of the Scottish Executive. That is the best way of delivering the will of the Scottish people for their water industry to remain unambiguously in public ownership and to be clearly democratically accountable.
As well as the water authorities becoming more accountable, I wish to see them become more responsive at a local level. As part of developing local responsiveness I shall ask the water authorities to build further on their links with the local authorities and community councils in their areas, which will be helped by the community planning system we are shortly to introduce.
I also look to the water authorities to get closer to their customers and to other important local stakeholders including environmental interests. I shall very shortly issue a direction to the water authorities to review their systems for involving local interests, particularly local authorities, and to improve and strengthen those systems. I also propose to place a statutory duty on the water authorities to consult the local authorities whose electors would be affected by major decisions. That should improve the water authorities' responsiveness to the concerns of local communities.
Moreover, I can today announce new appointments to the water authority boards. Ian Preston and John Robertson, chairmen of the East and North water authorities respectively, will demit office at the end of March. I am very grateful to both of them for their good work and dedicated public service. In the East water authority, Councillor Robert Cairns will take over, and in the North, Councillor Colin Rennie. John Jameson remains chairman of the West authority. In addition to the two new chairmen, I am appointing as new members in the East authority, Councillor Jeanette Burness, Councillor Thomas Dair, David Bleiman and John Broadfoot. New members in the West authority are Councillor Gerald Carroll, Councillor David Munn and Jane McKay; and in the North authority I am appointing Nigel Hawkins as a new member. I am also reappointing a total of seven current members to the boards. Those appointments bring the number of local councillors on boards up to 16 out of the 33 members, excluding chief executives—roughly half the total. Of those 16 elected members, six are Labour councillors. I have made full details of the appointments available in the Library.
One aspect of local responsiveness that I wish to explore further is how best to help with the problems of water supply and sewerage in many of our remoter rural
148
areas. I have asked officials to consider whether there is a case for reintroducing rural grants to help with such problems.
As I have already said, the water industry review has again emphasised that the industry is in need of very substantial investment if the Scottish people are to have the quality of water that they deserve. That investment will have to be paid for, which, put simply, means that all water consumers will have to pay more in the years ahead. Let me be quite clear: this investment is needed to bring the quality of our water up to the standards in other parts of the country, to protect our beaches, rivers and seas, and to renew the infrastructure gifted us by previous generations, which more recent generations have neglected.
The private finance initiative is paying off by helping us to acquire additional resources to meet European Community environmental deadlines, and by identifying innovatory ways of making savings in the capital and operating cost of projects. The water authorities have substantial plans for PFI projects, amounting to some £600 million, to help meet their investment needs in the years ahead. The Government are committed to developing opportunities for public-private partnerships. I encourage the water authorities to be innovative with such partnerships while working within the framework of strengthened democratic control that I have outlined.
The Scottish people will need safeguards to ensure that money raised is well spent. There was consensus among the major consultees that the current division between price regulation by the customers council and efficiency regulation by the Scottish Office has proved untenable. I propose to create a new position of regulator responsible for all aspects of economic regulation, and for promoting the customer interest.
The water authorities will be under legitimate democratic oversight, but they are still monopolies, and the new regulator will have operational independence to ensure that the customer gets the best possible deal. The regulator will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament through the Scottish Executive. To safeguard the independence of the regulator's role, the position will be established in statute.
The functions of the current customers council will be transferred to the new unified regulator, and the council in its current form will be wound up. However, it is essential that customers continue to have a strong independent voice. I propose to develop the role of the three customers council area committees as the champion of the individual customer. Those committees in their developed form will be accountable to the new regulator, and will provide a point of contact for the public.
I have also listened carefully to representations about the damaging uncertainty for the industry of the current one-year time horizon for price and external financing limits decisions. I propose a longer-term pricing framework, and we should aim to ensure as stable a borrowing framework as possible, despite changing circumstances in successive public spending plans.
I have also listened carefully to the views expressed to us during the review about the contribution that people with business experience have made to the boards of the new public authorities, alongside councillors. As will be clear from the appointments that I have announced,

149
I judge it essential that we continue to draw on the expertise that the private sector can offer to ensure well-balanced and effective boards.
In sum, my proposals represent real local responsiveness, and real democratic control. They show that we have listened very carefully and thoughtfully to what has been said during our extensive consultations. We are seizing the opportunities created by the Scottish Parliament to have more democratic control of the industry, and to find the best way forward, given the particular sensitivities of the industry. We shall not play politics with Scottish water.
My proposals to change the system of regulation will require legislation, and the Government will look for an appropriate opportunity to legislate. I am publishing today a factual document that I asked the review team to prepare, which sets out in more detail the outcome of the review. Copies will be available from the Vote Office.
I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Rather to my surprise, I give a qualified welcome to the statement, not so much for what is in it as for what is not in it. I begin by welcoming the somewhat belated response to last week's serious incident in the west of Scotland, and the appointment of Mr. Robert Fraser to hold an inquiry. What happened last week has caused much justified concern to local residents and to local businesses, and there is an urgent need not only for rectification but for reassurance. I am sure that the appointment of Mr. Robert Fraser will help in that regard.
The statement constitutes a surprising but none the less welcome climbdown from the Labour party's former position. After the lion's roars of the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) when he was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and spoke about water—and, indeed, the pledges in the manifesto—the Secretary of State has produced a mouse of a statement, and a mouse which is strangely silent.
Let me remind the Secretary of State of what was said before the election. He may recall—indeed, he reminded us today—that the manifesto contained a pledge to return Scotland's water services to local democratic control. In 1995, the Scottish Labour manifesto issued before the Scottish unitary authority elections stated:
"The next Labour Government will return water to directly-elected control."
In the same year, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South said at the Scottish Labour party conference:
"I make this clear pledge to the Scottish people. On my first day in St. Andrew's House I will end this undemocratic farce. All the Water Quango Appointees—whoever they are—will be told to clear their desks"—
and he added bravely:
"and I won't take no for an answer."
When we strip away the verbiage of today's statement, we find very little change. There is a change in the system of regulation, and in some of the membership of the authorities—although, as we have heard today, not enough to provide locally democratic control—but the three-authority structure that was so opposed by the Labour party in opposition is retained. There is no
150
return to directly elected or indeed local control, and there is no wholesale clearing of desks, as promised by the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South.'
I must say that I welcome this outbreak of realism—this victory for common sense over pre-election rhetoric. Conservative Members are becoming used to Labour's pre-election promises being jettisoned in government, but we would welcome the jettisoning of many more, and we certainly welcome the abandonment of one today. We also welcome the fact that the need for investment from the private sector—which was at the heart of our policy—has caused a change of mind, as the Secretary of State made clear in the small print of what he said.
I note the Secretary of State's concern about the purity of Scottish water, and his comment that the three Scottish authorities are among the bottom five in the United Kingdom league. How has Scotland fared relatively since water privatisation in England? Have the Scottish authorities gone up or down in the league? I also note the right hon. Gentleman's comment that, under public ownership and local authority control, the infrastructure was allowed to decay. Was that not because that type of control and ownership prevented private investment from being made available to repair the infrastructure? Is that not the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman has decided to proceed as he has announced today?
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the future role of a Scottish Parliament. We await the publication of the Bill setting up such a Parliament with some anticipation, but is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that leaving a final decision to a Scottish Parliament prolongs uncertainty, and makes less likely the vital private investment that is so urgently needed? Does he envisage a Scottish Parliament opting for an all-Scotland water authority, and would he seek to dissuade it if it sought to do so?
What criteria were applied in the replacement of the chairmen of the North and East authorities by Labour councillors? What business experience do those councillors have, particularly in the utility industries, and are their experience and expertise greater than those of the two existing chairmen? In what ways will the new chairmen be able to increase the amount of private finance being invested in the water and sewerage industry in Scotland, and what has COSLA's reaction been to the right hon. Gentleman's rejection of the mutualisation plan that it submitted?
All in all, this has been an interesting diet of past words for the right hon. Gentleman, and we have enjoyed watching him make a meal of them. We make no complaint: there is always much joy in heaven over any sinner that repents, and we welcome the Secretary of State's transition from the populist rhetoric of opposition to the economic reality of administration. Conservative Members hope that there will be many moves in that direction in the future.
Mr. Dewar: I loved the ending! I must tell the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), however, that repentance of sins is one of the few areas in which I bend my knee to him.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the West of Scotland water authority, and I welcome his welcome. Of course I am deeply concerned about what has happened. I have not only a ministerial but a constituency

151
interest, as have one or two of my team colleagues. We will await the report with considerable interest, and I hope that lessons will really be learned if faults are found in the system.
As for the appointments of the two new chairmen, those two candidates—like every other candidate who was appointed—had to undergo a rigorous Nolan procedure, in which their credentials and suitability for the posts were assessed. They came through with flying colours. The work and the performance of both are known to me, and I have no hesitation in seeing a useful and distinguished role for them. I pay tribute to their predecessors, and do so with every genuineness. Both have given long service—"dedicated service" was the phrase that I used; I think that that phrase is sometimes undervalued. It was time for a change, however, and I think that the two new incumbents will do very well.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the business backgrounds of the new chairmen. If we applied that test to Ministers in any party, some interesting gaps might appear. People have the ability and the mental equipment to do certain jobs, and I am very confident about these appointments.
As for mutualisation, yes, there was some lively debate, but I think that the vast majority of the consultees came down against the proposition. I tried—within the bounds of decent length—to explain some of the reasons for that. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the arguments, as set out both by the review body and by those who offered opinions, he will see why there were difficulties about the scheme. I have no doubt that people will continue to argue for the other point of view, but, as I stressed in my statement, I feel that a period of stability to allow the arrangements to settle in would be wise and, I hope, helpful.
I do not mind being abused for responsibility, by the right hon. Gentleman or by anyone else. As far as I am concerned, we could have a very interesting economic argument; but the industry will require some £1.5 billion by the year 2000, which means that we must attack on all fronts. The Government must do their best, of course, but private-public sector partnerships must also be brought into play. I consider that a sensible approach.
What we have here is a scheme that leaves Scottish water unambiguously in the public sector, giving it a much more durable and, in my view, effective framework and a much greater level of both democratic accountability and democratic control through its membership and through the Scottish Parliament.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I welcome the appointment of Jane McKay, whose experience and ability were not recognised as they ought to have been by the previous Administration. I also welcome the return to democratic and public control of the industry.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for the Opposition spokesperson to comment on these matters, given that it was bodies such as Strathclyde regional council whose campaign against water privatisation helped to retain that important industry in public hands? Had it not been for Strathclyde's vigorous campaign, Scotland might be suffering from water privatisation like the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dewar: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for her comments. To be fair, the present
152
Opposition spokesman on Scottish affairs was otherwise engaged, as, in a sense, I was, while those debates were taking place—he looks slightly disengaged at the moment in fact, but I would not hold that against him. The important thing is that he must live with the fact that there is a strong view in Scotland that the public sector is the proper place for the water industry. That does not mean that the public sector and, in particular, the water authorities do not have to introduce innovative and imaginative procedures that would allow them to raise standards in the way that we want. I look forward to that happening.
Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the investigation under Mr. Robert Fraser. While staying with family in Milngavie on Sunday evening, I had to suffer the deprivations of the contaminated water. Can the Secretary of State give any indication of when a normal water supply is likely to be resumed to the remaining 5,000 houses?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) mentioned Strathclyde and the referendum that was held there. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, save exchanging a few councillors for previously non-elected personnel on the boards, he is substantially retaining the scheme that 97 per cent. of the people voted against in the referendum?.
Mr. Dewar: No.
Mr. Wallace: I think that the Secretary of State will find that the structure is substantially the same as that against which those people voted. Can he not accept that that is not local accountability? If anyone were to be found culpable for what has happened in the west of Scotland, surely he should be answerable democratically to an electorate and not—through some way—to the Secretary of State or, ultimately, to the Scottish Parliament.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that he is to examine the rural grants, but will he accept that there is no logic in connecting the islands areas, for example, to any other part of Scotland for water, as water falls there and is self-contained? Local authorities should have greater input, so that they can take economic development and water together and we do not have another body that has a totally different responsibility. That is the argument for democratic control, which could come through joint boards, which were so lightly dismissed in his statement.
Will the Secretary of State accept that the public sector borrowing requirement is substantially for investment that is to be met by tax and here we are dealing with investment—we accept that substantial investment is needed in water—that is met from revenue from customers? Would it not make sense to take the water industry in Scotland out of the PSBR, remove it from the Secretary of State's external finance limit and allow the industry to go to the market, to raise funds there and to be subject to normal market conditions?
Mr. Dewar: I listened with interest to what the hon. and learned Member said with increasing confusion—increasing confusion seemed to be inherent and in-built in his statement. Of course, it is tempting to say,

153
"Take investment outwith the PSBR limits", but it is difficult to reconcile that with putting it firmly into the local government sector. We can do one or the other and it may be possible to argue for one or the other, but we cannot have our cake and eat it in the way in which he suggests.
This is not just a tinkering of personnel. Changes such as the introduction of the regulator and the demise of the customers council—the great tightening up in that area—will, I hope, increase pressure for efficiency and give a much more satisfactory regulatory machinery. We will have one regulatory individual, one regulatory force, which is involved not just in the pricing side of the argument, but in the wider strategic side—the economics of the industry. That is an important change.
Finally—well very nearly finally—I am surprised by the way in which the hon. and learned Member writes off the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. In his perhaps more benign moments, I think that he would accept that the intention is to produce a much more effective scrutiny machinery—given the scale of politics in Scotland—than has been possible, for example, in this distinguished House. The more immediate accessibility of the Scottish Parliament will be an important factor in that sense.
There was not a vote against the present arrangements in the referendum. The referendum was a vote on privatisation.
Mr. Wallace: It was not.
Mr. Dewar: Oh yes it was. Privatisation is certainly what the vast majority of people voted on, so I think that the hon. and learned Member is in some difficulty.
The final thing that I will say, and it is important, is that I cannot, of course, give a hard and fast answer on when the inconvenience and dislocation that have resulted from the diesel spill at Burncrooks will end, but I have said today that we understand that 17,000 of the 22,000 households now have clean water. I understand that the situation is improving rapidly, so I hope that, throughout the whole area—even in Milngavie; particularly perhaps in Milngavie—we will see a quick end to the problems.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It was cheeky for the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to talk about handing things back to local control as he gerrymandered the local authority system before the election, which makes it almost impossible to do that.
I know that people in Tayside will welcome the appointments of Councillor Colin Rennie, who—I suppose that I should declare an interest—works part time for me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and who will obviously have to stop doing that from March next year, and of Nigel Hawkins, who is well known as a member of Dundee Partnership.
Much more important, I agree with my right hon. Friend's statement. I was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should have so little faith in the Scottish Parliament. Only yesterday, at the Scottish Constitutional Convention, we were talking about the new committee system. Clearly, this would fit well into that.
Mr. Dewar: I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend says, and I am grateful for his interest in these matters.
154
The change in personnel is significant. It goes beyond perhaps the individuals concerned; it is also a matter of approach on the part of the Government to the appointments and a recognition of the special situation of the water industry in Scotland. I have already chided the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, so it would not be fair to go back to that. As I have said, I know that in other forums and on other occasions, he takes a much more enthusiastic view of what we can achieve through the Scottish Parliament. In this particular sector, I hope that much will be done. I gather that the hon. and learned Member will be a candidate, so he will see it no doubt from within; some others of us may just watch from without.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Can the Secretary of State explain in more detail exactly where the democratisation is, because I must admit that I thought that a page was missing from my copy of the statement? Will he explain how replacing Michael Forsyth's appointees with some of his own—from whichever party or from none—is an improvement? Surely a quango is still a quango. As regulators have so far been appointed only for privatised utilities, what message and signal does it send to the electors of Scotland that the new democratic arrangements for Scottish water need a regulator? Lastly, given that he has the support of the Conservative party, does he have no doubts at all about the democratisation of his scheme?
Mr. Dewar: I take the view that even the Conservative party may get the odd thing right if it tries long enough and works hard enough. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a cynical view of those whose Benches—admittedly separated by the chasm of the Gangway—he shares, but may I caution him in any event: if he thought that the comments of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) amounted to a ringing endorsement, he lives in a depressed world. There is an important distinction.
When the water industry was left by the Conservative Government, clearly, it had been reluctantly halted on the brink of total privatisation. One got the impression that it was a staging post until better political times, when the job could be completed. We are now putting water unambiguously in the public sector. As I have said, we are strengthening the democratic controls and we are reconnecting in terms not just of membership, but of the statutory duty to consult, to which I have referred, with local authorities. Of course, we are also looking forward to the more immediate links that can be built with a Scottish Parliament. There is real democratic content, although I recognise it is not all that the hon. Gentleman wants in terms of the wider political settlement. However, I hope that he recognises that there are substantial and real gains.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Paragraph 4.17 of the review report refers to
"the new investment needed to meet Ministers' policies on the environment and health".
The Secretary of State will know from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) in particular and from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the desperate need for investment not only in the Esk valley but in other

155
parts of Lothian in relation to industry and improving the environment. Has my right hon. Friend any good news for us about where the investment is likely to come from?
Mr. Dewar: I recognise the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. I think that the Esk valley scheme was directly and sensibly raised a few days ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, so I know that there is much pressure on the issue. I spoke about an amount of £1.5 billion up to the year 2000. It is clear that substantial sums are needed, and there is about £600 million in the pipeline in the form of partnership schemes and private finance initiatives of one sort or another. If I remember rightly, the East of Scotland water authority's Esk valley project is included in the list, and the scheme is one of those that are currently in preparation. I assure my hon. Friend that there is a real commitment and that it will be reflected in the new authorities, as, to be fair, it is reflected in the present system, to try to tackle the problems as energetically and as quickly as we can.
Mr. Donald Gorrie: I have great personal confidence in Councillor Robert Cairns and my remarks in no way reflect on him.
The Secretary of State's idea of accountability is not mine. To appoint a regulator and to claim that that is some form of accountability is to take us back to colonial governorship. Surely the Secretary of State should re-examine the possibility of joint boards working effectively, whether they consist of councillors or Members of the Scottish Parliament or both. Could he not look at the issue of user democracy, which is different from the mutualisation that he has mentioned and, I understand, works in parts of the Netherlands? There are other ways to make the water industry more accountable. He should accept the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace); capital could be found if the right hon. Gentleman merely put a pen through some of the more stupid Treasury regulations, as happens in continental countries, so that we could find the capital under a democratic system without going into this PFI rubbish.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman uses not so much a pen as a broad brush in his approach to these problems. [Interruption.] Why not? Management of the Treasury cannot be conducted in that way. I suspect that if the Liberal Democrats had a role in power they might find that the, "Pssch, don't bother me with Treasury rules" approach would create some difficulties. There is difficulty about mutualisation, and I tried to sketch it in. I am not sure of the distinction between a mutual system and user democracy, but, under a mutual system, ownership, at least in theory, would lie with the person on whom the bill was served. There are difficulties in regarding that as effective and public control. No doubt that discussion can take place on another occasion.
I am genuinely surprised about the way in which the regulator and that change has been dismissed by Liberal Democrat Members. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended it, but I got the impression that he was laying down a new Liberal Democrat policy against regulators. They will have some difficulty in explaining the virtues of that to the consumer movement.
Mr. Ian Davidson: May I welcome the good bits of the Minister's statement and express my
156
immense disappointment at the lack of progress in democratising Scotland's water service? To move to a system under which one man, one vote appoints 33 members to the three water authorities is not sufficient to meet the needs that have been expressed by the people of Scotland throughout long campaigns against privatisation and Tory policy. I do not understand why joint authorities are made impossible by local government reorganisation. Strathclyde police and the fire service have continued under local government reorganisation, and I can see no reason why, if COSLA and local authorities had been consulted, they could not have come up with a workable means of appointing people with an electoral mandate to run the water authorities in the public interest.
There is great difficulty in Scotland over the number of people who are accountable to no one bar the Secretary of State. If we are keen on the dequangoisation of Scotland, we ought to have started at the first available opportunity, which is with the water service. I suppose that I and many others in Scotland have to look forward to the Scottish Parliament to do the job properly. I wish that, in this appointment as in others, the Secretary of State would be more prepared to trust those who have an electoral mandate directly from the people of Scotland.
Mr. Dewar: I appreciate, of course, that my hon. Friend in his council and parliamentary career has espoused and argued that view. I do not think that it is practical. Without wishing to burden him with additional and perhaps unwelcome Christmas cheer, may I suggest to him that he reads the report and the consultation documents that were produced? If he does that, he will find, of course, that there was some discussion of joint authorities. However, I do not think that there was what could be described as a weight of opinion for that option. I think that we have struck a fair balance. It is important to have continuity in the industry. There are currently many difficult projects in train, and I regard the statement's contents as genuine progress. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in at least seeing that as some improvement.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Looking on from Northern Ireland, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has established that the water industry will be in the public sector for the future. He could have gone a little further by ensuring more influence by elected representatives. Nevertheless, he has faced the problem of lack of water purity, the difficulties over sewage disposal and the need for more investment in that service. I was surprised to hear in his statement that, even with the £600 million of PFI investment, no target date has been set for water quality to be up to at least the average of other United Kingdom regions.
Mr. Dewar: I did not feel able to set that target. It will be some time before the new arrangements come into force. The regulator's new unified approach, the ability to balance the interests of the consumer in the broader sense, which includes not only the level of charges but the service that is delivered, and the pressure for greatly increased efficiency will all help.
I have a list of important PFI projects that are in the process of procurement. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be interested in the Almond valley and Seafield scheme. There is a

157
range of such schemes, and much is happening. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) for his broad welcome. I agree that the settlement is based very much on public duty in the public sector and on the vital and essential place of the water industry in our everyday life.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome his words are on the public inquiry into the West of Scotland water authority? It is run by a bunch of useless incompetents. Was not it the case that they did not have a comprehensive contingency plan in place to deal with the recent emergency? In that regard, they are quite unlike the other two authorities. Those incompetent administrators recently sought to ride roughshod over serious local concerns in Gourock in connection with the building of a sewerage system. Inverclyde council changed things slightly. I hope that we shall not again see local concerns being ignored.
I, too, welcome the appointment of Jane McKay, and I share the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson).
Mr. Dewar: I am glad that there is a welcome for that particular appointment, but I should say that that candidate went through the same selection process as all the rest. Although the selection process can at times be a little constrictive, I welcome the fact that we now have some consistency, at least in its basic part.
I cannot join my hon. Friend in making judgments on what happened in the Burncrooks incident or in making assumptions about whether there was personal culpability or whether systems were adequate. I certainly think that it is important that hard questions are answered, and that will be the inquiry's job. Once we have the facts, perhaps we can make judgments about what is best and what lessons have to be learned.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House will welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he does not intend to play politics with the water industry and will recognise in that statement a euphemism for dropping the pre-election policy and rhetoric of the Labour party, which is embracing in large measure the previous Conservative Administration's policies on the water industry's structure. Does he realise that—as in the vote on lone-parent benefits, and subject to the detail of legislation that he introduces—he can expect to receive support from the Conservative party for measures that are similar to those proposed by the previous Conservative Government?
On a point of practical detail, does the right hon. Gentleman expect that, as the PFI proceeds in the water industry, ownership of key assets in that industry will progressively transfer out of public ownership and into private ownership?
Mr. Dewar: I do not make that assumption at all. Apart from anything else, the authorities' asset base is
158
a matter for judgment and good sense in management. I do not take the type of ideological approach to these matters that the hon. Gentleman, by implication, wishes on me, and I am sorry that he should try to do that. His support in these matters is not necessary, and I caution Conservative Members for assuming that it would even be welcomed. He must make his own decision in this and in other cases. I should like to think that on this issue, as on many other issues, I have been admirably consistent over the years. Although often consistently wrong, I have at least been consistent.
Mr. Frank Roy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which will be seen by the people of Scotland as the roar of their Scottish lion—rather than as the squeak of a mouse from afar. Last night, at a public meeting in my constituency held by the Scottish water council, it was stated that there was a need for more transparency and public accountability in the water industry. Does he agree that bringing more councillors on to boards will make them more accountable, more responsive and more transparent?
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I am not sure that I ever see myself as a lion. I would be a rather skinny version of the beast—although I should add that I enjoy Scotch beef.
We will keep the situation under review, and I hope that there will be a period of stability. It will be some time before we have a legislative opportunity to make some of the changes, but I very much hope that boards will be allowed to work effectively in the public interest and in the interests of everyone. I am confident that that will be the case, but we will continue to monitor and not be afraid to go further down a particular policy road to get the type of results that we all want.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and particularly the very significant increase in democratic accountability for Scottish water within the public sector. Will he undertake to explain to the Scottish people the unavoidable necessity for increased water charges in the next few years? Specifically, will he explain that increases are nothing whatever to do with the use of public-private partnerships, which are absolutely essential, but arise because of the considerable backlog of under-investment inherited after 18 years of Conservative rule?
Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend is still working from a good brief, I see. Yes, he is absolutely right: there is no painless escape from the current situation. Large sums will have to be raised, and large sums will have to be spent. That is partly a problem for the Treasury and partly a matter of partnership arrangements and the PFI approach. The consumer will bear some of the strain, and it would be dishonest if we did not recognise that that fact is built into the situation. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's realism.

School Children's Clothing and Footwear (Value Added Tax)
5.15 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the zero-rating of the supply of items of clothing and footwear for use only as part of an approved school uniform.
I have sat here patiently for almost two hours listening to ministerial statements on exotic subjects from pollution and hot air to the people's sewage. Those will be difficult acts to follow, but I will give it my best shot.
I start by declaring an interest in that I have three children, all of whom are likely eventually to be wearers of school uniform. It therefore came as a surprise to me to learn—because of a campaign by a local school outfitter, in Worthing—that those uniforms may be subject to the full VAT rate of 17.5 per cent., even before my children are teenagers. It came as a surprise also to many of my colleagues who are supporting my Bill, as they were under the impression that children's clothing, and particularly school uniforms, were zero-rated for VAT. It certainly comes as a surprise to many parents, who find that they are faced with the surcharge—on usually compulsory school uniforms—at a very expensive time, when bringing up young children.
The Bill would affect literally millions of families throughout the country—thousands in each hon. Member's constituency. As such, I hope that it will receive the support of the whole House. I believe that it addresses an anomaly in VAT law that was never intended.
The problem stems from the fact that there is no definition of the term "young children" in VAT law. Consequently, VAT relief is subject to a schedule of maximum sizes for clothing and footwear that is based on the children's average size to their 14th birthday. In detail, that means that children with a size 14.5 in collar upwards or wearing jumpers with a 34 in chest upwards, trousers with a 28 in waist upwards or skirts with a 26 in waist upwards will be subject to 17.5 per cent. VAT on the value of those items of clothing.
Alas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many schoolchildren today do not share the svelte Adonis-like proportions that you and I enjoy. It is a medical fact that children today are larger than when the so-called average figures were devised. Worse still, those outdated schedules positively discriminate against larger children, who may already be suffering from weight problems through no fault of their own. Moreover, today's fashion is to wear baggier outfits.
School outfitters are constantly faced with the absurd situation in which two children of the same age, say 13, are fitted out with the same type of uniform for the same school, and in which one child with a size 14 in collar will enjoy zero VAT on his or her uniform whereas the other, with a size 14.5 in collar—only half an inch more—will be clobbered for the full 17.5 per cent. VAT. There are worse anomalies.
One of the few reliefs is for garments that can be shown as intended to be worn only by members of organisations that cater exclusively for under 14-year-olds. In the case of school uniforms, a prominent crest or logo must be worn. Under 14 means that the relief can apply only to
160
private prep schools, which cater typically for children up to the age of 13. They will attract no VAT. The uniform for typical state secondary schools in my constituency, catering for 12 to 16-year-olds in Worthing and, by definition, usually for less well-off parents, will be subject to full VAT at 17.5 per cent., even when dealing with children of identical size and age.
There are other extreme cases such as that of a firm of hat producers in Nottingham. It produces bonnets for babies which can be liable for the full rate of VAT because it is possible to stretch them across the head of an adult. That is the anomaly in the law.
Last week, I visited one of the outstanding schools in my constituency—Worthing high school. The cost of a uniform at that school is as follows: a jumper is typically £16 or £16.50; a shirt is £9; skirts or trousers are £16; rugby shirts are £17; sports socks are £3.50 and shorts are £7. That adds up to at least £70 before taking account of blazers, shoes and other parts of the uniform. That is £70 or more per child, per kit, as well as the cost of replacement when the uniform wears out.
The outfitter for that school does not stock jumpers of 34 in or below simply because all the children in that school qualify as above the average size and will, therefore, be subject to VAT. There is no choice because the uniform is compulsory. Virtually all the schools in my constituency have compulsory school uniform.
I fully appreciate that the current VAT laws were fashioned to prevent adults from taking advantage of general items of school wear such as plain shirts and trousers. My Bill seeks VAT exemption on those items of school wear that are clearly identifiable as part of a recognised school uniform. I am talking about stripy jumpers made to particular specifications and often involving specially commissioned dyes, jumpers or sports kit bearing the logo or name of the school prominently, those classically dull grey or delightful maroon blazers made famous by the girls of St. Trinian's or those particularly troublesome thick, scratchy football socks guaranteed to bring the wearer a rash on the back of the ankles—I am sure that that brings back fond memories, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As my trip to Worthing high school last week and many other schools in my constituency have confirmed, such items of school uniform are fine and are accepted for school, but by no stretch of the imagination can they be regarded as fashion accessories. No self-respecting pupil in my constituency is likely to be found strutting his or her stuff in one of Worthing's many hot night spots regaled in any of the items I have mentioned.
The law can easily be amended to exempt from VAT those elements of school uniform clearly identified with a particular local school, regardless of the age and size of the children. It could be policed by the production of a school identification card, or the uniform could be ordered through the school.
I hope that the House agrees on the benefits of a school uniform. The Prime Minister has spoken in favour on many occasions. It engenders pride in the school and a sense of identity and discipline. It has been shown that a uniform can lead to better results in schools that have taken it up. A uniform is useful against truancy, it is a good security measure against strangers coming on to school premises and it cuts down the emotional blackmail

161
that children use on their parents because they want the latest designer gear. It also avoids peer pressure about who is the school fashion icon.
The Bill seeks to encourage further the welcome trend back to school uniform. It seeks to correct an anomaly in VAT law which I am sure was never intended and which has placed extra burdens, particularly on the less well-off families who are already faced with the spiralling costs of bringing up young children. It seeks to help less well-off families with several children, particularly prone to wear and tear on their clothes. It seeks to address the absurd advantage implicitly given to children at private prep schools over state secondary schools from the ages of 11 or 12.
My Bill is anti-sexist, anti-agist, anti-sizeist and anti-elitist. As such, I am sure that it will find support from all corners of the House, even from the most politically correct zealots on the Government Benches. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mrs. Theresa May, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Shaun Woodward, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. David Prior and Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

SCHOOL CHILDREN'S CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR (VALUE ADDED TAX)
Mr. Tim Loughton accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the zero-rating of the supply of items of clothing and footwear for use only as part of an approved school uniform: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 103].
Orders of the Day

  National Minimum Wage Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the President of the Board of Trade I must announce to the House that Madam Speaker has decided to apply the 10-minute rule to all Back-Bench speeches throughout the debate.
  5.25 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am proud to be able to stand before the House today moving the Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage Bill. The Bill will introduce, for the first time in the United Kingdom, minimum wage protection for all workers and will begin to end the scandal of poverty pay.
  This is one of the many areas of politics in which for the Opposition the debate has stood still. They continue—most of them at least—to attack even the principle, let alone the detail, of a national minimum wage as if they and not we had won both the argument and the election. Indeed, this is a good example of the stark differences between us; differences which shape a wholly different approach to Britain's competitiveness.
  Increasingly in recent years, the Conservative party has argued that Britain can only and should only seek to compete by aiming to be the cheapest at all costs; aiming to be the bottom of the heap; aiming for the lowest wages and the worst working conditions to be found among our competitors. It was truly a counsel of despair.
  The previous Government inherited a country long regarded, certainly since the earliest days of the industrial revolution, as the workshop of the world. Yet the underlying thrust of the policy of the previous Government was to try to turn Britain into the sweatshop, certainly of Europe if not of the world. Fortunately, undercutting the wages and working conditions of countries such as China, for example, was beyond even the previous Government, although heaven knows they tried. In the process they added to changes coming from elsewhere—to a ridiculous extent—and created endemic and high levels of insecurity across every group and profession in the country. Thanks to them, it is well understood that in today's world there is no longer any such thing as a safe job or even a secure profession. Those who thought themselves well-established in their comfortable middle years saw their personal and financial security stripped away and a Government utterly indifferent to their impact on the lives of individuals, of families or of society as a whole.
  It is never possible to summarise differences in political philosophy in a sentence or two, but it certainly goes to the heart of the difference between ourselves and the Conservative party that it sought to achieve competitiveness through lowest price whereas we seek to achieve it through high quality. We profoundly believe that Britain's only route to a secure and competitive future

  163
  is to remain at the forefront of technological development, of the pursuit of innovation and indeed of quality in all the goods or services that we seek to supply, whether domestically or across the world.
  It is against that background that we recognise the role that having basic and fair minimum standards, including fair minimum standards for pay, can contribute.
  Mr. John Redwood: The right hon. Lady has already misled the House in her remarks. She said that all workers will be covered. There are four categories exempted in the Bill before the House so I hope that she will correct the record. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman might like to reconsider the words he used about the right hon. Lady.
  Mr. Redwood: Would you like me to say that the right hon. Lady inadvertently misled the House? The right hon. Lady said that all workers will be covered, but that is not in the Bill before the House.
  I want to ask a simple question. Has the right hon. Lady now resolved the conflicts with her ministerial colleagues? Is she telling the House now that every young worker, trainee or otherwise, will be covered by the Bill at a single, standard national minimum rate, or is she still undecided about whether all young workers and trainees will be covered?
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman bothered to rise to make that point. Obviously, the issue of who is covered by the Bill is something to which I shall come shortly. I am sure that he is well aware that the issue of how young people will be affected is one which we have referred to the Low Pay Commission, and I shall come to that in a minute.
  Labour Members support a national minimum wage, not only because it is just, but because it has the potential for real economic benefit, provided that it is set at a sensible rate. Moreover, that is not merely our view, but a view which is attracting growing support across British business and commerce.
  The evidence for why we need a national minimum wage is quite clear. Despite the previous Government's assertions, having no floor at all for wages has in itself created considerable problems in the labour market. It has increased costs and pressures on the public purse and it has undermined many efficient and worthwhile companies which are at risk of losing market share as they are undercut by cowboy operators.
  In consequence, we see low standards, not merely becoming the norm, but being reflected in the poor quality, or indeed the lack of any training or of development, in the work force, in levels of productivity that still lag far behind our competitors because improved productivity depends crucially on improved levels of investment, and in consequent reductions in the competitiveness of much of British industry.
  We have seen welcome improvements of late, both in the statistics on unemployment and in the fact that more people are in work now than in recent years. Nevertheless, after 18 years of a Government who came to power on the slogan "Labour isn't working", we found
  164
  unemployment 50 per cent. higher than we left it in 1979, even after some 30 or so changes in the way in which it has been measured. Within that total, the number of people who have been unemployed for more than a year is almost double the figure for 1979.
  Within that overall picture on employment, the link that the Conservative party claims to detect between low levels of pay and high levels of employment is discredited by much of the evidence of its record in power. Until they were abolished by the previous Government, wages councils provided minimum pay rates for the most vulnerable of our work force, who worked in industries that had a history both of low trade union representation and of low pay. Apart from the existence of the wages councils, legislation such as the fair wage resolution or schedule 11 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 ensured that workers were paid rates at least comparable to those enjoyed by similar workers in competing companies.
  The previous Government systematically and step-by-step dismantled all those protections. In 1986, young people were removed from coverage by the wages council system. During the Second Reading debate on the Wages Bill 1986, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) explained that the then Government's aim was
  "to create employment opportunities especially for young people"
  and to create—
  "an efficient labour market, where there are the minimum of constraints on the rights of employers and employees to agree to offer and accept jobs on contractual terms that suit them both".—[Official Report, 11 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 796.]
  What happened? Certainly, levels of pay fell. But there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that employment among young people actually fell.
  Abolition of the councils in 1993 saw earnings in those industries covered, particularly for the new entrants, fall in real terms. But employment in those sectors did not increase relative to the rest of industry. Nor indeed did low pay continue to be confined largely to those areas previously covered by wages councils. Now some 880,000 workers earn less than £2.50 an hour, which is a third of the average hourly rate. Those workers are found throughout the United Kingdom, not just in areas that have traditionally tended to be low paying. There are innumerable examples of people working long hours for a very low hourly rate.
  The Low Pay Unit has examples of someone working in a chip shop in Birmingham and taking home 80p an hour, of a factory hand earning £1.22 an hour and a residential home worker earning £1.66 an hour—another example involves a sales clerk in Wrexham earning £1.12 an hour. The recently opened Trades Union Congress hotline has uncovered cases such as that of a waiter paid £12 for an eight-hour shift, during which any tips that he received were taken from him, and a cleaner working in an independent school, who was paid £40 for a 40-hour week.
  The consequence of that policy, apart from insecurity and poverty among those in such low-paid work, is a massive cost to the public purse. More than £2 billion will be paid in 1997 in family credit alone to subsidise employers paying wages at those levels. The taxpayer is paying a heavy price for the previous Government's decision to remove any floor on earnings. Not only did that result in poverty wages, but a pay gap was created

  165
  between rich and poor which has grown to its largest level since the 1880s; and there has been a growth in inequality which is faster than in any other industrialised country apart from New Zealand.
  Moreover, the present position is actually undermining employers who are competitive in any fair marketplace—undermining the quality of the goods and services that they can offer and damaging their competitiveness in consequence. That has been increasingly realised across British business. For example, the Business Services Association recently said:
  "A minimum wage would allow reputable companies to compete for business on the grounds of quality rather than price".
  The Reed agency survey found that 48 per cent. of employers with fewer than 100 employees were in favour of a national minimum wage, with 27 per cent. thinking that it was a "very good" idea. Not long before the election, the private company DHL, carried out a survey among UK exporters, almost 70 per cent. of whom in their responses to the survey indicated that they were either not opposed to, or directly supportive of, a national minimum wage.
  The underlying reason was quite simple. Companies that can compete internationally only on the basis of quality nevertheless almost always need a secure domestic market base. Cowboy operators who undercut that domestic market share undermine the ability to keep and compete on the quality which is essential to obtain orders in the international marketplace. Far from being an aid to British business in its international competitiveness, the lack of any standards and any basis of minimum levels of pay actually turns out to be an impediment.
  The case that I have made so far is a case for having any basic standards at all, but it is important to recognise that, within those basic standards, common sense suggests that we should have a single national rate for the minimum wage. Such a wage is a key part of our strategy to enhance employability and to help those at present without jobs to move into work. It will be implemented against a background of tax and benefits reform and of a new deal to promote not just quality employment, but quality training to give people the skills and flexibility that they need to prosper in today's and tomorrow's labour market.
  The combination of those policies should open up the world of work for far more people. Today, we have about 1.4 million people out of work at the same time as there are many thousands of job vacancies—particularly in the midlands, as elsewhere, where employers complain of skill shortages which damage the economy's competitiveness, as well as tending to foster inflation.
  In many cases, the pay rates on offer in the labour market that we inherited from our opponents are not high enough for people to be able to move into work, and the skills and experience that the unemployed have to offer are often not suitable for the vacancies that continue to exist. We need to build a fresh ladder from welfare to work, and the minimum wage is an important rung on that ladder.
  166
  We quickly set to work on the policy. Within 90 days of the general election, we had set up the independent Low Pay Commission, chaired by Professor George Bain, to examine the case for the level at which a minimum wage might be introduced.
  Mr. Redwood: Can the right hon. Lady give us some guidance on the following question? Does she think that a waitress on £3 an hour who gets free accommodation and food is better or worse off than a factory worker on £4.50 an hour who is trying to live in central London and has to meet his own expenses for accommodation and food, or a bar steward on £4 an hour in Liverpool who gets free food, but has to pay for his accommodation? Which is better off? Will any of those workers be covered by the Bill?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have consistently made it clear that we have no intention of second-guessing the work of the Low Pay Commission. The comparisons that the right hon. Gentleman makes are those which the commission has been set up to address. As I said a moment ago, the commission is taking widespread evidence and those are the issues it needs to consider.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I welcome the fact that the Government have established the Low Pay Commission; my party has long argued for such a body. I am, however, confused. The right hon. Lady argues that common sense leads her to believe that a national minimum wage is the right route. Why, in that case, is she not prepared to let the Low Pay Commission examine the matter and, perhaps, endorse her view?
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall come back to that issue in a moment. For the hon. Gentleman to describe his party's support for a minimum wage as long held is slightly flattering. I do not, however, want to intrude on private grief. We have, of course, looked at all the issues, and we have looked carefully at the arguments about different rates of pay and different conditions and circumstances. We have, however, come to the conclusion that it would not be sensible for the Low Pay Commission to spend time examining them.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way on that point. She referred to Professor George Bain. Is she aware of his statement that he would be surprised if there were not some job losses and that the question was whether those jobs would be better lost anyway? Does she agree that it would be better if low-paid jobs did not exist?
  Mrs. Beckett: That is not what Professor George Bain said.
  Mr. Bercow: It is on the record.
  Mrs. Beckett: Yes, Professor Bain's words are on the record and I advise the hon. Gentleman to scrutinise them. I have some experience of his accuracy. I am well aware of what Professor Bain said and it was not as the hon. Gentleman represented it. Professor Bain made it clear, as we have always made it clear, that we could never say, hand on heart, that no one would ever be able to claim—

  167
  I stress the word "claim"—that in some way, levels of employment had been affected. Again, I shall come back to that point.
  We set up the Low Pay Commission within 90 days of the general election. The Bill will give a statutory framework to the commission's work and if it passes through both Houses, regulations to implement the detail of Government decisions will be introduced in the year ahead.
  The terms of reference that we set for the Low Pay Commission indicated that it should take full account of prevailing economic circumstances as well as the circumstances that surround the implementation of the minimum wage itself, such as the changes that we envisage in the tax and benefit system. Those terms of reference also make it clear that we believe that the minimum wage should be a single hourly rate establishing a general wage to apply across the board.
  I know that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) was quoted—he will no doubt correct me in his speech if he was quoted inaccurately—as suggesting that this was a policy of dogma. It has nothing to do with dogma. Even the mention of the interaction between levels of a minimum wage and other aspects of the tax and benefit system makes it clear why we told the Low Pay Commission not to spend time assessing the case for regional or for sectoral rates.
  The difficulties of boundary definition would be insuperable. First, we have no clearly defined and long-established regional boundaries as such in the United Kingdom. Secondly, what matters? Is it where someone works or is it where he or she lives? If we considered different regional rates, would they also interact with different sectors? Again, there would be bound to be differences and difficulties of definition which would hugely complicate the administration and, indeed, the costs of introducing a minimum wage. For companies that have employees in more than one region or individual employees who work in more than region, the complications could be enormous.
  One issue that is more frequently raised is the treatment of small and growing firms. Although, understandably, there has been some anxiety among representatives of small business, not least because of the extremely distorted information they got from the Conservative party, there is now a growing acceptance even in this area of the economy of the case for a national minimum wage. That was illustrated, for example, at the 1997 conference of the Federation of Small Business where a majority of those who attended voted in favour of a national minimum wage, sensibly negotiated.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: That claim has been made before. Has the right hon. Lady not read the manifesto of the Federation of Small Businesses? It says:
  "The Federation is in principle opposed to a statutory minimum wage."
  Mrs. Beckett: I can tell the hon. Gentleman categorically that we know that the Federation of Small Businesses passed the resolution I described; that has never been disputed. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was present in the hall, unlike Conservative party representatives, when the debate was held. There is no doubt that the federation carried such a resolution.
  168
  What is important is not only that the federation conference voted in favour of a minimum wage, sensibly negotiated, but that we have again asked the Low Pay Commission to take account of the impact on small firms when it formulates its recommendations.
  Mr. David Prior: Why is there no one on the Low Pay Commission who has had first-hand experience at the sharp end of running a small business?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken and I suggest that he looks again at the composition and membership of the Low Pay Commission. Mr. Dewar is a well-recognised representative of the small business community. The commission is taking evidence from the small business sector and it will take account of the views of small business in its recommendations.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: Is this on the same point?
  Mr. Bruce: Yes. I understand that the right hon. Lady must make her own case and must, obviously, support what the Labour party has decided. I and my colleagues are, however, confused. The Government moved quickly to say that its new deal would effectively give employers a subsidy of about £2 an hour— £75 a week—to take on a long-term unemployed person. Why is it right for the Government to get people into work by giving a £2 subsidy and yet to say that they will create jobs by bringing the minimum wage upwards? I am confused. Those are both Labour party policies and they seem to contradict each other.
  Mrs. Beckett: The policies do not contradict each other. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber earlier; I do not criticise him if he was not because we all have other commitments. I have already made the point that the welfare-to-work programme is the kind of issue that the Low Pay Commission will take into account when it makes its judgment.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that it has never been intended that the welfare-to-work programme should continue in perpetuity. It is a one-off step which the Government have felt forced to take because of the previous Government's total inaction. We inherited a large-scale problem of unemployment, particularly among young people, and we thought it right to take dramatic action to deal with the problem, as we are now doing.
  That point brings me to the issue of young people. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to look with particular attention at young people and specifically to consider whether there should be any special treatment for them. We do not want the legislation to provide a disincentive for young people to stay on in education and training, and that is why it is important for the commission to take evidence and carefully to assess the area.
  We are, of course, well aware that there are many workers under 26 who are fully as productive as any older worker and who may have family commitments. No decision has yet been made by the Government on

  169
  those issues. We await the Low Pay Commission's recommendations on what exemptions, if any, might need to be made for young people, on whether there might be a lower minimum or minima and in what circumstances those conditions might apply. It is for that reason that we have taken limited powers in the Bill to make exceptions if the Low Pay Commission so recommends and if the Government so decide. All those matters would stand to be laid before this House in the regulations.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I fully understand and welcome the point that my right hon. Friend is making, but there are many exploited young people in this country and many businesses that grow and thrive on that exploitation. I know that she will take that into account, but a marker must be given to the Low Pay Commission that we are concerned about the exploitation of young people.
  Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the exploitation of young people, but I know that he shares my view that exploitation of people in the work force of whatever age is damaging and should be resisted. I am mindful of the comment that is sometimes made about the dignity of work, and I share the view that it is always better, if it is at all possible, for people to be in the work force and that work can contribute to self-esteem. However, being brazenly and blatantly exploited does not contribute to anybody's self-esteem: it is damaging, undermining and engenders a high degree of cynicism.
  Audrey Wise: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, but will she give an assurance that any regulations that may be made—although I hope they will not be—under clauses 3 and 4 will be brought to the House for debate and vote?
  Mrs. Beckett: Of course—I can unreservedly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It would be quite wrong for an issue of such substance not to come before the House and it is the Government's intention that it should do so.
  I have referred several times to the work of the Low Pay Commission. The commission includes representatives of employers and workers drawn from a range of sectors and industries. It is undertaking a wide-ranging consultation exercise to obtain views of employers, workers, interested bodies and the general public; and, on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I know it has taken evidence from a number of young people. It has received a large number of written submissions and undertaken a series of visits throughout the United Kingdom to hear the views of those who seem likely to be directly affected by the legislation.
  We expect the commission to report its recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to me by the end of May 1998, and, following that report, we shall consider the content of the regulations to implement a national minimum wage. Those regulations will set the rate, specify the reference period and determine the method of assessing the minimum wage, including issues such as benefits in kind, to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred earlier. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to look at all these issues.
  170
  The regulations will determine the method of calculation and the make-up of the pay that can be taken into account when assessing whether the national minimum wage has been paid. We recognise that pay today can be made up of a large number of elements, including overtime, performance bonuses, benefits and allowances that are payable for particular working circumstances or which include additional payments for shiftwork, piecework or payments in kind. All those are issues which the Low Pay Commission will consider, on which it will report to us, and on which, once we have reached a decision, we shall frame regulations.
  That brings me to the issue of enforcement. There is no point in having a national minimum wage that cannot be enforced, but an efficient regime needs to balance the potential burdens on business of the structure of regulation itself against the need to ensure that individuals receive their rights and are adequately protected; and that the economic as well as the social benefits we envisage flowing from a national minimum wage do indeed ensue. The Bill provides for a flexible approach to enforcement. It allows us to appoint officers to enforce the minimum wage or, if it is thought more sensible, to engage the services of officers of an existing Government Department or agency. In this respect, we are building on existing practices and procedures, given that individual workers already have the right to go to an industrial tribunal to recover wages that have been unlawfully deducted, or to a court for breach of contract.
  The Bill provides powers to enable officers to levy financial penalties on employers who fail to comply with an enforcement notice. That should ensure that there is no delay in workers receiving the wages to which they are entitled. We will not tolerate those who refuse or wilfully neglect to pay a worker the minimum wage, or those who fail to keep adequate records or who keep false records. Employers who deliberately flout the law may be guilty of a criminal offence. However, we hope and believe that there will be few employers who would ever face criminal action under this legislation. Responsible companies—the vast majority, who want the cowboys who give them a bad name to be strictly dealt with—have nothing to fear and a great deal to gain.
  The popularity of the national minimum wage with the general public is a triumph of decency over dogma. The Conservative party, barely engaging in the real debate about a national minimum wage, has sought from the beginning to use scare tactics as dishonest as they were scurrilous. If memory serves me, Conservative Members said at one time that 750,000 jobs would be lost if ever there was a national minimum wage. As time went on and that argument appeared not to carry weight, the figure rose to ludicrous proportions, resulting in a claim that 2 million jobs would be destroyed if any national minimum wage were introduced.
  Those who have been around long enough to remember the introduction of equal pay legislation will remember a remarkably similar debate. I well recall the issue because, at the time, my mother was a trained teacher who had a family of three and an invalid husband to support. She did not receive the same pay as a man in her circumstances. We were told then that the introduction of equal pay legislation would mean that women would simply disappear from the marketplace—something which does not seem to have been a noticeable feature of recent years. In fact, women's pay in real terms and relative to men's

  171
  has increased significantly since 1975, when the Sex Discrimination Act was introduced; and between 1975 and 1997 women's participation in the labour market has increased dramatically from 60 to 72 per cent.
  Of course, we can never prevent people from claiming that a national minimum wage will cause them to lay off staff, or indeed claiming it as justification for having done so. I remember that, just before the 1992 general election, a fairly major employer was quoted as having written to all its employees to say that, if they were so unwise as to vote Labour and a national minimum wage was introduced, several hundred of them would have to be laid off. Within a few weeks of that election, which resulted, as we all recall, in a Tory Government and no national minimum wage, several hundred of them were nevertheless laid off. There is nothing that we can do about that sort of claim.
  However, as I hope we have made clear, there is by no means a simple relationship between the introduction of a national minimum wage and levels of or access to employment. It may be the opinion of Conservative Members that there is a simple link between the two, but the evidence does not support such a claim. Every other developed nation has some form of national minimum wage or statutory wage protection. Conservative Members claim that the existence of such policies in other countries in the EU is merely a reflection of their lack of competitiveness; but the United States, with which Conservative Members are much keener to compare us, has had a minimum wage since 1938. Employment there rose by 18 million in the 10 years to 1994. In a fairly recent example, when the state of California raised the level of its minimum wage, employment also rose. I do not suggest that there is a simple link between the raising of the minimum wage in the United States and employment rising there, as the Conservative party would try to argue if the opposite were true; I simply say that it suggests that the relationship between pay and employment is much more complicated—as are the economic effects of such a policy—than the Conservative party would wish to suggest.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade and acknowledge her generosity in giving way. Does she think that the United States is right to exempt small businesses from the national minimum wage? If she does, why does she not apply such an exemption in the United Kingdom?
  Mrs. Beckett: The United States has quite a complex structure for its various minimum wages. That does not alter my point, which is that when the minimum wage there was raised, employment rose too. That completely defeats the Conservative party's argument.
  Let me remind the hon. Gentleman—or inform him—of last year's OECD publication, "Annual Employment Outlook", which argued that minimum wages help to defend the social fabric of industrialised nations—not a point which the Conservative party necessarily contests—and that minimum wages do not appear to cause job losses among the most affected groups—women, young people and the unskilled.
  Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Lady is generously giving way today. Was the DTI wrong to answer a question by saying that 1 million jobs would be lost if
  172
  we had a national minimum wage at half average earnings? That answer was calculated before the election by high calibre DTI staff. If she thinks that the DTI was wrong, will she publish all the forecasts of job losses that have been sent to the Department, and an independent assessment by her officials of the job consequences of the minimum wage?
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not recall the precise questions quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. I do know, however, that no Government Department would make such an assessment without first being given some criteria on which to work. In all the examples ever quoted by the Conservative party, on this and many other issues, the criteria on which such calculations are made have been set by politicians, Ministers and political advisers in the Conservative party. All civil servants can do then is base their calculations on the guidance they have been given as to the background against which such judgments may be made. Given what we know about the quality of guidance given by the Tory party, there is no substance to the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Chris Pond: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the assumption given to Treasury officials and the DTI before the election was that differentials from top to bottom would be fully restored if a minimum wage were introduced? In other words, a pay rise for a hairdresser would be replicated in percentage terms at the very top, among the fat cats. After the election, however, for no particularly good reason, these same Ministers decided to reduce the assumption to differentials being only half restored from top to bottom—another assumption with no empirical basis.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. I remember a similar example of Tory accuracy. Before the general elections of 1987 and 1992, the Tories decided that if a Labour Government were elected they would immediately increase public spending by £35 billion. On that basis, they asked the Inland Revenue to cost what that would mean if registered purely as an increase in the standard rate of income tax. That resulted in the idea of a lop increase on the standard rate of tax.
  The Conservatives then went to innumerable small businesses and others asserting that it was Labour party policy to put 10p on the standard rate of tax. They stressed how much this would cost people and industries. Before the recent election, I was sent a letter written by an hon. Member—I will not name him to spare his blushes—who had turned this into a fund-raising exercise. He told small businesses in his constituency, on the basis of what he called Inland Revenue figures—they were actually dishonestly compiled by the Tory party—that a Labour Government would cost them £10,000, "so why not give a large sum to my election campaign to prevent the election of a Labour Government?"
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham also asked me for an independent assessment by my officials. As he is well aware, no assessment, independent or otherwise, is possible until we have a clear idea from the Low Pay Commission of what it might recommend; thereafter, the Government will have to come to a judgment.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has asked me in a press release to reveal—I hope that I am not misrepresenting him; I recognise that I am depending on

  173
  press reports—forecasts that we are supposedly suppressing. There are no such forecasts, and it is hard to imagine how the right hon. Gentleman came to think there were. I fear that they are yet another figment of his imagination.
  The main issue with respect to a national minimum wage is getting the policy mix right. So long as it is set at a sensible level, taking economic circumstances into account, it can contribute to growth and job creation, while helping to tackle poverty pay and to alleviate the burden on the taxpayer.
  The need for such an approach has long been recognised. When the late Winston Churchill introduced legislation in 1909 to set up the trade boards, the predecessors of the wages councils, he said:
  "where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst".
  As a result of the former Government's policies, too many British workers still have to work excessive hours to take home a living wage.
  Modern companies depend on constructive partnership with their work force. They depend on stimulating confidence and creativity because those are the principal assets enabling them to compete in the global economy, where a competitive edge is so desperately needed. A policy of a national minimum wage will contribute greatly to such developments. That policy is right, it is fair, it is just and it is sensible. It is a clear example of how a Labour Government can and will make a real difference to the lives of people across Britain, contributing to fairness and prosperity for the many, not the few. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I am delighted that the President of the Board of Trade is in her place for once and has done us the courtesy of coming here—[Interruption.] I am about to say something nice about the right hon. Lady—hear me out. I am delighted that, for once, she has put the case for one of the many Bills that her Department is introducing. I am delighted, moreover, that she took so many interventions. It is all welcome progress for the right hon. Lady, who has been such a notable absentee—
  Mrs. Beckett: I am indifferent to the rubbish that the right hon. Gentleman spouts. In all the time I have been in this House I have consistently given way to interventions. I have no qualms about taking them at all.
  Mr. Redwood: I am delighted to hear it. The right hon. Lady is always courteous in that respect, as I am to her. It is nevertheless difficult to intervene when the right hon. Lady never comes here to speak in the first place. That was the problem that we faced at any rate until the past couple of weeks. It is a rare pleasure to find her here making a case.
  Our disappointment is that the right hon. Lady did not answer any of the fundamental questions about the legislation. She will not tell us to whom it will apply, what the rate will be, or how this measure will tackle poor wages. The truth is that she does not know: she has
  174
  sub-contracted those problems to the Low Pay Commission, but she will not even guarantee that she will accept all the commission's advice.
  No one dislikes poverty wages more than I do. It is no part of our case that we should seek to condone low wages—
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: If the right hon. Gentleman does not like poverty wages, why will he not draw a line somewhere? What is a reasonable or decent wage— £2.50, £1.50 or 80p an hour? In short, what constitutes poverty pay?
  Mr. Redwood: Our view is that people should be offered a minimum income, not a minimum wage. We set out what we thought that that minimum income should be in our benefit proposals and in the other proposals that we set out over the past 18 years. If the hon. Gentleman's party had done as much as the Conservative party to lift people out of poverty, those people would be a lot better off than they are today.
  Ann Keen: What minimum income would the right hon. Gentleman recommend?
  Mr. Redwood: I am happy to do so. The minimum income is set out in the benefit regulations, which we bequeathed to the Labour Government when we left office. We allowed family credit top-ups to those in low-paid employment, reflecting their family circumstances. There is no single minimum, as the Labour party will find out; it depends where one lives, how one lives and what one's responsibilities are. We bequeathed a sensitive system in which we had put in place additional benefits for those who needed more income.
  We therefore say: minimum income yes; minimum wage no. We want every family in this country to be able to earn enough from work to lead a decent life. Of course that is our objective, and let no Labour Member deny that or say to the contrary. The Conservative party wants a prosperous country. The issue is how to achieve it. Legislation cannot create prosperity in the way that the Government naively believe; there must be a low-tax, low-regulation economy, full of enterprise and initiative so that small companies can prosper, and more and better jobs are created.
  Mr. Pond: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about poverty and had such well-established policies on a minimum income, will he explain why, under the regime that he represented, those registered as in poverty increased from 5 million to 14 million, and why low pay is now the single most important cause of poverty? Those are the official figures.
  Mr. Redwood: That was a wild flight of fantasy from the hon. Gentleman. There are not 14 million people in poverty and we put in place benefits to ensure that everyone had the wherewithal to get food and shelter and the basics for a reasonable life, because that is what happens in a decent society. I deeply resent Labour Members implying that we did not care because we do, and we are very worried tonight that jobs will be lost as a result of this measure.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Some people in my constituency work for 90p an hour. The right

  175
  hon. Gentleman said that he wants people to earn enough to get a minimum income. How many hours do my constituents need to work at 90p per hour to raise that minimum? How long a period does the right hon. Gentleman think is reasonable?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. I was saying that some wages are too low for decent family life, which is why we introduced benefits to top them up. I should like those wages to be much higher and I have suggestions on how to make them higher. That is exactly what was happening under Conservative policies—we were backing enterprise and lower taxes. The Labour party wants to put taxes up and raise people's pension contributions and tries to make people worse off through higher taxes. I am against that.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Is the right hon. Gentleman happy about jobs in his constituency being advertised at £2 an hour?
  Mr. Redwood: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find a job in my constituency being advertised at £2 an hour.
  Mr. Caplin: I have among my notes an advertisement for a job in Wokingham at £2.20 an hour.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not found a job at £2 an hour. I make another promise to him—
  Mr. Caplin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Redwood: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question first, and perhaps he can then get himself out of the mess that he is in. The job that he mentioned at £2 an hour has gone up by 10 per cent. in two seconds. Who knows what it might be by the end of the debate?
  I went to the local employment centre in Wokingham the other day—not in search of a job for myself but in search of truth about this issue. I was told that the advice given to employers was not to advertise jobs at below £4 an hour. The labour market is buoyant thanks to the outgoing Conservative Government's policies, and the advice to employers in my constituency wanting to hire more workers is to offer higher rates. I concur with that judgment. I want the same prosperity for other parts of the country as my constituency has been privileged to enjoy under a Conservative Government in recent years. I shall now allow the hon. Gentleman to redeem his foolishness.
  Mr. Caplin: If there is a mess, it is of the right hon. Gentleman's making. He is the one in a hole, not me. Does it matter whether the wage is £2 or £2.20? Is he happy for his constituents to be paid £2 or £2.20 an hour?
  Mr. Redwood: I have made my position clear. My advice to any constituent thinking of taking that job is that he or she could easily get a better job in Wokingham at a higher rate. That is how a market economy works.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of people have
  176
  lived on poverty wages for the past 18 years? They did not like working all week—40 or 60 hours a week—and then having to go with their begging bowls to the DSS. That is an absolute tragedy. The previous Government would have continued to subsidise folk to go to work. That is not what people in this country want. They want a living wage which will give them the opportunity to stop going to the Government with a begging bowl. That is how to improve the quality of life and of products in Britain. Had the previous Government realised that, Conservative Members would not be sitting where they are now.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is making a rather good point beneath that provocative exterior. He is saying to those who keep their jobs after this legislation has gone through that the benefit will accrue mainly to the Treasury rather than to the individuals concerned, because for every extra pound that they get from their employer they will lose a lot in benefit withdrawal. That is one of the difficulties of the scheme that the Government are putting forward: it will help the Treasury more than it will help individuals working in the private sector. It will also hit the Treasury in many other ways, however, and we shall all end up losing.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the research by Stewart and Swaffield, who found that between 1991 and 1993, 9.3 per cent. of the work force were on low pay but only 2 per cent. of the workers involved suffered low pay for the whole three-year period? Does that not utterly demolish the Government myth that there is a huge and permanent pool of poorly paid people in Britain? There is not.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was a student I worked for much less, in the money of the day, than the national minimum that the Labour party now has in mind. I was happy to do so because I knew that it would not be a permanent condition. I am delighted that it was not. Many people accept jobs that are not well paid at the beginning of their careers or working lives because they live at home and do not have the same high expenses. They then gain experience and become more useful to a future employer, and go on to get better jobs. The best way to get a good job is to have had a not-so-good job and work one's way up. What the Labour party is trying to do is to kick away the ladder of opportunity for many people who wish to climb it.
  We believe in the state ensuring a minimum income rather than insisting on a minimum wage. That is why, when we were in office, we introduced housing benefit, family credit and other benefits, which helped those in low-income work as well as those who were out of work. We reflected family responsibilities because we considered that important. We shall continue to support the payment of benefits to those in work if their wages are not sufficient.
  If only we could legislate to ensure good wages for all without loss of jobs, but our case today is that we cannot because it will not work. The Government fear that it will not work and they are deeply divided, as we see from the leaks over the all-important detail of how wide ranging a minimum wage should be. Many young people, skilled

  177
  people and disabled people will lose their jobs or be prevented from getting a job if the wrong decisions are made and if the Bill goes through in a clumsy form.
  The Labour manifesto and election campaign clearly stated that the national minimum wage would apply to everyone. That is how the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrongly began her remarks this evening. She did not suggest that any region, group or age band would be excluded. When we objected that that could prevent some young people from getting a job at all, Labour spokesmen in those broadcasts just asserted that we were wrong.
  We now know that the Minister without Portfolio, who is not without influence in the Government, takes a different view, as we can see from leaked letters to colleagues and from his remarks to the Labour party conference. He thinks that the rate should be kept low and exemptions arranged to prevent too many jobs being lost. He was reported as saying that a different rate for young workers was
  "the right course of action".
  His subsequent "clarification" still leaned heavily in favour of no single national minimum for all. His thinking merely echoes that of the Deputy Prime Minister, who in opposition let slip the following, in more vernacular language than one usually gets from the Minister without Portfolio:
  And I knew the consequences"—
  of the national minimum wage—
  "were that there'd be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that, and it was in one of our documents that that would be one of the consequences … When I made that statement"—
  I continue to quote—
  "it was on Sky TV, it was then was told by the spin doctors that we're not saying that".
  The Deputy Prime Minister went on to reveal his battle with the spin doctors—deeply intriguing. He summed up magisterially, in a way that the President of the Board of Trade would be well advised to heed:
  "I've said since I don't like people giving stories of sound bites, avoiding difficulties by saying 'Isn't this the easy option, there's no difficulties', you lack credibility if you don't point out some of the difficulties of some of the options you propose. That's essential for the credibility of myself"—
  I speak for the Deputy Prime Minister on this occasion—
  "but also more important the Labour party. "
  What an extraordinary confession: the Deputy Prime Minister himself says that jobs will be lost if a national minimum wage is implemented. The Deputy Prime Minister says that the Labour spin doctors were wrong to cheat the people by pretending that there were no such problems. The Deputy Prime Minister recommended that a clean breast be made of the job losses, so that Labour would be telling the public the truth. If only the right hon. Lady would follow the advice of her senior and illustrious colleague, we would have a much better debate today.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Government obviously realise that the matter is complicated and are consulting, doing their homework and trying to tackle the legislation as best they can. That is better than any legislation that the previous Government produced; yet derision from the Opposition
  178
  is all the thanks that the Government get. After 18 years of legislation being pushed through the House without consultation, this legislation will be right, it will be well researched, and it will be done well. That is what the Opposition cannot stomach.
  Mr. Redwood: We are trying to clarify the complexities and difficulties and to ask questions, in the hope that that will lead to better policy. We heard today from the right hon. Lady that she intends to blunder on with the policy, with no assessment of the job consequences, no knowledge of who will be covered by it, with certain exceptions already excluded in the Bill, and no view yet on what the rate should be.
  The Opposition argue that Ministers should be forming a view on those matters, and should be offering the proper information for this debate and the national debate that it could lead. We would willingly help in that debate. We will debate seriously in the interests of people who want to keep their jobs, and in the interests of those who want higher pay. We are happy to do that, but unfortunately the right hon. Lady is showing her usual indecision and lack of interest in the detail of her Department, so she veers round the issue and does not answer the questions.
  The right hon. Lady's first guidance to the Low Pay Commission implied that there would be no exemptions. Her subsequent letter suggested that the commission consider exempting all young people. Tonight, she began by saying that there would be no exemptions, although there are some already, then she wandered off and said that perhaps some young people could be left out. Confusion is endemic, and that is sad when so much is at stake for the people whom the Government claim that they want to help.
  Today, we need answers to these crucial questions: how will wages be calculated? Who will qualify for the minimum wage, and who will be exempted? How many jobs are at risk? What will happen to differentials? Will the Treasury or the individual gain more from higher private sector pay? What will be the total cost to the taxpayer in the public sector and as a result of the possible bigger job losses? How will the health service pay for the increased pay bill? Will more money be made available? What is the level likely to be? How can we judge the Bill without knowing the main point—the rate that the Government are recommending?
  First, we need to know more about the coverage of the measure. It is vital to know how young people are to be treated. Is a young person one who is under 19, or under 21? What about the wide-ranging definition offered by the right hon. Lady in her letter to the Low Pay Commission, of under 26? Are trainees to be exempted? We have heard different views expressed by Ministers. How is a trainee to be defined?
  Are the disabled to receive special treatment—the Bill leaves open that possibility, as I read it—or will this heartless Government merely cut their benefits and put at risk some of their jobs? That is an important issue. My party's view is clear: do not cut the benefits for the disabled. I wish that the right hon. Lady could say the same thing.
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that my right hon. Friend is wrong to consult? If, at this stage of the process, she

  179
  were to lay down the answers that he seeks, would not the right hon. Gentleman, rather than congratulating her, condemn her for the policy measures that she was putting forward? Does he think that it is right to consult all parts of industry or not?
  Mr. Redwood: It is admirable for Governments to consult, but the usual practice is to consult first and legislate second.
  Mr. Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman has conceded that he agrees with the minimum income. In light of that principle, is it not entirely honourable and correct to consult on what proportion of that income should be made up of wages? He cannot have his cake and eat it.
  Mr. Redwood: I am happy for the Government to consult. They said that they believed that they could introduce a minimum wage with no job losses. We are sceptical. They should consult to get proper advice, and they should legislate, if they must, when they have finished their consultation. It is preposterous for them to present the Bill tonight with none of the crucial issues resolved, so that we cannot have a proper debate.
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the following statement—not from me, but from a briefing from the Confederation of British Industry, which many hon. Members have seen? It states:
  "The CBI believes that there is little evidence that the rates set by the Wages Councils in the 1980s and early 1990s caused job losses. A minimum wage set in line with Wages Council rates, uprated to today's prices, would be unlikely to cause significant damage but would still cover around 10 per cent. of all employees."
  Does my right hon.—does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Mr. Redwood: I thought that I was about to become the hon. Gentleman's Friend, but he pulled back in the end. The CBI states clearly in its evidence:
  "Even a modest minimum, set around the £3 mark, could lead to job losses unless wage differentials are squeezed."
  The CBI believes that wage differentials should not be squeezed.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is not the question who should be consulted? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Low Pay Commission's research paper, which quotes an article heading:
  "Pay panel dominated by Labour economists"?
  Six of the nine people are university economists who have a strong Labour background, or are from the trade unions. Can we get a balanced view, when the people who provide the jobs are the business community, not the panel?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We all object to the absence from the Low Pay Commission of anyone with hands-on experience of running a small business.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I must make progress, as many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  180
  We need to know more about the Bill's coverage, as I was saying. Are older people already in receipt of pensions to be exempted from the measure? Why did the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is present tonight, tell us that there would be no sectoral or regional exemptions, when some are already recorded in the Bill?
  The Bill exempts share fishermen, some merchant seamen and charity workers. It leaves open the possibility of exempting others. Are we witnessing a titanic struggle between old Labour, who want a high minimum wage for all, with no exemptions, and new hard Labour, who do not? We still do not know which side the President is on, because she sits on the fence and hopes that she will not have to answer the questions.
  Are the Government aware that in many foreign countries that have adopted minimum wage legislation, the list of exemptions has grown year by year as different groups have come to their legislators and said, "Please exempt us, because we think that it is doing more damage to job prospects than it is doing good in raising poor wages"? We have already heard a powerful exchange on the United States experience, with a much lower rate, I think, than the Government are considering—$5.15 an hour—and a raft of exemptions, including all of small business, the sector which generates most of the additional jobs in that economy and in ours.
  I wonder whether Ministers are to be exempted from the legislation. We have at least two Ministers who receive no pay at all for their jobs—the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, and the Paymaster General. In view of what we have learnt about how they have been obtaining money from offshore trusts in the past or shares or other advantages, I wonder whether it would be better if all that is owing to them were repatriated, they paid UK tax on it and we paid them a ministerial salary. I wonder whether it might be suitable to amend the Bill to ensure that Ministers receive a salary. However, in all other respects, arrangements for Ministers should remain on the same basis as for everyone else. I think that blind trusts and offshore trusts are proving problematic for the Government.
  We also need to know how pay will be defined. The right hon. Lady and I had a vaguely interesting exchange a little earlier during which I think that she got into a muddle. I repeat that question. Does the right hon. Lady think that a waitress on £3 an hour with free accommodation and meals is better or worse off than a factory worker on £4.50 an hour and no extras living in central London or a bar steward on £4 an hour with free food who lives in Liverpool? The right hon. Lady said that all those issues would be examined by the Low Pay Commission and that a judgment of Solomon would be arrived at. I ask her to think again: she has ruled out the Low Pay Commission's considering any regional differences.
  The right hon. Lady must surely understand—although she has a grace-and-favour residence at present—that living accommodation in central London is a lot more expensive than accommodation in Liverpool. Does that matter? Does it not mean that a particular rate of pay in London does not buy nearly as much as the same rate of

  181
  pay in Liverpool? Would it not be more sensible and sensitive to reflect that fact in the legislation that she proposes?
  Mr. Woolas rose—
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has attempted to make several points, and I have answered all his queries. I must now make progress as other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
  The right hon. Lady needs to tell us who will be better off and who will be covered by the legislation. Will she correct her previous answer and confirm that the Low Pay Commission cannot take account of regional differences, because she has ruled that out?
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that there should be differential wages because of different costs in the regions, does that logic apply also to benefits? Should there be different rates of benefit regionally?
  Mr. Redwood: To the extent that housing benefit is geared to the cost of housing, that is exactly what we have at present. This Government and the previous Government accepted the case for higher wages in London: it is called "London weighting". I find it difficult to understand the right hon. Lady's argument that it is impossible to define regionally different groups of workers who might need different levels of remuneration. The Government do that all the time when paying their workers. The right hon. Lady should rethink that issue. Is London weighting wrong and should it be abolished under the new ruling? Perhaps the Government should consider differential rates in the context of a minimum wage in order to reflect the logic that governs the way in which they pay their staff.
  Barbara Follett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has been generous in giving way. Does he believe that there should be differential rates for family credit? In August 1996, there were 8,000 claimants of family credit in his Wokingham constituency. According to my calculations, that represents about 12.2 per cent. of the electorate—which is a high percentage. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that those people should have differential rates? What would he do for those family credit claimants in his constituency?
  Mr. Redwood: I am rather sceptical of the figures offered by the hon. Lady. I have received no complaints about the way in which family credit is paid, and I do not think that it affects as many constituents as the hon. Lady suggests. We left behind a system that we thought was right. We applied differentials in the way that I have described that we believed adjusted, more or less, to the different pattern of costs and living expenses around the country. We now hear that the Government do not like that: they wish to treat some people much better than others according to a lottery of where they happen to live. We think that that is extremely unfair.
  As we have made clear, our principal worry is job losses. The right hon. Lady did not answer properly my question about Department of Trade and Industry figures
  182
  that were produced before the election. Of course there are assumptions underlying those figures. An assumption was revealed in the question, which referred to half national average wages and half differential restoration—not full differential restoration as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) would have us believe. The answer was calculated by independent officials in whom I have the utmost confidence on those sorts of issues.
  If the right hon. Lady would like to offer a different set of assumptions or if she has found an error in the way in which the officials calculated the figures, I invite her to correct the figures or provide alternative figures based on her alternative assumptions. We can then debate the matter properly. It is unacceptable for the right hon. Lady to produce a piece of legislation that many in this country believe will destroy many jobs and then wash her hands of the matter by saying, "I have no idea whether any jobs will be lost. I'm not going to calculate any figures and, if there are any figures in the Department, I'll make sure that they are all suppressed."
  Incidentally, hon. Members are not allowed to table questions about that issue because we are told that it is hypothetical. The previous Government did not regard it as such. This Government claim to believe in greater openness. So why is a whole serious of questions—which are very germane to an important policy pledge by the Government—blocked off when the previous Government were happy for that and similar issues to be out in the open?
  Judy Mallaber: Did the right hon. Gentleman believe that the introduction of equal pay legislation would lead to job losses? Does he have any evidence that it did so?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady will find no remarks by me about that subject on the record, so I am afraid that her point is not well made. She did not supply a quotation by me on that subject because she could not find an embarrassing one.
  Professor Bain warned of job losses, and that danger is reflected in the testimony and evidence coming from industry after industry—to which my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) hopes to refer if he catches the eye of the Chair later in the debate. The right hon. Lady claims that the Low Pay Commission has all the wisdom and that, in due course, it will arrive at the right answers. However, she will not tell us whether she will endorse the Low Pay Commission's findings or whether she will overturn its advice. That implies that the right hon. Lady has a view on what those answers will be.
  If the right hon. Lady were entirely independent and had no knowledge about what the Government should do, she could tell us tonight that she will accept all the recommendations offered by that group of wise men and women whom she has assembled at the Low Pay Commission. Her reluctance to do so shows that there are limits on their decisions. Would it not be better for the right hon. Lady to tell the House and the Low Pay Commission tonight what limits apply to its considerations so that it is not put in the embarrassing position of supplying advice that she is unable to accept?

  183
  If we look at the bigger picture, we can see that Labour is bad for business. The policies that it espouses will destroy jobs. The right hon. Lady's policy on the brewing industry has already lost 1,500 jobs directly, as one of the chief executives in that industry recently put on record. Many more jobs will be lost in manufacturing and exporting.
  Mrs. Beckett: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that every commentator, apart from the gentleman to whom he referred, suggested that, for good or ill, if I had made a different decision, twice as many jobs would have been lost. No one—apart from the individual whom the right hon. Gentleman quotes—suggested that the impact on employment would have been different and that no jobs would have been lost if I had made a different decision.
  Mr. Redwood: The fact remains that the person who said that was the one who had to sign the redundancy notices—he took a very dim view of the right hon. Lady's decision.
  Other people have provided some interesting testimony on that subject. Mr. Michael Hindley, Labour MEP for Lancashire South, adopts a global perspective. He says that the single currency will lead to actual cuts in wages and he strongly attacks the Government's policy of backing what he calls the "corporatist liberal-democratic state" as viewed through Brussels. He believes that the Government's economic and constitutional policies will lead not to higher wages, but to lower wages.
  I see the right hon. Lady frowning—she obviously does not agree with that view expressed by a senior Labour figure. I suspect that she is also not happy with Mr. Tim Pendry from Labour Reform. He makes it clear that the speeches made at the Labour party conference were "triumphs of mental vacuity"—many Conservatives would agree with that wise judgment. He goes on to say that he thinks that the Government will let down the values that the left believes in, and that he is prepared to split the party if necessary because he has no faith in those on the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] The Conservative party is extremely happy under its new leadership, and we know exactly what we think about these issues. It was the Labour party displaying the splits last week—and I think that there are plenty more where they came from. We have seen that again today, and I trust that we shall see it during this evening's debate. Many Labour figures feel that it would be wrong to exempt any group, and wrong also to have anything other than a high national minimum wage, and never mind the consequences. They think that the issue of decency is more important than that of full employment. I happen not to agree with that position, but I understand it. It is a reasonable socialist position for Labour Members to advance.
  Others, perhaps including the right hon. Lady and certainly the Minister Without Portfolio, believe that it would be wrong to take action that could damage job prospects and destroy opportunity when the Government are making so much about the need for people to get any sort of job so as to get off benefit. They are saying, in other words, that such action should not take place. It is clear that the split will become worse. The right hon. Lady was unable to answer any of my questions because the split is already so lethal to her party.
  184
  A national minimum wage in the private sector, apart from destroying jobs, will help the Treasury rather more than those who are in employment. I pray in aid none other than the Secretary of State for Health, who says:
  "The national minimum wage will help to reduce the £4 billion which taxpayers must contribute towards benefits that make up, in part at least, for the low wages paid by the worst employers."—[Official Report, 15 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 264.]
  Exactly. Much of the benefit will go to the Treasury on that account, but the Treasury has an unspecified and huge bill in respect of public sector wages, and worse still as a result of redundancies and lost jobs.
  We want some answers. We want more jobs, not fewer. We want a proper enterprise economy. We also want decent living standards by backing that enterprise economy. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a rather distressing point of order. We are led to understand that, since the debate commenced this afternoon, the police have issued a warrant for the arrest of a Member on one of the most grave charges that exists—attempting to pervert the course of justice.
  Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any indication from the Leader of the House about whether she will make a short statement at 7 o'clock on the position of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), including what rights and interests he still has in this place? Will the right hon. Lady clarify the situation? Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to attend the House although a warrant has been issued for his arrest, if he is given bail? I think that the House needs the hon. Gentleman's position to be clarified. We need to know what the situation is with the hon. Member for Govan.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have received no indication that such a statement is to be made.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to an important debate—indeed, it will affect hundreds of thousands of workers. I am pleased also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) in his place. I hope that he will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the light of his 17 years of service in the Low Pay Unit and especially his time as national director. That background signifies his belief in the importance of the issue that is before us.
  Before I came to the House, I was a full-time official of the National Union of Public Employees, which represented low-paid workers in the national health service and local government. It was always that union's policy to campaign for a national minimum wage. I was happy to be engaged in that fight for decent wages for the union's members.
  It was indeed a fight, as some of my hon. Friends know. The union's policy was not that of the Trades Union Congress or the Labour party at that time. Happily, the union's campaign has borne fruit. Its policy is now that of the TUC and the Labour party, and here we are on the Floor of the House discussing a Government Bill that will soon, we hope, be secured as an Act. The measure will reduce the inequalities in the wages system.

  185
  During my time in this place, I have raised the problems of low pay, especially in the Greater Manchester area. I was able to highlight some of the low-wage problems in the area thanks to the magnificent work of the local low pay unit as far back as 1974, when a debate on low pay took place in the House. I referred to the shocking discrepancy between the rate of pay of the average worker in my constituency and the rate in the rest of the country; to low-wage earners in the north-west and to rates in the south-east.
  Little has changed since those times. Average gross weekly earnings in Stalybridge and Hyde are now £308.40; in the rest of England and Wales they are £370.70. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade clearly spelt out that the Bill is about a national minimum wage with no regional exemptions, no special sector rates and no derogations for companies.
  I am not suggesting that the Bill is perfect. I am sure that others will join me in taking that view. I know that Gabrielle Cox, the co-ordinator of the Greater Manchester low pay unit, is concerned about one or two issues, including the possibility that under-25s might be paid a lower rate merely because of their age. In addition, there is no clause that states that the minimum wage will be uprated annually. There is no specific commitment to an overtime rate after a specified number of hours. However, this is still a good Bill. I have no doubt that the issues raised by the Greater Manchester low pay unit will be aired in Committee.
  I wish especially to refer to the problems in the fastest growing sector in the economy—tourism, leisure and hospitality. For about five years, until the general election, I was the Opposition spokesman on sport and tourism—as the House knows. I was concerned about the low pay in that sector, especially hospitality. With that in mind, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, specifically to pledge a place on the Low Pay Commission for a representative of the tourism and hospitality industries. That person, in the form of Stephanie Monk of the Granada group, is a capable voice on the commission for those industries.
  While giving the Government due credit for honouring their pledge, perhaps I may say how commendable it is that within 90 days of taking office they established the Low Pay Commission. Today, we have a Bill to discuss which, when enacted, will give much comfort and relief to many low-paid workers. Of course, the level at which the minimum wage is set must be sustainable, but that must not be any reason for appeasing the worst of employers, all of whom would be willing to accept the barest increase.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pendry: I shall not give way because of the shortage of time.
  I am pleased that in the tourism sector most employers have welcomed the Government's proposals. Peter Moore, the managing director of Center Pares and a member of the
  186
  English tourist board, has publicly stated that paying low wages in the service sector is a "false economy". Michael Jolly, the chief executive of the Tussauds group, is also a proponent of a minimum wage. David Quarmby, the chairman of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority, also believes that the time has come for a sensible minimum wage to be introduced.
  Others in the industry think likewise—such as Garry Hawkes, the chief executive of Gardner Merchant and president of the British Hospitality Association. He referred to a survey that showed that 84 per cent. of hospitality staff and, more important, 65 per cent. of their employers, support a statutory minimum wage. Mr. Hawkes went on to say:
  "This is not about altruism—it makes sound business sense to pay high wages because I get good quality, highly motivated people".
  Gary Crossley, in an editorial comment in Caterer and Hotelkeeper, stated:
  "Employers that are worried about staff shortages yet are unable or unwilling to increase basic rates of pay would benefit from taking a closer look at what the more enlightened employers say about pay and related awards. Doing nothing could cost you the best staff and hurt you professionally in the long run."
  These comments come from people at the sharp end of the industry, which in the past has been described—by one of my hon. Friends, among others, but wrongly—as a Mickey Mouse industry. When the Bill becomes law, that will be seen as an inaccurate description.
  There are those in tourism who are still not convinced of that to which I have drawn attention. They should look to New Zealand, for example, following implementation of a minimum wage. The effect on travel and tourism was almost immediate. Its introduction increased the status of the service sector and there was increased investment in remuneration and training of the work force. Levels of productivity and customer awareness have also increased.
  Low pay in the tourism industry is probably best summed up by the English tourist board, which states:
  "A well remunerated, well motivated and well trained workforce is of key importance in achieving the level and consistency of quality of service necessary to compete successfully in today's competitive markets."
  It seems that the tourism industry, long seen by many as a bad payer, recognises that to compete with our major competitors to maintain and improve its global position it has to create a wages and conditions structure that will assist in that endeavour. By backing the Government's minimum wage policy, it will be able to do just that.
  My earnest desire is to see the public employees I used to represent in local government and the health service improve their lot. I want the same for people in my constituency who work in the tourism and hospitality sectors, such as the 23-year-old woman working as a waitress and bar worker earning £1.60 an hour after one year's service, the 27-year-old male waiter earning £2.92 an hour—the wages council rate in 1993 when it was abolished—and the 32-year-old kitchen porter earning £2.50. There are many more like them.
  As from the autumn of last year, no fewer than 1,500,000 of the 2,300,000 employees in the north-west were earning less than £4 per hour. That is the scale of the problem we are discussing. When the Bill is passed, as surely it will be, I hope that for these people, in the words of our campaigning song, things can only get better.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: The key issues that we should debate tonight are as follows. Do the Government's proposals start to address the injustice of poverty wages, which are trapping millions in benefit dependency, and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor? Do they tackle the lack of regulation that allows cowboy employers to undercut competitors by paying poverty wages, topped up by benefits at the expense of the taxpayer? Do they provide a route for legislation to put a floor under poverty wages without running the risk of creating instability in local and regional economies and job markets?
  In that final area, the Government's proposals are deficient. They appear to be refusing to consult on the dangers that many people consider inherent in imposing a rigid and inflexible national minimum wage.
  We welcome the Government's decision to set up a Low Pay Commission. The Liberal Democrats have argued for some time—certainly far longer than the Labour party—that a Low Pay Commission should be set up. We welcome the concept of its having statutory powers and being able to act independently of government. Although the Government have recognised the good sense of setting up a Low Pay Commission, they seem to insist on handcuffing it to the masthead of a rigid national minimum wage.
  The Government have excluded examination of regional variations from the Low Pay Commission's deliberations—for all sorts of reasons. If they are so confident in their argument, surely they would welcome an independent endorsement from the Low Pay Commission. What are they afraid of?
  There are some proposals that we welcome. The Liberal Democrats have long believed that part-time and home workers should be protected in a similar manner to full-time employees and we welcome the part of the Bill that deals with that. We believe that that protection should apply in particular to women, who form the largest proportion of workers who suffer from poverty wages.
  However, there seems to be an air of confusion about the Government's proposals for excluding workers under 26. Although there is a case for paying workers who are undergoing subsidised training less, there is no case for paying those who are just as productive as their peers less because they happen to be younger. The abiding principle, surely, should be that equal work deserves equal pay.
  The case for putting a floor under poverty wages is clear. The scourge of low pay exists in every corner of the United Kingdom. More than 5 million people earn less than £4 an hour. Of those, nearly 3.5 million earn less than £3.50 an hour and close to 2 million earn less than £3 an hour. Britain is the low pay capital of Europe. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that while in most European cities around 13 per cent. of employees are on low pay, in the United Kingdom the figure is 20 per cent. That is not a record of success; it is a shameful record of economic failure.
  Mr. Fallon: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Britain is the low-pay capital of the world, is it the Liberal Democrats' position that rates in Cornwall should be even lower?
  Mr. Chidgey: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I said Europe, but I take his point. That is why we are
  188
  putting the argument as strongly as we possibly can to persuade the Government to consider regional variations throughout our economy and to take account of them in the Low Pay Commission's deliberations.
  During the past 25 years, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown dramatically. It is now greater than at any time at least since the second world war. The gap is continuing to grow—faster than in almost every other industrialised country.
  The Rowntree inquiry on income and wealth found that the wages of the lowest paid 10 per cent. of men in the 1990s were lower in real terms than they had been in 1975. Between 1979 and 1990, income growth for the richest family type—childless couples—was three times that of the poorest, the lone parent families. One in five of the population now live in households with less than half the average income. One in four children live in poverty.
  Hon. Members will know only too well the effects of wage poverty, which we see every week in our constituency surgeries—people trapped in poverty, living in squalid housing, struggling to survive on benefits, yet unable to escape into work that pays enough to lift them out of the benefit trap. It does not affect just lone parents and those with low skills. The recession under the previous Government has left tens of thousands of casualties: people whose jobs disappeared and people whose homes were repossessed, leaving them with massive negative equity and the misery of a life on benefits.
  I shall give just one example—I am sure that hon. Members will have many others in mind. My constituent, Mr. Taylor, in Eastleigh, was paid £36,000 a year—a good salary—as a financial services adviser. He is in his 30s, is happily married with four children and lived in his own three-bedroom home. That was before his job disappeared, before his home was repossessed and before he was left with negative equity of £33,000, forcing him into bankruptcy and the trauma of moving his family into two rooms in a hostel for the homeless—but not with the family pets, of course, because they are not allowed in hostels. Try explaining to the children why their pet dog and cat cannot come with them and have to be put down. That was Mr. Taylor's lowest point.
  Mr. Taylor did not give up. He is a worker—a trier. After six months, he found a full-time job as a night security guard. Working up to 16-hour shifts at a rate of £3 an hour, he managed to bring home £157 a week to support a family of four children—but of course it does not, and his entitlement in income support and housing benefit added another £150; just about the same as he brought home in pay.
  As hon. Members will know, there are tens of thousands of families like Mr. Taylor's who are caught in the poverty trap. The cost to the taxpayer for family credit, income support, housing and council tax benefits is running at almost £3 billion per year. Every taxpayer is paying the equivalent of £120 a year to subsidise low-pay employers. It cannot be right for cowboy firms to pay poverty wages, knowing that they will be topped up by state benefits at the expense of the taxpayer.
  The case for tackling the injustice of poverty wages and reducing the burden on the taxpayer is clear. The Government are right to seek to introduce regulation to put a floor under poverty wages. Without regulation,

  189
  cowboy firms will continue to pay poverty wages and undercut the cost of their competitors. Without regulation, millions will find no escape from the poverty trap and the taxpayer will continue to pick up the bill.
  Mr. Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell the House what he thinks the minimum floor should be?
  Mr. Chidgey: The whole point of the Low Pay Commission is to assess independently those minimum rates. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to emphasise that to those of his hon. Friends who do not fully grasp what the Bill seeks to achieve.
  The classic example of the effect of removing low pay protection came after the Conservative party's abolition of the wages councils in 1993. We were told that their abolition would create jobs. A year before their abolition, 17,800 new jobs were created in wages council sectors; the year after their abolition, only 5,000 jobs were created. Average wages grew only 1.7 per cent. in the wages council sectors, compared with a 3 per cent. rise in the non-wages council sectors. In the hotel sector, wages have fallen in real terms since 1993. The wages of women workers in particular have fallen the most and they are now £180 a year worse off.
  It is clear that the minimum wage rates established by wages councils revealed no evidence of job losses or an increase in unemployment. The United Kingdom—
  Mr. Damian Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chidgey: No, I have already given way many times.
  The United Kingdom is the only country in western Europe without some form of minimum wage protection. In many countries, minimum wage rates are flexible by sector or region, and where they are flexible there is little or no evidence that they impact on wage inflation or unemployment.
  The experience in America has already been mentioned. Time is short, so I shall not repeat it, but it is clear from research there that there is no evidence that a minimum wage rate has led to an increase in unemployment. In six out of seven studies undertaken in regions as diverse as New Jersey, Texas and California, employment in the low wages sector increased—in one case by as much as 20 per cent. More than 100 eminent American economists have given strong support to a fair minimum wage. They specifically reject the argument that jobs will be lost. They conclude that a fair minimum wage has a positive effect on the market, on workers and on the economy.
  The key factor is the level at which the rate is set and whether regional variations are necessary to avoid the risk of destabilising local economies. The Government are right to establish the independent statutory Low Pay Commission, but they are wrong to exclude the analysis of regional variation from its terms of reference, turning down the request of the commission chairman himself.
  There is a clear case for regulation to attack the growing gap between the rich and the poor; to stamp out cowboy firms paying low wages, knowing that they will
  190
  be topped up by benefits at the taxpayers' expense; and to put a floor under poverty wages, providing minimum wage protection, not just for full-time workers but for part-time workers, home workers and, in particular, for women.
  Ignoring the widespread and genuine concern that a national minimum wage, rigidly imposed, will destabilise the economies in our poorest regions smacks of arrogance or dogma. The Government claim that there is no significant variation across the regions in the proportion of workers on low pay. If they are so sure, why will not they release their data to the Low Pay Commission and let it review the case independently?
  It is important to take account of concerns raised about rigid national minimum wage rates. Warwick university's analysis of regional variations in pay and the cost of living caused it to come out strongly in favour of regionally varied minimum wages. It found that a surprisingly high number would be affected by a national minimum wage. As many as 25 per cent. of workers in some areas would be affected by a minimum wage of £3.50.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chidgey: No, I must press on.
  A national minimum wage as low as £3 would still affect 10 per cent. of workers. The Warwick university study was particularly concerned about the threat to youth unemployment if training costs of younger workers were not accommodated—a point which the Government appear to concede. The study also found that in small firms a national minimum wage of £4 would increase staff costs by as much as 18 per cent. in some areas, whereas in London staff costs would increase by only 7 per cent.
  If hon. Members are not prepared to accept the economists' figures, let us consider the TUC's analysis. It found that 2.5 million full-time workers earn less than £4 an hour and that 1.5 million earn less than £3.50 an hour. Its figures show that around 7 per cent. of full-time workers in the south-east earn less than £4 an hour, but that across the other regions the figure was 14 per cent.—twice as high as in the south-east.
  If hon. Members are not happy with the TUC figures, they can consider the data provided in answer to my parliamentary questions, the accuracy of which surely no one would doubt. According to the new earnings survey data provided by the Office for National Statistics, about 6.4 per cent. of full-time workers in the United Kingdom earn less than £3.50 an hour, which is close to the TUC's figure of 1.5 million.
  The ONS figures show that, in the south-east, twice as many workers as in London earn less than £3.50 an hour. In Wales, the west midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside, the figure is three times as high. In the north-east, it is 3.5 times as high. One has to conclude that there is more than a suspicion of a regional variation in those wage rates.
  Anyone who is still not convinced has only to look at the differences between the lowest rates of pay in Government Departments in London and in the regions. Answers to my parliamentary questions show that, for 11 Departments, the average lowest rate of pay in the regions is £3.50—in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, it is £3.25—yet the average lowest rate of pay in London is £4.30. In the Ministry of

  191
  Defence it is £4.03. In 11 Departments, the lowest average rate of pay in London is 25 per cent. higher than in the regions. In some cases, the difference is more than a third. Those differences clearly reflect differences in living costs between London and the regions. Moreover, with seven out of 11 Departments paying the lowest rate of less than £3.50 an hour, the Government are a low pay employer. I trust that the Government will exercise their mind on that.
  From the economists' studies, the TUC reports and the Government's own pay structure, it is difficult to see how a rigid national minimum wage can lift all the low paid out of poverty without creating instability in the poorer regions where living costs are less—unless the Department of Trade and Industry has some extensive research that proves beyond doubt the Government's claim that a regionally varied national minimum wage is unnecessary. If they have and if they are so confident that regional variation is unnecessary, why did not they give the data to the chairman of the Low Pay Commission for him to consider? Why, instead, did they issue a blanket prohibition?
  Why, when I asked the DTI what representations had been made to the Low Pay Commission for the introduction of a regionally varied minimum wage, did I receive a reply stating:
  "The Low Pay Commission is an independent body. The representations it receives are a matter for the Commission."— [Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 163.]
  Why did I receive that reply when the DTI was clearly restricting its inquiries? Is that the mark of a Government committed to consulting before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner? Or is this a Government still driven by dogma, but now fuelled by arrogance?
  The Liberal Democrats support moves to put a floor under poverty wages, moves to tackle the growing gap between the rich and the poor and efforts to curb rogue firms paying poverty wages subsidised by the taxpayer, but we believe that the Government are throwing caution and flexibility to the winds by refusing to allow the Low Pay Commission to test regional variations in low pay. In due course, we shall seek to amend the Bill, but in the meantime we reserve our position on Third Reading.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this debate, because the Bill is very important and long overdue. The regional low pay statistics published by the labour force survey in spring 1997 show that in the north-west, excluding Greater Manchester and Merseyside, one in 24 employees earn less than £2.49 an hour; one in 13 earn less than £2.99 per hour; one in six earn less than £3.49; and one in four earn less than £3.99. The figures for my constituency are far worse than that: north-east Lancashire is an extremely low-paid area. Many of my constituents receive appalling levels of poverty pay, and it is time that something was done about it.
  That poverty pay is reflected across the economic spectrum in Burnley. House prices are low, the house market is sluggish, and trade in the shops is at a lower level than in areas of greater prosperity.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) accepted the principle of a minimum income, but was not prepared to say what the minimum level of pay should be.
  192
  I have discussed the issue with representatives of industries in my constituency. They ask why decent employers who pay their work force a good wage must compete with employers who pay poverty wages. Not only must they compete with employers who pay unrealistic and unfair wages, but they subsidise those wages through their taxes, which pay for family credit and housing benefit for those on low pay.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pike: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as long as he is quick.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he believe that young people should be entitled to receive the full, national minimum wage?
  Mr. Pike: I shall come to that later, but I want to make a few other points first.
  Given the low pay and poverty in my area, the council has an anti-poverty officer, Steve Watson, who has written to me to make a number of points. He says:
  "The Minimum Wage needs to be set at a level which offers a reasonable return for labour, helping people out of the poverty and benefit trap".
  That is extremely important. The Chancellor, in his green Budget, referred to the need to eliminate the conflict between benefits and tax. Some people who go into work lose out, and that will still occur to some extent, whatever level of minimum wage the commission sets.
  It was nonsense for the right hon. Member for Wokingham to slam the commission. It is right to introduce the legislation now, alongside the work of the commission. If we were not carrying out consultation, we would be attacked and criticised.
  There is no justification for or advantage in regional or age variations. Clause 3 provides that those aged under 26 may be excluded. If that provision is implemented, there must be adequate job protection to ensure that young people who are about to reach that age are not suddenly thrown out of work. I have grave doubts about the need for an age differential, and in any case I think that 26 is too high. We shall see what the commission recommends in due course, and it is sensible to include that option in the Bill.
  On regional variations, we should try to eliminate the differences between the more prosperous and the poorer areas. I accept that we shall not eliminate those differences overnight, particularly in London, but London weighting need not be affected by the national minimum wage. Employers in London will be able to pay the national minimum wage and London weighting so as to attract staff. People do not have to start on the minimum level: we are fixing not a normal wage, but a wage that should be used as a base.
  When wages councils were abolished, pay levels in Blackpool, which had not previously been at the bottom, immediately dropped to the lowest in Lancashire. Many people in the hotel and catering trade had been protected by wages councils, and their pay dropped as soon as the councils were abolished.

  193
  Burnley borough council, supported by the North West and North Wales Anti-Poverty Forum, of which it is a member, believes that there should be an annual uprating. One of the problems in the United States is that its minimum wage is not annually uprated. It has been uprated in the past 12 months, but it was a long time before that was done. Our national minimum wage must keep up with the rate of inflation, and should not be allowed to fall behind.
  We should provide adequate powers and sanctions to ensure that this measure is enforced. Too often in the past, wages council decisions were not enforced. I introduced a ten-minute Bill, which, like most such Bills, fell by the wayside. It proposed local publicity, so that everyone would know which employers were not paying the wages council level. We must ensure that employers cannot avoid paying the national minimum wage.
  My union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, is a long-time supporter of a national minimum wage. I was a shop steward before I became a Member of Parliament. My pay was based on a number of factors, because I worked a continental shift system. I changed shift every three days, and my basic pay was very different from my take-home pay.
  We must ensure that the national minimum wage is uprated, enforced and fair. This is an important step towards a fairer and better society, and I support the Bill 100 per cent. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not delay the House any longer.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: The earlier exchange between the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) was very revealing. They discussed the extent to which the national minimum wage will lead to job losses. The right hon. Lady correctly said that it depended on what criteria were used for the calculations. The hon. Gentleman, who has studied this subject carefully for many years, rightly said that the most important criterion was differentials. If we assume the restoration of half differentials with a minimum wage of £3.50 an hour, we get the figure of 800,000 job losses. If we assume much lower effects on differentials, we get a lower figure. Lord Healey was right on this subject, when he said in 1994:
  "Don't kid yourselves. The minimum wage is something on which the unions will build differentials. Therefore the minimum wage becomes the floor on which you erect a new tower."
  In order to claim that there will be no significant impact on jobs, the Government must also claim that there will be no significant impact on differentials. If they can say that they do not believe that there will be an impact on differentials, they can come up with a low figure. I do not consider that claim plausible—but not only is it wildly implausible; it sits very oddly with what I hear from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in my role as Opposition employment spokesman. I hear members of the ministerial team say all the time that they want to encourage people to obtain more qualifications, to go out and be trained. What argument do they use?
  194
  They say that those people will receive better pay as a reward for staying at college and securing that City and Guilds or national vocational qualification.
  Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I will give way once.
  Judy Mallaber: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that differentials will be increased because they will be restored across industries? Is he suggesting that a skilled engineer will retain the differential between him and a poorly paid hotel worker in the tourism industry, or does he accept that anything to do with differentials is more likely to take place within an industry? We are talking about whole industries in which there is low pay.
  Mr. Willetts: I accept that the main effect is within individual industries. Let us take the example that the hon. Lady has given—the catering industry. Let us suppose that an untrained person is working as a kitchen assistant earning £3 an hour, which perhaps goes up to £4 an hour. The person working alongside him, who has a City and Guilds qualification in catering, currently earns £4 an hour. Will that person accept that there was no point in his obtaining a City and Guilds qualification, and that he might as well be untrained? If the Government want to encourage people to go out and obtain City and Guilds or national vocational qualifications, they must accept that the person who is currently working for £4 an hour will feel a bit of an idiot if he is working for exactly the same pay as the untrained person alongside him.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I am sorry; as the 10-minute rule is in operation, I should like to proceed with my speech.
  If the person who is earning £4 an hour and has a qualification is to feel that obtaining that qualification was not a complete waste of time, he or she will expect some increase in pay to compensate.
  We have all just received a letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment urging people to go to university and to college. What is the underlying message of that letter? It praises differentials; it argues that people should stay and obtain qualifications, because they will be able to increase their lifetime earnings. What we hear from the President of the Board of Trade and her team at the Department of Trade and Industry is completely inconsistent with the message that we receive from the ministerial team at the Department for Education and Employment. I sometimes wonder whether they communicate with each other.
  We also hear a good deal from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the importance of targeting. When they are put under pressure about their plans for cutting benefits, we are told that we must target the welfare state on people in poverty. I wonder whether the DTI team has any understanding of the concept of targeting. The one thing that we know about the minimum wage is that it is extremely ill targeted.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the most affluent third of households will receive a higher income as a result of the minimum wage than the poorest third. We know that of the 10 per cent. of lowest earners

  195
  95 per cent. are not in the 10 per cent. of poorest households. We know—we are told often enough by the new Government—that there are a variety of ways of living: there are households in which some people may be on low incomes and others on higher incomes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was quite right to say that family credit is very well targeted to deal with poverty wages. If wages cause a household to be in poverty, family credit will kick in.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that I have only a few minutes left.
  Family credit is aimed at dealing with poverty wages—wages that hold a whole family down in poverty. However, if someone is earning a low wage but is in a household with a high income, the minimum wage will be ill targeted and family credit unnecessary. The figures are dramatic. Let us say that, in a one-earner household with a young family, one person is in work and earning £3 an hour for a 40-hour week. That household will be entitled to another £55 a week in family credit. We do not expect people to keep a family on £3 an hour, and family credit deals with that.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I will, very briefly.
  Mr. Blizzard: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman's entire case has been based on the minimum-income family credit system. What does he think that system does for the self-respect and dignity of a man or woman who, after working hard for a week and doing everything that his or her employer wants, must go cap in hand to the state and ask for a handout?
  Mr. Willetts: I will respect that intervention, on one condition. I hope that, when the Government introduce such a scheme for 18 to 24-year-olds as part of their welfare-to-work programme, the hon. Gentleman will intervene on his own Minister and make the same point.
  What do we know about family credit, which is systematically rubbished by the Government? The Government say that people get stuck as a result of the payment of low wages by unscrupulous employers, but we know that only 12 per cent. of people receive family credit for more than a year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham rightly explained, once someone is in work, even if it is low paid, he can then move on and up.
  Another thing we hear about family credit is that somehow it is exploited by employers. We hear an ingenious argument in favour of the minimum wage—that it will save money, and will stop employers paying below-market rates and exploiting family credit. That has been researched. The completely independent Institute of Employment Studies carried out research into employers and family credit. I sometimes wonder whether Ministers are aware of that research, which concluded:
  "Employers did not have adequate knowledge of family credit or sufficient information about potential recruits to adopt such practices"—
  that is, the practices that people are worried about. Nor, said the institute, did employers have the freedom to set wage levels. Only 9 per cent. of the employers
  196
  surveyed agreed that the availability of family credit affected the wages that they paid. The research concluded that family credit
  "has little impact on employers' employment practices in terms of their recruitment practices, the hours employees work, and their wage-setting strategies".
  Family credit is simply not exploited by employers in the way that has been claimed.
  If, however, we adopt the measures proposed by the Chancellor in his green Budget, employers will know all about the wages that their employees receive. The Chancellor proposes that, instead of family credit being delivered through the benefits system, a wage subsidy should be delivered in the form of a withdrawable tax allowance through the PAYE system. If the Chancellor introduces such a system, everything that the Government have been saying about family credit will apply in spades to that system.
  At that point, employers will indeed have the crucial information. They will be doing the PAYE calculations; they will be working out exactly what an employee earns. I wonder whether members of the DTI team have discussed the Chancellor's idea with him. I wonder whether they have put to him all their rhetorical arguments against family credit—for which, as we know, there is no empirical support—given that those arguments apply to the very measure that their own Government recently announced as part of the Budget consultation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  7.28 pm
  Dr. Doug Naysmith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to a debate on the national minimum wage. It is a subject of great importance to the country, and I am convinced that it will bring benefits to many of my constituents.
  As this is my somewhat belated maiden speech, I shall begin by thanking the electors of Bristol, North-West for their patience, as well as for electing me on 1 May—not just as a Labour Member, but to represent the Co-operative party in the House. After a lifelong involvement as a Co-operator, I look forward to working with the other 24 Labour Co-op Members throughout this Parliament for co-operation in general, and for a Co-operatives Act in particular.
  Bristol, North-West is a fascinating constituency. It is made up of six electoral wards in the city of Bristol and three electoral wards in the neighbouring unitary authority of South Gloucestershire. Although, as many hon. Members will be able to imagine, that dichotomy can on occasion cause tensions, the drive and energy in the constituency overall produce great benefits for the area.
  Bristol is a wonderful city, and I have been amply rewarded for living and working there for the past 25 years. Its overall beauties and pleasures were well lauded on a previous occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), but, for the record, in contrast with a description by my immediate predecessor in this place, I should like to say that Bristol, North-West contains numerous blades of grass. In fact, it has some fine open spaces and its share of historic buildings, such as Kings Weston house and Blaise Hamlet. Shirehampton, the part of the constituency where I live, was mentioned in the Domesday book.

  197
  It is also true that Bristol, North-West provides a large part of the economic engine that drives industry and commerce in the Greater Bristol area. We depend heavily on aerospace and defence industries and on related forms of manufacturing. Therefore, I look forward to the outcome of the current defence review, particularly what it says about defence diversification.
  Bristol, North-West has a highly skilled work force, a tradition of invention and technical development and a variety of enterprises along Severnside, which have contributed greatly to Bristol's prosperity over the years. Also with its headquarters in Bristol, North-West is the Bristol Port Company, an enterprise with which I have had some involvement. It is highly successful and underpins much of the industry in the area. It still has the newest and largest lock in the United Kingdom, enabling it to take Cape-size ships. Although the lock is, "unfortunately", located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), no one in Bristol ever forgets that it was built entirely by Bristol ratepayers without a penny of Government assistance.
  Also to be found in Bristol, North-West is the university of the West of England, one of the finest of the new universities, and recognised for its teaching quality by independent assessors. It appears that that quality has been recognised by potential students, too—the number of applications is up this year compared with last, a somewhat unusual circumstance.
  We also have Abbeywood, the Government's defence procurement headquarters and probably our largest employer, and Southmead, a large and distinguished district hospital with associated teaching status. It is well known for high standards of care and for innovation and research, and it was one of the first hospitals in the UK to pioneer work with neonates, which took place in the much loved, so-called SCBU, the special care baby unit, which is now known as the neonatal intensive care unit. We also have large Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace plants at Filton, just outside Bristol
  As hon. Members will have realised, Bristol, North-West is a varied and exciting place, and an equally varied cast of characters has represented it at Westminster since 1945. The constituency has something of a reputation as a weather-vane seat—it is said that it changes in line with public opinion and generally votes for the party that forms the Government. It did that, although only just, in 1992, when, after many recounts, we lost by 45 votes for it to become the most marginal seat in England.
  My immediate predecessor was Michael Stern and, although our relations were conducted in a civilised and polite manner, we disagreed, sometimes in public, quite a lot. Much of that was due to his tendency to blame all the ills of his constituents on Bristol city council, a body on which I was an active member, whereas I was much more inclined to blame the previous Government. Perhaps that is understandable. However, we agreed on some of the larger matters, including the battle against a commercial airport at Filton, a heavily populated area, and the improbability of a Severn barrage ever being built.
  Michael Stern was very much a House of Commons man and is remembered for his skills in Committee. Although he did not reach great heights in government,
  198
  he did serve as a parliamentary private secretary to two Ministers and was a vice-chairman of the Conservative party. He was for some time, I am told, captain of the House of Commons chess team, and was in charge of the team that lost 13–3 to Westminster school. However, he fought hard for many of his constituents on an individual level and, since 1 May, I have come across many people who have told me of his tenacity in confronting various bureaucracies. He will be a hard act to follow. He has said that he does not intend to return to politics, and I wish him well in his future interests and activities.
  Perhaps Ron Thomas, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West from 1974 to 1979, will be an even harder act to follow for a Labour Member. Ron is a man of high principles, who is remembered here with respect. I am sure that the minimum wage cause is dear to his heart and something for which he would have fought hard.
  I support the introduction of a national minimum wage because it is essential to create a "floor" to the labour market to tackle the exploitation of people with least bargaining power. The Trades Union Congress has produced figures that show that one in five employees earn less than £4 an hour, that nearly 1 million employees earn less than £2.50 an hour, that one in five of the population live in households with less than half the average income, that inequality in this country has grown faster over the past decade than in any other developed country, with the possible exception of New Zealand, and that since 1977 the number of people living well below average income has increased sevenfold.
  Such figures should be unacceptable in a civilised, developed nation such as ours, and I fully support the Government's intention to begin to put things right. It is, however, essential to realise that the minimum wage is not just about justice—it also makes economic sense. We cannot compete on low cost alone. We must also compete on quality. Much evidence shows that low wages correlate with lack of training and failure to invest.
  Despite the relative prosperity in some parts of my constituency—relative to previous times over the past 18 years and to other parts of the south-west—the national minimum wage is of direct application to many of my constituents in Bristol, North-West. There are estates where unemployment is unacceptably high. If welfare to work is to be successful, it is crucial that wages are high enough to attract people. Together with reform of the tax and benefit systems and our new deal, the national minimum wage should help the Government's strategy to promote work incentives and to provide people with the skills and opportunities to move into work.
  The introduction of a national minimum wage provides an opportunity to reduce the unacceptable gap that remains between women's and men's pay. Far more women than men are low paid and that has many adverse affects for women and the economy. It makes it harder for women to be economically independent and to earn enough to escape from dependence on the social security system, and it reduces women's retirement incomes. For those reasons and because of the simple need to have equality between the sexes in the labour market, it is essential that the national minimum wage is calculated in relation to the distribution of male earnings, which can then be applied to female earnings.

  199
  I am glad, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade has said that there will be a single rate, which will apply to all regions and sectors and all sizes of firms. When enacted, the Bill will have far-reaching effects, so I am both excited and pleased to be able to support it.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) on his maiden speech. It was thoughtful and well delivered. He described the qualities of his constituency to such an extent that I think we all understand why he is proud to represent it. He also paid humorous and generous tribute to his predecessors and I am sure that we will hear more of him; in fact, I cannot understand why we have not heard from him already.
  The hon. Member supported the Bill's principle, which I also welcome. That principle was well established in this country for many years, until the previous Government decided to discontinue all the wages councils except the agricultural wages council. It is the principle that, in a civilised society, there is surely a minimum wage below which anyone who works for a living does not deserve to fall. I would go so far as to say that it encapsulates a moral imperative: people should be paid a wage that is capable of supporting them in their daily existence, after they have given their work to earn that wage.
  In examining the background to the Bill, I looked at a document in the Library showing rates of pay by constituency. I was surprised to find a column for people who are paid less than £2.50 an hour. To that extent, it was an educational exercise. I was even more surprised to see how many people were in that column. It is a tragedy that in a society which is moving into the new millennium far too many people receive a wage that cannot support them or their families.
  Obviously, costs are involved in the introduction of a minimum wage, but I suspect that no social advance was ever achieved in this country or anywhere else without cost. Perhaps it will be a cost to employers in this case. That was certainly the case with equal pay for women, and I suspect that Conservative Members' arguments against this Bill were used in the 19th century when Wilberforce and others tried to abolish slavery. The amounts being paid to some people are nothing short of slavery wages.
  Many employers pay low wages because they know that the state will pick up the tab and will effectively pay to run their enterprises and subsidise their profits. Many arguments against the legislation fail because they look at only one side of the equation—the side that deals with the cost to employers. They do not consider the income that is generated by employees; the extra cash that will be put into the economy by people who benefit from a minimum wage.
  Mr. Fallon: Will the hon. Gentleman be happy with a British rate or would he like the Scottish Assembly to have power to vary a rate with which he is unhappy?
  Mr. Morgan: I am sure that an independent Scotland will be much more prosperous and will be able to afford a fairly high minimum wage. I look forward to that day.
  Mr. Fallon: Will there be much difference?
  Mr. Morgan: I am talking about an independent Scotland, which I am sure we shall see in the near future. I must press on.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend asks an extremely good question. Does the Scottish National party think that the
  200
  Scottish Parliament will and should have the power to vary the rate? Would he wish to set a Scottish rate whatever is done in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Morgan: My answer was quite clear. I was talking about the possibility of a minimum wage in an independent Scotland because it is clear that it is only in an independent Scotland—and not under Labour's devolution proposals—that the Scottish Parliament will control the Scottish economy. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether I am in favour of the Scottish Parliament taking control of the Scottish economy and all that goes with it, the answer is a clear yes. Perhaps I can now return to my original point about the benefits to the economy of a minimum wage.
  By definition, a minimum wage is paid to those who are on the lowest incomes, and those are the people who spend the largest percentage of their incomes buying necessities. That creates a demand for goods; people who complain about the cost of a minimum wage fail to realise that extra money will be put into the marketplace to buy goods.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morgan: No. My time is limited.
  That extra spending applies particularly to rural areas such as the one that I represent. There is simply not enough money circulating in the economy, and one of the knock-on effects of the Bill will be to increase that, especially in the rural economy. It is not just that people in rural areas have lower wages than people in other areas: they also have disproportionately higher living costs.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) spoke about the high cost of living in urban areas and especially in London. He should buy a bag of groceries in London and then come to Stranraer to try to buy the same groceries at the London price. He will find that difficult. There is no future for the United Kingdom as a low-wage economy or one in which there is a large disparity between the lowest and the highest wage. Low-wage jobs are usually those that are most easily substituted by the introduction of new technology. Low wages do not engender industrial competitiveness. They may be a season ticket to long-term industrial decline and increased unemployment.
  I am concerned about some details in the legislation. The first relates to the protection of employees and the enforcement of the minimum wage. We must ensure that the Bill's provisions are enforced and that the Government allocate sufficient resources to do that. One of the problems that we have inherited from the previous Government is that although there are regulations aplenty, there are not enough employees to enforce them. It would be a tragedy to pass legislation that gives so much hope to people and not put in place inspectors or mechanisms to enforce it.
  Secondly, I am concerned about young people. If the level set for them is lower than the national minimum wage, so that there is a separate minimum wage for the young, older people in employment will be replaced by young people to whom employers can pay a lower rate. There should be a rate for the job, regardless of age. The needs of 20 to 26-year-olds are no different from the

  201
  needs of those who are over 26. I hope that the Government will not introduce a separate rate for those under 26.
  I again welcome the Bill's principles. It is a step forward in introducing better financial conditions for many of our workers. Just as the 19th century factory Acts were a step forward in introducing better physical conditions for workers, the Bill is a step forward in introducing better financial conditions. It will be opposed by precisely the same sort of people who opposed the 19th century factory Acts, and for precisely the same reasons.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill. It is a long-overdue measure which will begin to bring to an end the poverty pay that has scarred the lives of so many. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). As the House knows, he has been committed to getting the Bill before the House and making a minimum wage a reality.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) kindly said, before I came to the House in May, I spent 17 years working for the Low Pay Unit, an organisation with which I am still proud to be associated. During that time, I saw the effects of the previous Government's policies at the sharp end. The number of those in poverty increased threefold during the Conservatives' term of office, and that led to low wages being the largest single cause of poverty. Britain has a larger proportion of its adult work force earning below the Council of Europe's decency threshold than any other European Union state. In my constituency, a third of the work force are in that category.
  Each Christmas, the Low Pay Unit makes a "Scrooge of the Year" award. When I was at the unit, I was always a little anxious that the Conservative Government might take over the award. As my hon. Friends will understand, the unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge was to be pitied and reviled, but we were always fearful that the Conservative Government might decide to include him in the new year honours list for services to British industry in helping to turn Britain into the sweatshop of Europe. As we have heard, previous nominees for the award included the employer of a woman who worked in a residential nursing home. In a letter to her, that employer stated:
  "I would like you to work 5pm to 9am Monday to Sunday inclusive."
  That is 112 hours of night work. The letter goes on:
  "Salary will be paid in arrears at a rate of £150 a week",
  which is about £1.34 an hour.
  Other nominees for the award included a clothing workshop in which staff are paid 59p an hour, and another in which staff are paid 1p for each petticoat and 5p for each dress sewn. Those rates were being paid not in the time of Dickens or in what we once called the third world
  202
  but in the early 1990s in the United Kingdom—which, until May, was Tory Britain. I have this year's nominations.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pond: No, I have very little time. I apologise. I have this year's nominations, although I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have his own.
  The nominations include a machinist earning 8p for each pair of trousers sewed; a worker in a residential care home earning £1.66 an hour; and a skilled needlewoman earning £1.25 a day for making puppets at home. As the House will appreciate, even this year, the judges are faced with a difficult decision. Such examples have convinced me of the Bill's importance and of the fact that, in this day and age, no one should be required to work for such pitiful pay and conditions.
  Britain is the only country in the industrialised world without some form of legally enforceable pay protection. Since the previous Government abolished wages councils in 1993, no UK citizen, with the exception of those working in agriculture, has been entitled to any basic pay level. That is in contravention of the universal declaration of human rights, which states:
  "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring … an existence worthy of human dignity".
  Too many of our citizens are denied that basic human right and dignity. It is a matter of basic social justice.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pond: I am sorry, but I will not give way. Time is limited for all hon. Members, and especially for those on the Back Benches.
  A minimum wage is an essential part of the Government's welfare to work strategy, which is designed to ensure that work pays. It is also a matter of equity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) said, a minimum wage will be of greatest importance to women. It is no coincidence that Britain is the only country without a minimum wage and the country in Europe with the widest pay gap between men and women. A minimum wage will do more to close that gap than equal pay legislation—important as that is—could ever achieve.
  As we have also heard in the debate, in addition to justice and equity arguments, there is a sound economic and business case for a minimum wage. The Secretary of State reminded us of Churchill's words in establishing the minimum wage in 1909. He described the situation in which people earned less than a living wage as a "serious national evil". The previous Government and Conservative Members consider that not as an evil but as an instrument of economic strategy.
  Many small firms—70 per cent. of them—are in favour of a national minimum wage precisely because of concerns such as those that Churchill expressed—that, without some form of minimum wage, good employers are undercut by the bad, and bad employers are undercut by the worst. Those firms believe that a national minimum wage will establish a fair playing field and ensure that cowboy employers are not able to undercut responsible firms in wages. A minimum wage will also ensure that responsible firms are able to invest in training and in

  203
  better production techniques that will help the United Kingdom to compete more effectively in the modern world.
  We know also that a minimum wage will help to stimulate employment, economic growth and consumer confidence by increasing the spending power of several million of the poorest workers, allowing them to buy the goods and services that other people produce. Moreover, as several hon. Members have already asked, why should taxpayers be contributing between £3 billion and £4 billion annually to subsidise the low-wage and inefficient cowboy firms that are dragging down responsible employers? The net revenue effects of a minimum wage—in its benefits and tax implications, and even taking into account public sector cost—will certainly bring a smile to the face of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  We have heard much from Conservative Members in the debate, and we will hear much more, about the supposed employment effects of a minimum wage. As the Secretary of State reminded the House, however, at each general election estimates of the impact of a minimum wage become ever more extravagant. The supposed employment effect was initially set at 60,000 lost jobs, but the number quickly rose to 600,000 under Norman Tebbit, who was then Secretary of State for Employment. The estimate then rose from 750,000 to 1 million and, before the 1992 general election, to 2 million. Immediately afterwards, it was revised downwards to 1 million.
  Those estimates were based on assumptions that the Treasury has said were wholly arbitrary and without any empirical basis. All the evidence that we have available from this country, from the European Union and from the United States suggests that a minimum wage, if sensibly set, could enhance employment growth.
  The cheap labour policies of the previous Government were justified on the basis that it was thought that the policies would create employment. The costs were very high, leaving us in a situation in which, last year, a South Korean manufacturer reported that he was paying two thirds as much to his staff employed in south Wales as he was to those doing the same job in South Korea. As we have also heard, the pay gap is wider now than it was in 1886, when figures were first collected. However, evidence on job creation in the years in which the previous Government's policies were pursued show that, proportionately, Germany created four times as many jobs as we did, Italy six times as many, and France twice as many.
  What has happened since the 1992 general election, and the abolition of wages councils shortly afterwards? I am grateful to Professor Patrick Minford, former adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Government, who said:
  "there has been no job creation, measured in extra hours worked, since 1992".
  The Bill is a good Bill. It is comprehensive and, therefore, its enforcement is likely to be effective. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for dealing with concerns about clauses 3 and 4 and suggestions that they somehow mean that there will be an exemption or different treatment for those under 26. It is clear from her clarification that the Bill is an enabling measure to allow her to consider recommendations from the Low Pay Commission.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: There is complete agreement among Conservative Members that achievement of a high-wage and high-productivity economy is a desirable objective. The way of achieving that objective is through labour market flexibility and sustainable economic growth. The Bill will deliver neither of those. It is an ill-conceived piece of legislation and a hangover from Labour's past. It is an IOU—
  Mr. Desmond Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: So soon!
  Mr. Turner: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the previous Government's proposals were such a wonderful way of promoting a high-wage and high-productivity economy, why did they not create one?
  Mr. Hammond: We have prepared the ground—as economic growth continues—to generate just that: a high-wage and high-productivity economy.
  The Bill is an IOU to the Government's paymasters in the trade unions—an IOU which, I suspect, many senior Ministers would love to tear up but dare not.
  It is difficult to imagine a debate that will necessarily be as ill-informed as this one. It is ill-informed because we lack the vital piece of relevant information properly to debate the subject: the level of the proposed national minimum wage. Nothing could show us more clearly that the Government do not want to debate the issue properly than the fact that they are depriving us of that information.
  Will it be a minimum wage with teeth—one that really bites? If so, the consequences could be significant, and the economic damage could be massive. Will it be a political gesture, and set at a level that will cover few workers and have few consequences for the economy? Will it be set at a level that is irrelevant in the south-east, or at a level that will cost thousands of job and hundreds of businesses in the north and in Wales?
  I can see no reason why the Bill could not have been postponed until the Low Pay Commission had reported, so that we were able to debate the matter in a common sense manner, knowing the proposed initial level of the national minimum wage. Instead, we are forced to address ourselves to abstract theory.
  The key to sustainable higher pay is increased productivity. That is the only way we can develop the high-wage, high-skill economy to which we all aspire. Workers who can upgrade their skills, and employers who can improve the productivity of their labour will survive the impact of the minimum wage. However, in the vast majority of cases, those employers and employees are already moving down that route as a result of the pressures of a tightening labour market in a growing economy.
  Those who will be hurt by the national minimum wage include those who are unable to improve their productivity to cover the increased costs of their labour, employees who lack the ability or the inclination to reskill and employers who lack access to the necessary capital or technology.

  205
  The small business sector will be hit hardest. In many small businesses, the working proprietor already works very long hours for a low rate of return. The cost of a minimum wage will fall wholly on him. Increasing the effective hourly rate for his employees will, necessarily, reduce his own effective hourly rate. Very small businesses often do not have the ability to change the ratios of capital and labour within their business.
  I predict that, at the margins, the result of minimum wage legislation, set at any effective level, will be to drive some small businesses into the black economy.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: The hon. Gentleman may recall that many of these arguments were used against the Equal Pay Act 1970. Will he tell the House whether he now supports the repeal of that Act?
  Mr. Hammond: Of course I do not support the repeal of that Act.
  As I have said, I believe that the legislation may force some small businesses into the black economy—I am thinking of businesses with only one or two employees such as the examples given earlier—where employers and employees will conspire together to protect their jobs and their businesses.
  Small businesses were promised proper representation on the Low Pay Commission, but that did not happen. Once again, we see the prospect of small businesses being the principal victims of the deliberations of so-called representative bodies, which primarily represent large business, organised labour and academic interests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that the evidence suggests that the minimum wage will have little impact on poverty. The households in the greatest poverty are generally without income from employment. The phenomenon of the working poor, while important, is a minor component of the overall poverty problem.
  As the President of the Board of Trade indicated, the Government intend to make substantial savings from reductions in means-tested in-work benefits after the introduction of the minimum wage. That transfer of costs from the social security budget to employers represents yet another tax on business. One can argue the merits of the case, but the economic impact will be to impose yet another tax on business.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) drew attention to the impact on our public services, the enhancement of which has been set by the Government as one of their great priorities. How will a minimum wage help primary schools in my constituency to employ additional classroom assistants or special needs assistants? How will it help social services departments to provide better care for the elderly or the infirm? How will it help hospitals to shorten their waiting lists? Can the Government give us an assurance that, in every case, budgets will be increased to compensate for the impact of the minimum wage, not just for employees
  206
  paid at the minimum level but for the very many in the public sector who are paid just above any likely level of the minimum wage, as differentials are restored?
  Mr. Woolas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in local government there is already a minimum rate of pay, which is set at about £4 an hour, and that those arguments have not applied there?
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is speculating about what the minimum wage level will be. Perhaps he knows something that we do not. Perhaps the Minister would care to come to my constituency and explain to the dedicated mothers who work as classroom assistants in the primary schools—
  Mr. Woolas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: I will not give way.
  Will the Minister explain to those mothers why their jobs should be put at risk? The legislation does not concede that there is a gradient between purely voluntary work and work motivated entirely by earning power. Many thousands of people in this country work for mixed motives, including many pensioners. They will no longer be able to take pin money jobs doing work they enjoy or which serves their communities. That shows me—if I needed to be shown—that the nanny state is alive and well under this Government.
  This is an ill-conceived measure which will cause most damage to those it seeks to protect. It will cost the jobs of the most marginal employees and will destroy the most vulnerable businesses. If it is set at a level that bites, the minimum wage will push some employees into the black economy where they will not enjoy the benefit of a minimum wage and will lose the protection of much other employment legislation. It will damage the front-line capability of our public services. It would be better if it were not done, but the Labour party's debts to its paymasters have to be paid.
  If the Government are determined to have the Bill, we must ensure, by debate and argument, that the minimum wage is set at a level where it applies only to those workers who are paid at a very low level. We must ensure that it is set by reference to total pay and not to some hourly rate of nominal pay, and we must ensure that those earnings are averaged over a period which reflects industry or employer custom and practice, and are not just imposed by the Government.
  One of Britain's most striking successes of the past two decades has been the restoration of flexibility in its labour market. That achievement has insulated us from the worst experiences of our European neighbours over the past few years.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Roger Godsiff: I join many other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on the production of the Bill. I wish to thank him for the enormous amount of work that he has put into it.
  The Bill will be particularly welcome in my constituency. I should tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that this is

  207
  an IOU; it is an IOU to the people of this country, particularly low-paid workers, who have been desperate to see this legislation on the statute book. In three of the four wards in my constituency, there is an unemployment rate of well over 20 per cent. The majority of those who are employed work in the hotel, catering, retail and garment industries. Those are the very sectors of the economy in which low pay is concentrated. The excellent House of Commons Library document, which many hon. Members have, shows that 41 per cent. of those employed in the distribution, hotel or restaurant industries earn less than £4 an hour.
  In my constituency—I am sure that the same is true in many others—the majority of those affected by low pay are part-time working women and young people. Perhaps unusually, in my constituency many of them come from the Asian community. In the sweatshops in my constituency, young Asian girls earn just over £1 an hour. If they are paid £1.50 an hour, that is considered to be a lot of money. That is at a time when the average gross wage in the United Kingdom is £8.75 an hour.
  In many ways, it must be amazing to many hon. Members that we are even having this debate as we come to the end of this millennium and look forward to the next. Here we are debating decency in society and whether we should set a safety net below which people should not be allowed to fall.
  Some of the comments that I have heard this evening from Opposition Members have been staggering. I did not know until now that the Tory party was officially in favour of subsidising poverty pay and I am grateful that that position has been made clear tonight. I thought that Conservative Members were more surreptitious about it, but tonight they have made it clear that that is their position.
  I also found it interesting that a number of Opposition Members were proud of the fact that the wages councils were abolished. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) crowed at their abolition and claimed that the abolition had created a great deal more employment. As has been said by other hon. Members, the one wages council that was not abolished was the Agricultural Wages Board. I should be interested to hear whether Opposition Members, most of whom since 1 May represent rural, rather than urban, constituencies—I say that with no disrespect—support the Agricultural Wages Board's minimum wage, which it has now laid down at £4.12 per week—[Laughter.] I mean an hour. I think that that Freudian slip makes my point. I should like to know whether Conservative Members support the board's decision of £4.12 an hour or whether they believe that the farm workers living in their constituencies are overpaid. I should be interested in their answers.
  In the discussions on the subject that I have had with business—I was with the Confederation of British Industry in Birmingham only last week—it has expressed its concern, not at the Bill's principle, but at the level at which the minimum wage will be set. Of course, that level must take into account all the factors and it must be sensible and realistic. When I consider the chairmanship of the Low Pay Commission and the other members who have been appointed to it—they are knowledgeable and eminent—I have no doubt that all the factors will be taken into account. I am sure that the commission's
  208
  recommendation will be one with which industry can live comfortably. It will also be one which the low-paid people of this country will greatly welcome.
  Mrs. Gorman: How will the hon. Gentleman make his views known to those people who he alleges are earning only £1.50 an hour if, as he hopes, the Government introduce a wage of £4.50 an hour and those people lose their jobs? How will that help those people to climb up the skills ladder that will enable them to earn better wages?
  Mr. Godsiff: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but all I can tell her is that if I walked into some of those sweatshops and told the employees that they were to be paid £4.50 and hour, my majority would immediately go up from 19,000 to 29,000. I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question because we shall have to wait and see. I have heard the argument that if we set the minimum wage level too high we will produce a certain number of job losses and I have also heard the counter argument that if we set it at another level it will have no effect on job losses. I cannot give the hon. Lady the answer because I cannot look into a crystal ball, but I can look at the weekly pay packet of someone walking home with £70 or £80 to live on. I know that the hon. Lady would be mindful of the problems involved in trying to do that.
  When the Low Pay Commission considers the subject, it must be very conscious of young people. It would be wrong to adopt the principle that people under the age of, for example, 25 should be treated differently from those over the age of 25 when they are doing exactly the same job. That principle cannot be right, but it can be right if the person is learning the job or is being trained. But once the other person has attained the skills and is doing the same job as the person standing next to him, it cannot be right, purely on the basis of age, to pay those two people different rates of pay. That would be a perverse sort of agism—agism turned upside down—and I hope that that will not happen.
  I believe that the legislation will have a lasting, historical impact on the people and economy of this country. I believe that the legislation will be wholly to the good and that the millions of low-paid people of this country who looked to the Labour party to introduce such legislation will be pleased that the party has kept its promises and, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, paid its IOU.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: The Bill shows the Government's arrogance, naivety and cack-handedness. It shows the Government's arrogance in setting up a Low Pay Commission and giving its members high salaries before having parliamentary approval to do so. I know that the new terracotta soldiers—
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): May I correct the right hon. Gentleman: for the record, Low Pay Commission members are not being paid salaries. Unlike the previous Government, who had quangos full of Tory party members, the commission's members are prepared to work for nothing.
  Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to hear that comment from the Minister of State, but the commission has been

  209
  set up without parliamentary approval and the taxpayer is incurring costs. Those hon. Members who have been here since before 1 May used to pay high regard to the precedent that a Government did not act until they had the statutory approval to do so. That is the first example of the Government's arrogance.
  Another example of their arrogance is the fact that although the Bill is now before the House, we are not to be told about its guts. We are being asked to agree in principle a pig in a poke. The only people whom it will satisfy will be the Liberal Democrat Members, each of whom will be able to go home—they seem to have gone already—and tell his constituents that he voted for the principle, but not to worry as the rate that will be set will probably be perfect for the constituency. When, inevitably, the level turns out to be either too high or too low, the Liberal Democrats can blame the Government.
  Mr. Brian Cotter: Perhaps we can be allowed to speak for ourselves on that subject and not have words put into our mouths.
  Mr. Maclean: I shall remember not to bother to give way to the hon. Gentleman in future if that is the only sort of remark that he can make.
  The Bill is one of the most important planks of the Government's legislation, but neither we nor the Labour Members have the slightest idea what the wage level will be. Will it be set at a very low level, as the President of the Board of Trade wants, or at a much higher level, as the Treasury wants or at a level that the Scottish Nationalists want? The one answer that I do want from the Minister of State tonight—if he would care to pay attention for a moment—is whether the Scottish Parliament, when it is set up, will be responsible for setting the minimum wage for Scotland or whether that responsibility will remain with the President of the Board of Trade. Will she be responsible for setting the minimum wage applied to the Scottish nation? We want a clear answer to that question. Either the power to set the minimum wage will remain with the President of the Board of Trade in England, and Scotland will fall into line with the United Kingdom national minimum wage, or the level will be set by the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: The national minimum wage is exactly that; it is a national minimum wage for all workers in Scotland, in Wales, in England and in Northern Ireland. There are no Tories left in Scotland who can argue the case for or against the national minimum wage.
  Mr. Maclean: I am, however, Member of Parliament for a constituency on the Scottish border. That is why—
  Mr. McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I will not give way again to the Minister.
  It is important for my constituents to know whether we shall have a national minimum wage and whether a distortion will be caused by there being a different level in Scotland. I am relieved that the Scottish Parliament will not have the right to set a separate minimum wage which would be a great distortion in my constituency.
  210
  The Government are naive in another way. If they think that no distortions will be caused by a minimum wage, they clearly have no experience in the real industrial world. We have already heard that wages and living costs in different parts of the United Kingdom are fundamentally different. Our wages in Cumbria are, of course, lower than they are in the south-east, but so are our housing costs and our travel-to-work costs. Our schools and many other facilities are better and in the lake district, we have a better environment. We have all the competitive advantages.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclean: No; the Minister can make his own speech when he winds up the debate.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, just once more?
  Mr. Maclean: I will give way then.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he worked in industry, he worked for Securicor? Will he also confirm that Securicor is in favour of a national minimum wage and an agreement with the trade unions in its work force?
  Mr. Maclean: The Minister seems to think that he makes an awfully telling point, but I fail to see it. Yes, I used to work for Securicor. If I did not like the wages it paid, I had the choice of working for someone else. I cannot see for the life of me what point the Minister is trying to make. I am fighting for my constituency and not for Securicor or any other employer. My constituency will be severely affected by a national minimum wage.
  The national minimum wage will cause distortions which will harm labour in Cumbria, which already has the disadvantage of being one of the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. It will remove one of our most competitive advantages. Our cost of living is lower and, as I have told the House, many of our other costs are lower. Yes, our wages are lower. At the end of the day, however, the quality of living is every bit as good—
  Mr. Desmond Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman should have said that his constituency is largely covered by the only minimum wage board, the Agricultural Wages Board.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is clearly a matter for debate.
  Mr. Maclean: The point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Turner) is not a matter for the Chair. In addition, if that is the best point with which the Minister can prime his Back Benchers, he is even more feeble than I thought.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclean: No, I will not give way because I wish to conclude my remarks.

  211
  Many parts of the United Kingdom will be disadvantaged by the minimum wage, whatever it may be. There is no doubt that Cumbria's main competitive advantage will be removed. We shall be forced to pay proportionately higher hourly wages than other parts of the United Kingdom. That will remove our competitive advantage and that is why many of my constituents will suffer as a result of the Bill.
  It is no good for the Government to pretend that everyone will be a winner and that there will be no losers. Once the Low Pay Commission reports, all the happy faces on the Labour Benches will suddenly change. Some Labour Members will be desperately unhappy that the wage is far lower than they expected, whereas others will be unhappy because it is higher than they expected and they will feel that their constituents will not get the protection they want.
  The one thing that we can be certain about is that the House has been deprived of the opportunity to make a decision tonight on the real contents of the Bill. The House is giving the Government the power to impose a minimum wage when we do not have the faintest idea what that wage will be. That is treating the House with contempt and is typical of this Government's arrogance so far.
  8.24 pm
  Ms Candy Atherton: I represent probably the lowest-paid constituency in the country. It would be fair to say that the people of Falmouth and Camborne are crying out for a national minimum wage. So important is the issue that I want to describe some of the problems that my constituents face.
  At present, unemployment stands at 10 per cent. and is falling, but we are losing many of our traditional industries and replacing them with small companies which generally pay lower wages. Across Cornwall, our traditional industries are in decline. The problems of farming, fishing and mining are well known to the House.
  The last tin mine in Cornwall—and, indeed, in Europe—is located in my constituency near Camborne. South Crofty provides employment for 200 to 300 people. Many development miners earn good wages and that is just one reason why we are fighting so hard to save the mine and the 900 jobs in the wider economy. Increasingly, our economy relies on tourism. Despite our best efforts, it is predominantly a seasonal industry and it is notorious for low pay. I will return to the implications of that later.
  Against the background of a declining economy, the gross domestic product for Cornwall generally is 69 per cent. of the national average. As a county, we could qualify for objective 1 status in Europe and we are fighting for it. In Falmouth, Redruth, Penryn and Camborne, many thousands of my constituents are forced to rely on family credit to live. Survey after survey has found levels of poverty among the highest in the country. My constituency is designated a semi-urban area, yet it does not get urban relief and it does not qualify for rural assistance. We are caught not between a rock and a hard place, but between poverty and the sea.
  Hon. Members might assume, given all those factors, that we enjoy lower prices, but that is far from the truth. Our water charges are among the highest in the country. Food costs are high, as our produce leaves the county for a song and is reimported at significantly higher rates.
  212
  Extraordinarily, we have some of the highest car ownership rates in the country. Public transport is scarce and, to get a job, people have to own a car. We are a pathfinder area for the new deal. The Employment Service correctly identified the fact that one of the biggest obstacles to the young people of Cornwall obtaining employment was the lack of transport. It is marvellous that a pool of mopeds is being bought to enable young people to get to jobs. People need transport to get to jobs. We are so reliant on the car that the county council has a real problem with second-hand car traders from Birmingham who bring down their wrecks which are then sold at inflated rates in the local economy.
  In that context, cheap pay is a nightmare for my constituents. I will inform hon. Members of the levels we are talking about. The rate that sticks in my mind comes from a card I saw in the Penryn jobcentre. Among the advertisements for care workers at £2.20 an hour and kitchen porters at £2 an hour, one said:
  "Skilled car mechanic required for village garage. Must have own transport, 40 hours, weekends and nights. 1.80 an hour."
  Just this Saturday, a man from Falmouth came to my surgery to ask for assistance. For a number of years, he and others have worked for a prestigious leading hotel in Falmouth, but they have been laid off; I understand that the management have brought in workers from France and Spain to work for £1 an hour.
  The Government are absolutely right to bring in a national minimum wage. In my visits to companies throughout Cornwall, I have found that the companies that are doing well are the ones that pay their staff decent rates of pay, are investors in people and see training and quality as the key to the future. I am the daughter of a journalist and a hairdresser. My mother had three hairdressing salons, employing up to 30 staff. She was competitive—as I remember, a shampoo and set cost two and sixpence in old money—but she paid above wages council rates. She welcomed the wages council, as it stopped fly-by-night operators and prevented them from moving into her area and—no pun intended—undercutting her. That is as true today as it was when I was a child.
  Hon. Members might think that, with the experience of low pay in my constituency, we have been overwhelmed by companies beating their way into the county; in fact, the opposite is true. We have low pay and high unemployment, and the larger employers are actually relocating up country, out of Cornwall, to higher wage areas. I do not want to hear Conservative Members' nonsense that low pay brings employment, because our experience is the opposite. The Bill is both morally and politically right. If my constituents are to be lifted out of poverty, the sooner it is in force, the better.
  8.31 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am tempted to deal with one or two of the points raised by Labour Members that were rooted in cliches about unemployment, because such points sometimes go unanswered.
  The subject of women's pay and the Equal Opportunities Commission was raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas). The Equal Opportunities Commission has itself bewailed the fact that since equal pay was introduced and it began pursuing employers in courts over wages, the number of

  213
  women in high-skilled occupations—especially in the teaching and nursing professions, where women previously had niche employment opportunities—has been seriously undermined.
  Mr. Woolas indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Gorman: I simply put that point to the hon. Gentleman, whether he approves or disapproves of it. The commission has said that equal pay has had an adverse effect on employment opportunities for women.
  On the point that the hon. Gentleman made about his local council having a policy of paying £4.50 an hour, I can only say that, well, councils can pay that much. They are paying wages out of the public purse, so to speak—they draw the money that they use to pay people from rates and taxes and not from profitability in the marketplace. It is that profitability which drives up minimum wages, through competition for labour.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: No, the hon. Lady can have her own time a bit later.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) talked about women who were earning £1.50 an hour and how delighted he was that they were going to get £4 an hour and that he would be able to go down and tell them that that wonderful news was brought to them by the Labour party. According to that doctrine, the employer will have to find another £3 an hour for each person working in his factory—but the hon. Gentleman did not tell us where the employer was to get that money. The employer can get it only out of the profitability of his product.
  What paying wages boils down to is the productivity of the individual person and that person's skills. Young people in my constituency aged 18 working as highly skilled bricklayers are not earning £1.50 an hour—they are taking home £800 or £900 a week. That may be the same rate or even a better one than older people receive, but it is dependent on their skills and productivity. That is the essence of the wages that employers can afford to pay.
  I commented earlier on the composition of the Low Pay Commission. There are nine people on it, three of whom are academics who are on the state payroll and therefore not necessarily in need of supplementary income, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pointed out. Three others are trade union leaders—or senior executives—who are on the payroll of their unions, so the issue of whether or not they are being paid for sitting on the commission is not especially significant. Only three members of the commission represent some aspect of the employment world. One comes from the Confederation of British Industry, which represents large companies; one comes from the Scottish Grocers Federation, which is dominated by the large multiples; and the other comes from the Granada Group.
  All those are large employers—not that they all pay high wages. Many employers in the security industry, which is dominated by large companies, pay relatively modest wages. The point is that if firms are in competition for business and they cannot pay more, the Bill will not
  214
  mean that their employees will go home with a larger pay packet; it means that they will go home with no pay packet at all.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: No, I have only 10 minutes and I am sure that the hon. Lady will make a marvellous contribution when she is called to speak.
  I asked two business men in my constituency—real employers who provide real jobs—about the implications of the Bill. One of them is a respectable local builder who does lots of work for the local council, who has been a member of the council and who does splendid work. I asked him about wages in his industry, which is still controlled by the Construction Industry Training Board. I asked what would persuade him to pay higher wages and he told me that, to begin with, it was a matter of what the contractor would pay him. His contractors include the local council, which asks him to submit bids for jobs. He has to be competitive in the wages he can offer, because 90 per cent. of his outgoings are wages. To get work for his employees, he has to be competitive. It is not a question of whether he wants to be benevolent and double his employees' wages overnight—any employer would like to be able to do that—but in the real world employers have to compete for jobs.
  That local builder tells me that the industry's training programmes have been largely destroyed by the trade unions, which insisted on apprenticeship schemes paying uneconomic rates to young people. He said that when they were facing deadlines his tradesmen were not going to slow down to train a young person when that young person was being paid almost as much as they were. It is not logical. In the building industry, hardly anybody—not even the big companies or local councils—take on trainees and apprentices because the market is competitive and the trade unions have set minimum rates.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way? Does she know the rates?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  Mrs. Gorman: The trade unions have set minimum rates for young people.
  The great majority of people on low wages are youngsters who are unskilled, women returning to the labour market with out-of-date skills, or people who are adding to a family budget. We keep hearing the cliché about all wages being a living wage or we talk about wages that support a family, but many people are bringing home a wage which contributes to a family budget and that bit of extra money means a lot to many families. The Labour party will not shed any tears if people cannot bring in that extra money, which means the difference between buying a pair of plimsolls for the children or getting them a prized pair of Reeboks, or taking the children to Disneyworld rather than to the local funfair. People go to work for all sorts of reasons, not just the wages—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.
  Mrs. Gorman: Thank you for your support, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  215
  Another group on modest wages are people with disabilities of various kinds, including intellectual disabilities, who cannot produce work at a rate or with the skills that will command high wages. It is quite right that the Government should step in to supplement their incomes. We should not throw the entire burden on the employer. The employer will simply say, "I cannot make enough money out of this person's labour to support the wages the Government are inflicting on us."
  Several hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), have mentioned the south-west. I have put it to the hon. Lady that the problem there also has to do with relatively low skills. As she says, it is an area which has traditionally relied on tourism, which accounts for many low-skilled jobs. There is no reason to denigrate those sorts of jobs. We are talking about highly competitive seasonal work.
  The same applies to agriculture. It is no coincidence that the board presiding over agricultural wages oversees a low-paid industry. Almost without exception, the wages councils presided over industries with relatively low rates of pay; indeed, the rates set by the wages councils became not the minimum but the maximum for those industries. It was only when we abolished the wages councils for, say, the retail trade that wages in it started to rise. So the councils' effect was the opposite of that intended—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Gorman: I will not give way, since the points I am making are all fascinating—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Douglas Alexander: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in a debate on the national minimum wage, for it is a subject of the greatest importance to many of my constituents.
  It is a convention of the House that a new Member should pay tribute to his predecessor. Even if there were no such convention, I would be determined to pay tribute to Gordon McMaster, the Member of Parliament for Paisley, South from 1990. I did not know Gordon well, although it is a matter of pride to me that on the day in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister I was campaigning for his election on the streets of Paisley. Christmas came early for the voters of Paisley that year, but it was to be another seven years before they had a Government who reflected their will and the will of the people of Scotland. During those years, Gordon came to be viewed throughout the constituency with real pride and affection for his concern and commitment to his constituents.
  Like his father before him, Gordon was a gardener by trade. Before entering the House, he played a significant role in establishing a highly successful initiative, Growing Concern, which combined his love of gardening with providing opportunities for disabled people to learn about horticulture. When he entered the House, Gordon's long-standing commitment to disability issues was reflected in his parliamentary life. He served both as Front-Bench spokesman on disabled people's rights and as secretary to the all-party disablement group. He was a credit to his parents, Willy and Alison, to his constituency and to the House.
  216
  In his work in Parliament and the constituency, Gordon upheld the tradition of service of my first Member of Parliament, Norman Buchan—Gordon's predecessor. During my childhood, Norman was a frequent visitor to my home. His inspirational conversation and his commitment to socialism in part explain my presence in the House today.
  My constituency, which both men represented in their day, is in the county of Renfrewshire. Having grown up and lived there for almost 20 years, I was especially honoured to be chosen by the Labour party to contest the seat and to be given so much support by so many.
  The constituency that I have the privilege to represent is proud of its industrial heritage and the hard work of its people: the mills of Paisley, the carpet factory at Elderslie, the town of Johnstone, where the first machine tool foundry in the world was established. The people of my constituency embody many of the best qualities of the west of Scotland—a willingness to work hard, a sustaining sense of humour and an instinctive sense of community at all times.
  I am proud of those traditions from the past, but I know that it is the future that matters. In this new economy, all that my constituents ask is to be given the chance to contribute their talents and skills to the work of the nation. Certainly, there are already successes. Paisley university faces the new century as a proud and ambitious institution. Renfrewshire continues its success in manufacturing; indeed, the county produces a third of all Scotland's manufactured exports. This is the pattern for the 21st century, when we shall have to produce the highest quality goods and services and sell them in an ever more competitive global market.
  While traditional industries in the constituency have largely gone, many people in the work force are not equipped with the skills to contribute to, and benefit from, these new successes. To attempt to compete from a position of low skills and low wages offers not a route forward but a route back—back to unemployment, poverty and social division. I must report that more than 2,300 people in the constituency are officially unemployed, almost 600 of them under the age of 25. When they look for work at the local jobcentre, they see positions with hourly wages as low as £2.50 an hour for a cleaner, or £2.80 an hour for a kitchen assistant.
  That is why the Bill matters urgently to the people of Paisley, South. For my constituents, it is a matter not of wanting a national minimum wage but of needing one. For 18 years, we had a Government who advanced the idea that the price of greater prosperity was greater inequality and who tried to frighten people out of their commitment to fairness. I am therefore impelled to speak my mind, not solely by anger but by a sense of urgency, to end injustice and to give opportunity to people who have had to wait too long for a Government who are on their side.
  The new Government's proposals offer hope to the people of my constituency. Our victory on 1 May offers an historic opportunity to end the centuries old injustice of poverty pay. I was reminded of just how old the struggle to win decency in the workplace is when, on the night of my election, I entered Paisley town hall to await the result. As I entered the building, I passed the statue of Robert Tannahill, the weaver poet of Paisley. Almost two centuries ago, he was forced to leave the town

  217
  in search of a living wage. My constituents know all too well that the evil of poverty pay is still with us as we approach the 21st century.
  When people look back at our time, let the national minimum wage be the monument by which they remember our commitment to dignity and decency in the workplace. The Government's Low Pay Commission will bring together businesses, large and small, with employees' representatives to settle the level of the minimum wage. There will, of course, be a debate about that level, but let there be decisiveness about the principle for the national minimum wage is not an exercise in compassion. It is an investment in our future. It forms an essential part of the Government's strategy to provide opportunity to work, to ensure that work pays, and to allow advancement through the acquisition of skills. It is a strategy based on the understanding that in the new global economy prosperity is not won at the price of social justice. I am reminded that many of the countries with higher per capita incomes have achieved their success on the foundation of a national minimum wage.
  At the age of 15, I joined the Labour party in Renfrewshire because I believed in the values and ideals which had for generations taken members of my family into the Labour movement: a commitment to the belief that while we cherish our individuality we are part of a community with shared responsibilities and linked destinies, and the belief that wealth, power and opportunity should be in the hands of the many and not the few. The Bill advances those historic ideals in the modern economy, and that is why I and my constituents will support it.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on his maiden speech. The House remembers his predecessor with considerable affection and his death with much sadness. Tonight, however, we heard a maiden speech that was made with a judicious balance between dignity, wisdom and generosity. I am sure that all hon. Members look forward to listening to the hon. Gentleman in the future.
  This evening's subject has the capacity to excite high moral tones and to have all those in favour of the Bill reaching urgently for the pulpit. To some, it may seem like a debate about slavery all over again; one can ban slavery, but not poverty. The argument is about fair pay, but it should also be about whether pay can be realistic. Nobody is arguing that we should remove the importance of justice from employment. The question is what kind of justice the Bill will create. The President of the Board of Trade spoke of making work pay, but the danger of the Bill is that it will make the workers pay for it with their jobs.
  My constituency will be badly affected by the measure. I cannot say how badly, because, like other hon. Members, I do not yet know at what level the minimum wage will be fixed. Some 11 per cent. of the work force in my constituency are engaged in tourism, and many people own small and medium-sized businesses such as newsagents. Hon. Members may have seen the survey recently published by the National Federation of Retail
  218
  Newsagents. The evidence was startling: it figured that a minimum wage fixed at £3 would mean that 22 per cent. of jobs in the newsagents business would be lost, and that a minimum wage fixed at £3.50 would mean that half the jobs would be lost.
  I have listened to hon. Members this evening, particularly the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), whose work at the Low Pay Unit I respect and have followed over the years. We are all discussing poverty and, as the President of the Board of Trade said, the scandal of poverty. Nobody wants poverty in our society, but we must recognise that it is relative. There is a huge difference between poverty in the United Kingdom and poverty in India. It can be argued that we must improve the lot of everybody in our country, which is the duty of all Members of Parliament. Nobody disputes the fact that some people are badly off; the question is what we should do to make their lives better.
  Would the Bill remove the "scandal of poverty", as it has been termed? I do not believe that it would, because many of the poorest households have no earners. How would the Bill help them? Low pay is concentrated among many married people and young adults, many of whom are part of households where the other partner earns a good living. The Bill would do little to help them, but the people who may need help and on whom our resources should be targeted would not be helped. How would the Bill help those caught in the poverty trap—those for whom benefits would be reduced if their earnings increase? My worry is that the Bill would transfer responsibility from the state to the employer. But who will look after people when they are laid off because of the minimum wage?
  The devil in the Bill is in the detail. At best, the Bill is disingenuous; at worst, it is irresponsible. Members of Parliament will have to answer in the future for those whose hopes are dashed if the figure is fixed too low or for the lengthening dole queues if it is fixed too high. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) cited the importance of the United States, which is a comparison worth considering for a moment or two. The US minimum wage system is littered with exemptions. A few years ago, I had the good fortune to spend a year or so teaching at Harvard university, and experienced what life was like for Americans under the minimum wage system. It was not a panacea to cure all ills. The danger of the minimum wage in America is the way in which it has been continuously amended to create more exemptions.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, firms in the US with a turnover of less than $500,000 a year are exempted. If one considers the level at which the minimum wage is fixed in the US—currently $5.15 or about £3.20—and compares average earnings in America with those in the United Kingdom, the level is fixed at the equivalent of about £2.70.
  Has a minimum wage eliminated the scandal of poverty in the US? Hon. Members may be aware of a conference that took place yesterday in the United States—the conference of mayors. The report on the conference was startling. Hunger and homelessness, both symbols of poverty, are rising dramatically in the US; requests for food stamps and shelter rose by 16 per cent. this year, and 70 per cent. of cities reported turning away people who desperately needed help. That is a "scandal of poverty", and it is not a good model to follow.

  219
  Low pay may be relevant to explaining away those problems, but we must be clear about one thing: a national minimum wage will not eliminate poverty. What kind of justice will we have if there are no regional variations? It sounds right, but will it work in practice? Small businesses will find it hard—21 per cent. of businesses in the UK turn over less than £37,000 a year and in Wales the figure is £31,000, so Wales is being asked to bear a particular burden in the course of implementing the Bill.
  The Government speak of "flexibility plus". They aim to achieve high and stable growth and employment, but the recently released James Capel study found that that if the minimum wage is fixed at £3.50 it will add 1.5 per cent.to the UK wage bill. It will also cost 250,000 jobs. I do not want to become involved in an auction about the number of jobs involved, but all the studies agree that if the level of the minimum wage is to be meaningful it will have an impact on employment. We would be foolish, however we vote tonight, to deny such an impact. There will also be an impact on interest rates and on the economy's growth.
  This subject excites strong views. The Bill is well intentioned, but I believe that it is wrong. In the name of justice it will create injustice; in the name of making work pay it will make the workers pay with their jobs. In wanting to tackle the scandal of poverty, it will do little or nothing to clear up that scandal, except shift responsibility from the state to the employer. Having sent those employers bust in some cases, it will have created unemployment. The unemployed—the very people whom Labour Members want to be liberated from the state—will then come back and make their demands on the state.
  The Government's language is high handed and moralising, but I fear that the Bill will do little to get people from welfare to work and much to get them out of work and on to welfare.
  8.57 pm
  Judy Mallaber: In reply to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), may I say that of course the Bill is about poverty and justice, but it is a central plank of our economic policies. We cannot compete internationally on the basis of paying the lowest wages. We can never win that battle. Our future lies in developing a highly skilled productive work force competing on the basis of quality and innovation.
  I have made those arguments over many years. I am very emotional about the debate because, I am proud to say, I was employed by the National Union of Public Employees when we were advancing the arguments for a minimum wage. I wrote many of the documents that made that case. We saw it as a moral argument about justice, but now we see it as an economic argument about a measure that will get the country on its feet again.
  I shall give the example of an industry that is important in my area and is often regarded as one in which a minimum wage might lead to job losses—the textiles industry. Jobs have been lost in the textiles industry—because we cannot compete in the global race to the bottom with Morocco, Sri Lanka and the far east. The idea that we can do that is nonsense. We can never pay low enough wages to compete with those areas. That is not the way forward for the textiles industry.
  In this country, there is a market for our local textiles. A company such as Marks and Spencer may take standard goods from overseas, but when it needs a new line or an
  220
  unusual product quickly, it needs speedy, flexible, quality producers based in UK plants. That is the basis on which we must compete.
  There are already minimum earnings agreements in the industry that have permitted the reconsideration of payment structures, individual piecework and so on, which can militate against the flexibility, quality and efficiency that we need for our companies to compete and win orders. A minimum wage could provide payment structures that enable us to be more efficient and more competitive.
  Two companies in my constituency, Courtaulds and Coats Viyella, already have national minimum earnings levels. Colin Dyer, the chief executive of Courtaulds, was recently quoted in The Guardian as saying that the company was preparing itself for the minimum wage by becoming more efficient.
  Decent employers do not need to be undercut by cowboys and sweatshops seeking competitive advantage. We heard earlier the quotation from Winston Churchill about bad employers undercutting the good and the worst employers undercutting the bad. That is not a route we can afford to go down.
  Tourism is another important industry in my constituency and it has been mentioned by several hon. Members. Is tourism advanced by a high staff turnover, which we have partly because of low wages? In our three-star hotels, there is a staff turnover of 33 per cent. How will those hotels attract visitors compared with France, with a turnover of 19 per cent., or Germany, which has a turnover of 16 per cent?
  Low pay is connected with a low level of investment and training in the skills that we need. We must compete on the high ground of skills and productivity, so I welcome the Bill.
  I have two practical suggestions. First, I hope that there will be common procedures to tie up implementation of the minimum wage legislation with equal pay legislation. This is the second stage of equal pay legislation; we must co-ordinate those measures. Secondly, we must consider procedures for the annual review and continuing monitoring of the minimum wage, preferably through the Low Pay Commission.
  In reply to earlier comments, I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members consider us arrogant. We are trying not to be arrogant in the way the previous Government were; they introduced legislation drawn up without consultation or consideration and with no mechanisms for making it work properly. Our Low Pay Commission will do that and it will be a good and honourable way of ensuring that the Bill works well.
  After arguing for such legislation for many years, it gives me enormous pleasure to support it tonight. It is a matter of morality, social justice and equality, and it is another plank in our modernisation of Britain and building an economy fit for the future. I shall be extremely proud to vote for the Bill.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. David Prior: I begin by congratulating the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) and for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) on their excellent maiden speeches. I was particularly struck by their references to the high levels of unemployment in their constituencies.

  221
  I, too, am aware of the great damage that long-term high unemployment does to individuals, society and family life. It is against a background of high unemployment that we consider the Bill.
  In my constituency, I have many small firms engaged in the tourism and leisure industries. I have spoken to four or five companies over the past two weeks, all of whom cited cases of people who would not be working for them now if there was a national minimum wage. I think of a barman who was taken on on a casual basis. He worked almost for pocket money, but, because he was living at home with his parents, he could afford to do that. That casual barman is now the hotel manager.
  I think of the thousands of casual and seasonal employees who work in the tourism industry—boys and girls doing holiday jobs, getting training and work experience; women who are topping up their husbands' income; pensioners who are doing extra work to top up their pensions. A variety of people are prepared, for all kinds of reasons, to work for relatively low wages.
  I know of two people who work in a local care home. They work part time and receive a low wage, but they spend time talking to the residents of that care home, making coffee and doing jigsaw puzzles. Those sorts of jobs will not exist if there is a national minimum wage. There are many small firms in north Norfolk, and they will be hit hardest by a national minimum wage. It will apply not just to big firms in big towns but to small companies that operate in rural areas. I was struck by the plight of one constituent, who wrote:
  "We … have a requirement for some seasonal staff, and were the above level"—
  that is, the minimum wage—
  "applied to them, I am sure that … the subsequent adjustment to all staff rates would be … injurious to the viability"
  of the business. Labour Members should not forget the impact that a national minimum wage will have on differentials. The Food and Drink Federation has said:
  "It should be clearly recognised, however, that the Potential Pressure for Maintenance of Differentials, and the Implications for Cost and Competitiveness, will be very considerable where the lowest rates of a grading structure have to be increased as a result of a national minimum wage."
  All the evidence is that more Government intervention in the labour market, the social chapter and the national minimum wage will lead to higher levels of unemployment.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Lepper: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. I also thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) for their concise speeches, which have permitted me to participate.
  We have heard much about the attitude of employers—particularly small businesses—to the minimum wage. I am glad to have this opportunity to remind my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—who is on the Front Bench—of her visit to my constituency before the general election, during which
  222
  representatives of small businesses volunteered the view that no responsible employer would have any problem with a national minimum wage.
  I can also tell my hon. Friend that several of my colleagues from Sussex constituencies, some Opposition Members and I met representatives of the Sussex branch of the Confederation of British Industry in Crawley just 10 days ago. They also told us that they envisage no problems with the national minimum wage policy. That is my experience of reactions to a national minimum wage, which is not based on reports from elsewhere.
  I must draw attention to the situation in my constituency. I have said before that, although Brighton, Pavilion appears to be prosperous, it suffers from very real deprivation. Research conducted by the local council and the Low Pay Unit—I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) in this area—found that, in 1995, 43 per cent. of those in full-time work in East Sussex were living below the Council of Europe's decency threshold. It found also that 74 per cent. of those in part-time work were below that threshold. That is unacceptable.
  The examples from the Brighton, Pavilion jobcentre that I shall now give are equally unacceptable. The jobs offered on a typical day included a chef, with three years' experience, working until 3 am for £3.25 an hour. That is the highest rate that I shall quote. A position for a qualified, full-time hair stylist was offered at £2.66 an hour. The position of care assistant, working 12 hours per night, was offered at £20 a night. The responsibilities of that care assistant are calculated to be worth £1.66 per hour. The Bill will do much to alleviate such degrading pay offers in my constituency. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on establishing the Low Pay Commission and introducing the Bill so quickly.
  I remind the House that many people in my constituency work in the retail, hotel and catering trades and that nearly a quarter of employment in my constituency is provided by them. They are jobs that were once protected by the wages councils.
  Many surveys have been mentioned; I shall refer to one more. A nationwide survey was undertaken by the low pay network in 1995. It revealed that 10 per cent. of the jobs in hotels and catering in 1995 paid less than in 1993 when the wages councils were abolished. Again in 1995, 20 per cent. of jobs in retail and hairdressing—major areas of employment in my constituency—were being paid at below the levels in 1993 when the wages councils were abolished.
  I am sure that my constituents will welcome the Bill, as I do. It will have my whole-hearted support and the whole-hearted support of those hard-working people of the Pavilion constituency who far too often are paid far less than they deserve for the work they do.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made powerful economic cases against the Bill. Instead, I shall take a few minutes to make the moral case against it. Having listened to the debate, I am aware that Labour Members feel sincerely that they are on the moral side of the argument. They have had a few uncomfortable nights recently, with the more loyal or ambitious of them being dragged through the

  223
  Lobby supporting Government policies that they think are fundamentally immoral. That being so, they clearly feel good about themselves tonight. They feel that they are on the side of good. I want to puncture that illusion.
  The Bill is actively immoral because its implementation will knowingly cause people to lose their jobs. It is—[Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members find it amusing that people will lose their jobs; that is not the impression that they have tried to give to their constituents.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has recognised, famously, that the minimum wage will cause some people to lose their jobs. Professor Bain has said that he would be surprised if there were not some job losses. The question is whether these jobs—
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: No. I am sorry. At this stage of the debate I cannot give way to the hon. Lady.
  The professor's question is whether the jobs that would be lost would be better lost anyway. I observe in passing that those who take that view are seldom referring to their own jobs. Which people will lose their jobs? We know the answer precisely: the young and the unskilled will bear the principal brunt of these job losses. I do not find it moral that the Government are introducing a policy that will specifically make it more difficult for young people and the unskilled to find jobs.
  A continuing debate is centred on exemptions. For example, should there be exemptions for trainees, for under-26-year-olds and perhaps for under-21-year-olds? What is so great about a policy that means that a policy that means that the Government are trying to find exemptions for the most vulnerable groups in society? It is clear that the level at which the national minimum wage will be set will be vital.
  Broadly speaking, in other European countries where there is a minimum wage, the higher the percentage of the average wage at which the minimum wage is set, the higher is the level of youth unemployment. Many Labour Members have mentioned with pride the sectors that will be affected by the Bill if it is enacted, such as textiles, tourism and hotels. All of these—
  Miss Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady because we are approaching the replies from the Front Benches.
  Miss Smith rose—
  Mr. Green: No. I am under pressure of time and unable to give way to the hon. Lady.
  The Bill is immoral because it will affect certain sectors that are staffed by some of the most dedicated people in society. I have been approached in my constituency by teachers and administrators in nursery schools who say that they employ people on very low wages precisely because those people know that jobs are not available at a higher level and because they feel a vocation for such
  224
  work and are quite prepared to do it on low wages. If the minimum wage is introduced, those jobs will simply disappear and some nursery schools will close.
  Another reason—it has not yet been mentioned—why the Bill is immoral is the fact that there will be so much detail at the margin, which will go some way to re-create the culture of fiddling at the edges that incomes policies introduced in the 1960s and 1970s. The Secretary of State mentioned the problems with bonus payments, benefits in kind and deductions from earnings. With all those bits and pieces around—
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: I am not giving way. I am sorry, but time is limited.
  All those areas brought incomes policies into disrepute and led to novel forms of payment. All that will be reintroduced in certain sectors of the economy if the minimum wage is introduced. That will make this country a less moral place as well.
  The Bill is immoral because Parliament is being invited to take this decision blind. It is absurd to debate the Bill's Second Reading when we do not have its central feature—the minimum wage itself. It is bad that Parliament is asked to discuss the Bill at this stage. We should discuss it after the Low Pay Commission has reported. The Government's attitude is rather like the famous company involved in the south sea bubble that invited people to invest in it and said that they would be informed in due course of the purpose of their investment. That is effectively what the Government are asking the House to do this evening.
  The Bill is immoral because it deludes people into thinking that it is an attack on poverty. It will not reduce poverty. Many of my hon. Friends produced figures that show that the people who will be affected by the minimum wage are the groups in society who are most affected by poverty.
  The Bill will increase unemployment, especially for the young and unskilled. It will discourage workers from taking low-paid, socially useful work. It will re-create the culture of rule bending that surrounded incomes policies in the 1960s and 1970s. Parliament is being asked to take a decision when it has not been given the central piece of information that it requires to take that decision. The Bill also fails to address the problem of poverty.
  This is not a morally uplifting Bill; it is a half-baked measure. It is a bad Bill and it deserves to be voted down.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I realise that we are on a very tight schedule. I shall make one or two extremely important points.
  Opposition Members have commented on the arrogance of the Government in setting up a Low Pay Commission before we have even debated the Bill. It is only common sense that we set up the Low Pay Commission which, despite the arguments of Opposition Members, is very representative.
  The Conservatives say that what we are doing is nothing more than asking businesses to pay a wage that in turn will save the payment of benefits. I hope that

  225
  Opposition Members do not think that there is anything to be gained by, or that people take any pride in, claiming benefits. It is degrading. People do not want to claim benefits. The argument is not simply about a decent living wage, but about people exploiting the system. The argument that businesses will have to shed jobs and that they will go to the wall is nonsense. The Bill plugs a loophole whereby people have exploited the system for many years.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), who represents my neighbouring constituency, mentioned that we both come from an area which, if it is not the lowest paid, is the second lowest paid in Scotland. The argument about having a minimum wage that is not national and about there being different rates in different areas just does not hold water. I take great exception to the fact that, in some of its documentation, our local enterprise company in Dumfries and Galloway boasts that it can encourage inward investment because the area has competitive rates of pay—in other words, we pay scandalously low wages. I can tell some horror stories about that.
  The cornerstone of the family is broken down when parents try to hold down two or, in many cases, three jobs to make ends meet. People have to work 50, 60 or 70 hours a week, and their children never see them. They rush backwards and forwards in and out of the house trying to hold down jobs to make ends meet to avoid joining the benefit system, which Conservative Members think is the right way to act.
  Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the couple of minutes that I have had to make my points this evening. I hope that hon. Members will feel that it is appropriate to support the Bill.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: It is a duty and a pleasure to congratulate the hon. Members for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on two of the most eloquent maiden speeches that I can remember. Both paid due tribute to their predecessors. We echo their tributes, and we look forward to hearing from both of them again.
  It has been a singular feature of the debate that while Labour Members have welcomed the Bill in principle, not one was prepared to argue for the exemption or lower rate for younger people that the Government themselves have invited the Low Pay Commission to recommend.
  The Opposition oppose the Bill. We believe that it is damaging for jobs and for the economy and that it will not help the lowest-paid in our society, points eloquently made by my hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Ashford (Mr. Green).
  The story of the minimum wage is typical of the Government's first seven months. We have seen U-turns, inconsistency, deception, ministerial rows and even, as I shall come to later, the threat of a ministerial resignation. Above all, we have seen deep unease throughout the Government about the effects of the minimum wage in practice.
  226
  The Government cannot even decide what the minimum wage is all about. The Minister of State tells us that it is about ending poverty pay. The President of the Board of Trade, launching the Bill, said that it was economically sensible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his pre-Budget statement, said that it could have adverse effects on employment or inflation. I invite the Minister to tell us which of those aims is the Government's aim tonight.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: I shall give way later.
  The Government cannot even make up their mind about the status of the Low Pay Commission. First, they set it up, then they rig its membership. It does not contain a single person who has run a small business in this country. Representing small business men is a single trade association worthy from Scotland who represents but 500 members.
  Having boasted of setting up the commission within 90 days of taking office, 60 days later, the Government change its terms of reference. The Chancellor instructs the President of the Board of Trade to write to the commission inviting it to consider exemptions for young people and those in training.
  We see exactly the same inconsistency when it comes to the level of the minimum wage.
  Miss Smith: I find it ironic that for 18 years I watched the Conservative party, which was supposed to roll back the nanny state, foster unemployment in Britain, causing millions of people to live in poverty through benefit dependency. During those 18 years, we had the poll tax, North sea oil revenues were squandered, and old-age pensions were eroded. Some people still live on welfare in poverty and misery. [Interruption.] We are trying to do something about that. We want to get people back into employment through our welfare-to-work programme. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may heckle: they do not like it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has made her point.
  Mr. Fallon: I hope so, because she had long enough.
  We see the same inconsistency from the Government on the level of the minimum wage. At the election, Labour's employment spokesman, now our Prime Minister, said that it should be half male median earnings, which is currently £4.61. We learn from The Sunday Telegraph that the President of the Board of Trade and her Minister of State favour a rate of £4 an hour. We read that the Chancellor and his senior advisers are opposed to a minimum wage much above £3.50 an hour. Perhaps the Minister of State could assist us when he winds up the debate in the style of the pocket Cicero, to which we have become accustomed, by telling us exactly what level he favours for the minimum wage. In its evidence, the Confederation of British Industry told us that the range should be between £3 and £3.20 an hour. Does the Minister agree with that?
  When it comes to the coverage of the minimum wage, we find the same indecision. At the Amsterdam summit, the Prime Minister endorsed the presidency's conclusion

  227
  that wage agreements across Europe should take more account of differences in qualifications and between regions to facilitate job creation. The Minister of State told us on 20 November that there should be no regional, no sectoral and no company derogations. Exactly one week later, the Bill exempts share fishermen, makes special arrangements for agricultural workers, and excludes every 16 to 25-year-old.
  Clause 39 makes special provision for some of the lower-paid in, I assume, Jersey or Guernsey. The clause is entitled,
  "Power to apply Act to offshore employment."
  The Government are showing touching concern for the lower-paid bankers, lawyers and trustees who reside on the islands of Jersey and Guernsey.
  More seriously, the Minister of State, who said that there would be no exemptions, has clearly forgotten that, in a written answer on 28 July, he guaranteed that the Bill would
  "not penalise occupational training activity, including … training as child-carers as part of the Government's welfare-to-work scheme."—[Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 64.]
  We shall deal with that issue in Committee.
  The President of Board of Trade was careful to invite the commission to consider a wider definition of an hourly rate. She took the trouble to mention precisely what the CBI has called for, which is that the rate should include consideration of benefits in kind, such as board and lodging, meals, tips and pension contributions. I wonder whether she agrees with the CBI, which wants all new employees to be exempted from the minimum wage for the first six months of their employment. Does she agree with the Engineering Employers Federation, which wants all modern apprenticeships and all training to be exempted?
  Mrs. Beckett: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. That is not what the CBI said. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the full text of what Mr. Turner said, he will see that Mr. Turner was talking about training. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman, because that is how what was said was reported in the press, but I understand that it is not what Mr. Turner said or what he meant to convey. He was talking about people in training.
  Mr. Fallon: The President of the Board of Trade is a busy lady, but may I invite her to read the CBI's full evidence to the Low Pay Commission? I think that it puts the matter beyond all doubt.
  There is one Minister who, for all his many faults and other characteristics, sees the dangers of an inflexible national rate, and the unemployment that may well result. Throughout the autumn, he argued for the power in the Bill to vary the rate according to region, according to sector and according to size of business. When his advice to the President of the Board of Trade was leaked to The Guardian, he hastily wrote to that newspaper to explain why such a power was needed. He wrote:
  "The point I raised in correspondence … was a practical one, as to whether the draft Bill as worded allowed Ministers sufficient flexibility to refine policy in the light of experience of the actual functioning of the national minimum wage."
  He knows perfectly well that hundreds of thousands of jobs could be lost if an inflexible rate was insisted on, but that was not the view that was finally taken. We now
  228
  learn of a furious dispute between the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: Let me finish. I quote from The Independent on Sunday, which carried the headline:
  "Labour covers up minister's revolt … McCartney tried to resign".
  I have to give the House some rather sad news. The Prime Minister, we understand,
  "would happily have accepted Mr. McCartney's resignation".
  That was "suggested at Westminster", not by Conservative Members. We look forward to the Minister's continuing to fight his battles.
  Mr. MacShane: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given way at this point, when he was talking about resignation. Surely he could have mentioned at the beginning of his speech that, according to the Register of Members' Interests, he is a director of a nursery school organisation. He has remunerated employment as an adviser to nursing homes, which are among the worst employers in terms of low pay. If it comes to resignation, the hon. Gentleman has no right to stand at the Dispatch Box tonight.
  Mr. Fallon: Interventions such as that are not worthy of comment.
  I now come to the biggest deception visited on the debate by the Government. They have claimed, month after month, that business organisations are in favour of the Bill. Those who look at the evidence supplied to the Low Pay Commission—and we have looked at it—will see that not a single business organisation supports the principle of a statutory minimum wage. Indeed, most business organisations see it as entirely the wrong way in which to tackle poverty.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) raised a point earlier, and I now wonder whether it would not have been appropriate for the Opposition spokesman to declare his interest at the beginning of his speech. As we know, nursing homes pay very low wages. I suggest that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has a direct vested interest in the debate, and that he should have declared it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has acted entirely properly. This is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Fallon: I am sorry that Labour Members are not prepared to address the argument.
  The Engineering Employers Federation says that it does not support the introduction of a national minimum wage because of its effect on differentials and the increased cost of subcontracted services.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Fallon: I have given way generously.

  229
  The CBI says:
  "Business opposes a national minimum wage, which would undermine flexibility and is a poor way to tackle poverty."
  Indeed, the CBI makes it clear that a minimum wage could result in
  "rising prices, business closures and unemployment."
  Mr. MacShane: It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) cannot behave in that manner. He must give the hon. Member for Sevenoaks a hearing.
  Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the previous point of order, so I hope that it is not on the same matter.
  Mr. Sheerman: On a separate, but related matter, those of us who have been in the House for some time always understood that, before one made a speech, one declared one's interest, if there was a specific interest. Have the rules changed, so that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen do not have to declare any interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The declaration of interest rule is clear. That is what the Register of Members' Interests is for, and hon. Members know their responsibilities. I am saying that that is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair and that the speech of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks is perfectly in order.
  Mr. Fallon: The CBI has made it clear that
  "Even a modest minimum, set around the £3 mark, could lead to job losses unless wage differentials are squeezed."
  I pointed out to the President of the Board of Trade that the Federation of Small Businesses, too, is opposed to a statutory minimum wage in principle. It is no use the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—who is covering up the fact that she has failed to exempt small firms from the legislation—saying that she once attended a conference at which the federation said that it would like a sensibly negotiated minimum wage. It may have supported a sensibly negotiated minimum wage. The point is that it wanted to negotiate it and, in its manifesto, it remains opposed to a statutory minimum wage.
  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: No. I have given way generously. I am taking up the time of the Minister of State.
  Business is clear that jobs will be lost. The CBI is clear that even if—
  Mrs. Roche rose—
  Mr. Fallon: I give way.
  Mrs. Roche: I was privileged to speak at the annual meeting of the Federation of Small Businesses. It had a
  230
  debate on the issue and, by a resounding majority, it passed a resolution in favour of a sensibly negotiated minimum wage. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman accept the democratic position? Why cannot he accept that fact, even if he does not like it?
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Lady has walked straight into the trap. Immediately after that vote by the federation, Mr. Bill Knox, chairman of its employment affairs committee, reminded delegates that the federation opposed the imposition of a statutory minimum wage, but advised that the motion as it stood was not a proposal for such. That deals with that point.
  Business is clear that jobs will be lost. The CBI is clear that jobs will be lost. The North-East chamber of commerce says that 50 per cent. of employers will cut their work force, that 61 per cent. of employers believe that higher-paid employees will seek to maintain differentials and that 63 per cent. of employers want different rates by region.
  In the KPMG study that it commissioned, the British Hospitality Association, which represents the important hotel and tourism industry, says that at a rate of £3.50 an hour, 32,000 jobs will be destroyed in the industry. The Department of Trade and Industry's report, which the President of the Board of Trade was rather coy about, and which was prepared by Mr. Paul Lanser, an official in her Department—
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, it is not for me to argue with the occupant of the Chair or to dispute your ruling in any way, but, as I understand it, an advocacy rule was passed in a resolution of the House on 6 November 1995. It extended an earlier resolution prohibiting hon. Members from engaging in advocacy on behalf of outside bodies or persons from whom they receive payment. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is a director and heavily involved in the nursery
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the House has decided that any complaint of the nature that the hon. Gentleman raises should be referred to him. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Commissioner.
  Mr. Fallon: A Department of Trade and Industry study, which was prepared by Mr. Paul Lanser, an official in that Department, estimates the employment losses from a minimum wage set at various rates. At a rate of £3.50, assuming a half restoration of differentials, the job loss was 974,000. There is no point in Ministers saying that that was before the election, because we are living now with their proposals, and that estimate is as valid now as it was then. If the Minister does not think that 1 million jobs are at risk, perhaps she could give us the latest estimate that has been provided for her.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: No. I am already eating into the Minister's time.

  231
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has already said how the Deputy Prime Minister admitted that there would be some shake-out. He said:
  "any silly fool knew that".
  Those words remain true.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Fallon: I am not giving way again.
  The Prime Minister has commented on the potential job losses from the minimum wage. He wrapped it up in rather weasel language. I think that when he wrote to The Independent, he was courting the left. He stated:
  "I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have accepted that econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact".
  That is exactly the point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way.
  Mr. Fallon: It is no comfort to those who will be thrown out of work by the Bill to be told that an econometric model has been measuring the potential impact on their jobs. It is no comfort to those whose low-skilled jobs will disappear, and such jobs are often the first to start up the ladder. Through the Bill, the Government are kicking that ladder away for those who are least able to compete—the unskilled, the young, the elderly, the most vulnerable in our society. The Bill will be deeply damaging.
  The Chancellor accepts that the Bill will increase inflation; add to public spending; hit school and hospital budgets; damage competitiveness; hammer small businesses, which are exempted in other countries from the minimum wage; and discourage people from adding to their training and seeking higher qualifications. Above all, it will cost jobs. That is why we oppose it. Even if business had negotiated the amount of the minimum wage and if there were some flexibility for small businesses, which there is not, and regional variations, which there are not, we would still oppose this attack on jobs.
  We warn the Government that if unemployment rises—and we think that it will as a direct consequence of the Bill—they will bear the responsibility for pricing the most vulnerable people in our society out of jobs and destroying their lifeline to a better future. That is why we oppose the Bill.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has eaten considerably into the time available for my speech. Consequently, I intend to put the Government's case forcefully without interventions from him or from other Opposition Members.
  However, the hon. Gentleman paid a very eloquent tribute to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), for which I thank him. My hon. Friend not only made a
  232
  very thoughtful speech but paid tribute to his predecessor, whom I knew and occasionally disagreed with. I welcome that tribute. I am also absolutely sure that my hon. Friend will be a significant player in the House on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of business in Bristol, North-West.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) showed his mettle in a very difficult by-election. He paid tribute to his predecessor who was lost in tragic circumstances. I am absolutely sure that my hon. Friend will make his mark in this place and will prove himself one of the best representatives that Scotland has ever sent to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) was, as usual, eloquent and knowledgeable on minimum wage issues. She shared her original views on the issue and told the House how she has contributed over the past few years to the minimum wage debate. I look forward to working with her during the Bill's passage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), as usual, made an eloquent and well-argued case. He explained why employer after employer in the British hospitality industry supports the principle of a minimum wage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) clearly explained how vulnerable workers were damaged when the previous Tory Government withdrew basic rights to minimum wages by abolishing wages councils.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) has for more than two decades been one of those who have kept the flag flying on behalf of tens of thousands of low-paid workers in Britain. I look forward to the announcement of the Scrooge of the Year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) explained again just what happens in an inner-city constituency after 18 years of Tory Government hammering away at low-paid workers, isolating them, and refusing both to accept the necessity of minimum wages and to do something about poverty pay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) spoke eloquently about problems of poverty in Britain's lowest paid constituency. I look forward to working with her in the campaign.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) spoke of business's support for the minimum wage in his constituency.
  I shall now deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and his remarks about me. May I point out that the only hon. Member I know of who quit politics because he could not reach agreement with his leader is the former Secretary of State for Wales? He is the quitter, not me. He is also the loser. He fought for the leadership of his party, and he lost. He fought to become Leader of the Opposition and lost. He is the loser, not me. As for visiting the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street, he always left his Prime Minister without agreement. When I leave my Prime Minister, I always have an agreement.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. McCartney: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to speak in January, if he wants to join us in the Bill's Committee stage.

  233
  This has been one of the happiest days of my life—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but for almost three decades—
  Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister at the Dispatch Box to give way one moment to an Opposition Front Bencher and then—the next moment, under instructions from the Secretary of State—to turn round and say, "No, I don't give way after all"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor, not for the Chair.
  Mr. McCartney: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member. When one is only 5 ft tall, it is difficult for people to know whether you are standing or sitting. For the record, I am standing.
  I want to place on the record my thanks to those who worked with me in opposition in formulating this policy, campaigning in the country and managing the fat-cat campaign, which is probably one of the most successful campaigns in British political history. There was a mammoth consultation with business—more than 200 individual meetings and discussions—in advance of our publishing proposals for the Low Pay Commission and the national minimum wage. That culminated in a Labour victory on 1 May.
  Today's debate has been characterised, as usual, by the Tory suspects in the low-pay brigade. They are smug, self-centred and complacent in the extreme. I want to talk about the real-life issues of low pay. Nearly 1 million of our fellow citizens earn less than £2.50 an hour, and 750,000 families receive in-work benefits such as family credit. They have a full-time job all week and still cannot afford to live. Eighteen years of Tory rule has left the gap between the poor and rich at its largest since the 1880s.
  I shall return to the plight of low-paid workers and their families in a moment, but I want to allow myself a little cheer. As a former low-paid worker, I never dreamt that I would ever be a Member of Parliament, let alone a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box replying to an historic debate that would lead to Britain's first truly national minimum wage. Many low-paid workers in Britain are unsung heroes every day of the week. They seek to gain justice.
  I know what happens. I lost count of the number of jobs I lost or from which I was sacked. I used to be known as DCM McCartney—don't come back on Monday. Only last week, I was at a seminar on the national minimum wage and there was an employer in the audience who had sacked me. He was there to support the introduction of a minimum wage. That is real progress. That is new Labour and a new minimum wage.
  Low-paid workers never have a voice; they are powerless and isolated. Throughout this debate, there has not been a clear understanding of what it means to be low paid. Some people work from home and have caring responsibilities, but are exploited for having those responsibilities. The low paid are fearful of speaking out and fear being given the sack. They are frightened of not being able to pay their own way or provide for their children—they come first and the parents go without.
  234
  We do not have to tell low-paid workers about low pay because they live it seven days a week, 365 days a year, year in, year out.
  Opposition Members never acknowledge that some low-paid workers have more than one job in a day. Some women work early morning, afternoon and evening because they earn only £1 an hour. To help their family out of poverty, they work hour after hour in undignified circumstances. With a national minimum wage, the Labour Government are coming to the rescue of those women.
  The low paid are excluded from the mainstream. They cannot afford school trips for their kids, family outings or days out and sometimes cannot afford a present for their children on their birthday. That is the reality—that is what it is about. This is about feeling valued and having personal dignity when an employer is treating you no better than a dog. We want to introduce respect and fairness. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have prolonged conversations in the House while someone is addressing hon. Members. The House must come to order.
  Mr. McCartney: I do not expect to receive respect from Opposition Members, but I expect them to respect the low paid.
  The minimum wage is vital to ending the scandal of poverty pay; it is not only social justice, but it makes good economic sense. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set out eloquently the economic case for the introduction of a national minimum wage.
  It has been said that setting up the Low Pay Commission without consultation was arrogant. The policy was in our manifesto and was overwhelmingly endorsed by the British people. The commission's members were selected by the Nolan public appointments procedure; advertisements were placed in the national press. They have been appointed for their knowledge, skills, business backgrounds and understanding of labour market activity. I strongly object to Opposition Members impugning the character of many of those people who have given their time to the Low Pay Commission for the public good, at the expense of their own time and companies to ensure the successful launch of a national minimum wage.
  The commission is an independent organisation which will report on the initial rate for the minimum wage; it will consider exemptions for young people who are in training, the methods of calculation, the economic circumstances at the time and the impact on small and medium-sized businesses.
  We have been consulting nationwide and have received more than 500 responses, which are overwhelmingly in favour of the principle of a national minimum wage. When the commission has concluded its report, we shall report back to the House, which will debate the regulations. This Government are happy not only to consult, but to carry out their election promises at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No, I shall not give way.

  235
  After 18 years of Tory control in this country, low pay is everywhere—in rural areas, in urban areas, in the north, south, east and west. That is the Tories' legacy. In London, 87,000 people earn less than £2.50 an hour. In the south-west, 87,000 people earn less than £2.50 an hour. In London, 55,000 families require in-work benefits at the end of the week. The figure is the same for the south-west. It is not regional rates that we need, but the quick introduction of a national minimum wage to help end poverty in the workplace.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that there was no support among business for the minimum wagep—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. McCartney: It is okay—I am standing.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks kept trying to say that the Federation of Small Businesses did not vote in support of the minimum wage, but I am pleased to give him the result of the ballot. There were 23,757 in favour of the motion; there were 18,473 against—a majority of 57 per cent. over 43 per cent. The problem is that Opposition Members are not good at democracy and cannot accept the decision.
  Yesterday, I received a letter from the head of Bass, which stated:
  "Bass supports the principle of a minimum wage".
  It is interesting to note why it says that. It has admitted that in certain parts of its business it has a staff turnover of 100 per cent. a year. That means that 50,000 people a year leave the company's employment. The purpose of the national minimum wage is to ensure quality investment in training and education and the ability for people to earn a good wage so that they can remain in employment.
  The Rank organisation wrote to me yesterday and said:
  "Rank are responsible employers and, in principle, are not opposed to a national minimum wage".
  Tesco wrote to me this morning and said:
  "Tesco has stated for several years that it does not see any problems with a National Minimum Wage."
  As an example of good employment, employers and trade unions can work together in a modern, progressive and evolving way to further the interests of staff and shareholders.
  There is one company that has not written: Asda, the company of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). It is no wonder, as he is the man who says that the minimum wage will cost 350,000 jobs. As chairman of Asda, last year he received £2.2 million, made up of a £551,000 salary, plus performance-related bonuses. The Asda group's pre-tax profit was just over £400 million. There is hypocrisy and double standards. Business survey after business survey supports the minimum wage.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham is isolated. Few businesses support him; they have all deserted the Tories. Businesses want to get on and succeed, and to produce quality goods and services. They are sick and tired of being undercut by the cowboys. I ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby tonight on behalf on low-paid workers and to make sure that the Tories do not get away for even another hour with the concept that employers should pay people £1 an hour. My hon. Friends should support the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 387, Noes 145.

  Division No. 120]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clwyd, Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coleman, Iain

  Allan, Richard

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cotter, Brian

  Austin, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Cranston, Ross

  Barnes, Harry

  Crausby, David

  Battle, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  (Copeland)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

  Benton, Joe

  (Perth)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Best, Harold

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Darvill, Keith

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brake, Tom

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  (Dunfermline E)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Etherington, Bill

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Caplin, Ivor

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Casale, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Galbraith, Sam

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clelland, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  237

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Godman, Norman A

  Laxton, Bob

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lepper, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Graham, Thomas

  Linton, Martin

  Grant, Bernie

  Livingstone, Ken

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Livsey, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lock, David

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McAllion, John

  Hain, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCabe, Steve

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Hanson, David

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McDonnell, John

  Healey, John

  McFall, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Heppell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hesford, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  MacShane, Denis

  Hill, Keith

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hinchliffe, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  McWilliam, John

  Hoey, Kate

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Home Robertson, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hope, Phil

  Marek, Dr John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Maxton, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Hurst, Alan

  Merron, Gillian

  Hutton, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Illsley, Eric

  Milburn, Alan

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Naysmfth, Dr Doug

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Norris, Dan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Oaten, Mark

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Olner, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kidney, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pearson, Ian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pendry, Tom

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  238

  Pike, Peter L

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Stevenson, George

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pope, Greg

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pound, Stephen

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Swinney, John

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Purchase, Ken

  (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Touhig, Don

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Trickett, Jon

  (Hamilton S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Vaz, Keith

  Roy, Frank

  Wallace, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Watts, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Webb, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  White, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  (Swansea W)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Wray, James

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Snape, Peter

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Baldry, Tony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Clappison, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Body, Sir Richard

  (Rushcliffe)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Collins, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Colvin, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  239

  Day, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paice, James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger

  Prior, David

  Gamier, Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hayes, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Steen, Anthony

  Horam, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Townend, John

  Johnson Smith,

  Tredinnick, David

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trend, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Tyrie, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Walter, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wardle, Charles

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wells, Bowen

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Lidington, David

  Willetts, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. James Cran.

  Madel, Sir David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Minimum Wage Bill it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred under the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department or by a body performing functions on behalf of the Crown; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

  (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Janet Anderson.]

  Question agreed to.

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Dafydd Wigley be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Janet Anderson.]

  Bypasses (North-east Hertfordshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of bypasses for north-east Hertfordshire. My constituency contains the Letchworth garden city, small market towns such as Royston, Baldock and Buntingford, and many small villages. This debate is about heavy, noisy, polluting traffic that goes through the heart of two small market towns—Baldock and Royston—and four small villages—Thundridge, Wadesmill, Colliers End and High Cross, all of which are in my constituency.
  The three road schemes that have been proposed would make a real difference to those communities. I shall deal first with Baldock. I have lived in Royston for some 16 years and have travelled almost every day to or through Baldock. As one goes down the hill, morning or evening, from Royston towards Baldock, there is an immense queue of traffic—lorries and cars streaming back from Baldock all the way to the dual carriageway some half a mile away.
  The problem has been identified as a major traffic bottleneck for some 40 years. The A505 is an important road to my constituency, not only for those who live in the area but for those trying to do business in Royston, Letchworth and Baldock. The need for a bypass has long been recognised. Residents feel inconvenienced by the traffic, the delays interfere with commercial traffic and local people fear the pollution that it causes. The local pressure group, the Campaign against Continued Traffic Damage to Children, led by Mr. Gingell, has for years been asking for
  "fair, just and compassionate consideration to the health interests of Baldock children"
  who walk to school and live against a background of heavy traffic and pollution.
  Since I was elected in 1992,I have been pressing for action. In 1995, we finally had a public inquiry, which led to the granting of planning permission and to the statutory orders that are now in place. The bypass project could therefore go ahead now if the money could be found. Hertfordshire county council considers this its first priority as a public-private partnership project, but feels that it needs help from the Government with the start-up costs for the project—the cost of the financial and legal experts to explore, negotiate and conclude the award of the contract. The cost is quite small—only £500,000 spread over three years.
  I know that officials from the Minister's Department are in discussions with the Hertfordshire county council. My first plea to the Minister is this: after all those years of effort, now that we have reached the point where the road could be built, is it not possible to find £500,000, so that this public-private partnership of such high priority to Hertfordshire and to my constituency can go ahead? That is surely not such a large sum to resolve a huge problem for my constituents.
  I notice the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) in her place. I imagine that that project would also help her constituents, many of whom travel to work in my constituency, just as many of my constituents travel to work in hers.
  242
  The second project concerns the A10. I notice in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has campaigned for many years for the Wadesmill to Puckeridge bypass.
  As one drives north on the A10 from Hertford, one goes through the dual carriageway at Ware and comes to a narrow section of single carriageway, which starts at Thundridge and passes through the centre of that village, Wadesmill, Colliers End and High Cross. This is a trunk road with a heavy toll of traffic.
  Many of the inhabitants, including the elderly, children and the disabled, are effectively denied access on foot to other parts of the village because of the monstrous stream of heavy vehicles running through the middle of tiny villages. The accident record has always been bad on that stretch of road, but it is worsening, and the pressures will exacerbate the situation.
  The traffic to Stansted airport is increasing. The passenger volumes proposed for Stansted are to increase from 5 million a year to 15 million a year. All that will have an effect on the narrow stretch of road that is one of the natural routes into London or across country from Stansted airport.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that, in line with the Government's current policy of looking at the environmental damage caused by traffic congestion, the bypass, at modest cost, would bring enormous environmental advantages to the villages that would be bypassed by it, and thereby improve hugely the life of the children and others who live on the congested narrow A 10 passage between Wadesmill and Puckeridge?
  Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend and Mr. Harry Tee, who has been leading the campaign for the bypass, have made that point at public meetings and had huge support from local residents, many of whom have petitioned on the matter for some years. Not only would there be an environmental benefit to the villages, but the route of the bypass would not create any environmental damage, because it would not go deep into the apron of the nearby countryside.
  There are many listed buildings in east Hertfordshire along the road—homes right next to the road—and there are numerous awkward private accesses to the road. Road conditions that are already poor, with poor gradient, camber and visibility, have the additional problem of awkward accesses from private homes on to a major trunk road.
  County Councillor David Beatty, who has been campaigning for some time, points out that pollution from the lorries is blown from the road into two primary schools at Thundridge and High Cross that abut the road. It is not satisfactory for that to continue. If the Minister drove up that road, as she may have done, she would see sign after sign on listed buildings and homes adjacent to the road saying "Bypass Now". That is the plea that I am making tonight.
  The scheme has huge public support and full planning permission-all the statutory orders that it needs. It is ready to go. The county council is now suggesting, in conjunction with East Hertfordshire district council, that in terms of the Government's consultation document, "What role for trunk roads in England?", all the

  243
  significant criteria exist for a bypass to be built. In that context, I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to including the scheme in the trunk roads programme.
  Finally, I turn to the matter of Royston, which is situated where the A10 and A505 roads meet. At the crossroads, the Roy stone—an ancient base for a cross which has been there since mediaeval times—gives the town its name. Although there is a bypass of the A505 from west to east, there is demand in Royston for a bypass of the A10, which would complete the traffic measures for that town.
  At present, heavy traffic passes through the centre of Royston. The problem was studied by consultants for the Department of Transport and, in 1994, the Highways Agency announced that it had recommended that bypasses be built at both Royston. and Harston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is in his place tonight. The then Minister decided not to proceed immediately, but agreed to meet me and County Councillor Doyle, District Councillor Smith and Town Mayor Kate Evans. We met John Watts on 26 October 1994 to press the case for a Royston south-east bypass. The Minister agreed to a package of improvements on the A10 south of Royston costing £200,000 and he promised to keep the case for a bypass under review.
  I pay tribute to the Royston campaigners—particularly the late Peter Ratcliff—and ask the Minister for an assurance that the proposed Royston bypass will be kept under review. What are the prospects of the bypass going ahead under the Government's new regime? Heavy traffic pours down Melbourne road in Royston, which is used by children who attend the main schools in the town that are located on the other side of the A10. The hospital is also situated on the A10 and residents who wish to visit it must cross a stream of heavy traffic.
  Those considerations—and the fact that heavy lorries have consistently knocked down the railings near the cinema in the centre of Royston together with other problems of that sort—have led to a demand for action. I ask the Minister to do a hat trick for north-east Hertfordshire and give the three schemes a fair wind.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on securing the debate and on his generosity not only in allowing an intervention from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) but in highlighting the attendance in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The number of hon. Members gathered for this Adjournment debate tonight clearly illustrates the importance of the topic that we are discussing.
  The case put by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire was not only eloquent and informed, but highlighted a problem in his constituency and the immediate area that I am sure he realises can be replicated throughout the United Kingdom. Concerns about safety, environmental pollution and the economic impact of traffic congestion affect everyone in the country. That is why the Government have embarked on the roads review and the consultation process and why we are committed to publishing next year a White Paper on which our integrated transport strategy will build.
  244
  Before I address the specific concerns raised this evening, it may be helpful if I define the overall thrust of our integrated transport policies and the stage that we have reached in the consultation process. Our consultation document on developing an integrated transport policy was published in August. We are aiming at a shift away from the fragmented provision of infrastructure and services to an integrated approach that will serve the country's needs for a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society—all issues on which the hon. Gentleman touched in his opening remarks. Good communications are essential to that improved quality of life, but we must reduce our over-dependence on the car and the lorry if we are not to be choked by increasing pollution and gridlocked by increasing congestion. Our integrated transport policy consultations have received about 6,500 replies. We are analysing those responses and preparing for the publication of a White Paper next year.
  We decided that our roads review should be conducted as openly as possible. In July, we published a two-volume consultation document entitled "What Role for Trunk Roads in England?", a document to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Volume 1 invited comments on general policy issues while volume 2 set out the position in each region and explained the schemes in the roads programme inherited from the previous Government. No schemes were included in the inherited programme as they had already been dropped. However, we have said that we are not ruling out schemes outside the inherited programme if they meet the five roads review criteria of integration, accessibility, safety, economy and the environment, and also rate a sufficiently high priority.
  We intend that the output of the roads review should include, first, a short-term investment programme and, secondly, a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems, from which we shall develop the medium and longer-term investment programme.
  To help us decide what should go into the short-term investment programme, we are developing a new appraisal framework that will enable us to see how far each proposal will tackle the problem in question, and how it will measure up against the five review criteria to which I have referred. We are not, need I say, anti-car. Indeed, we recognise that there are some problems to which road construction is the only answer. However, before we wish to sign up to new road building we wish to be clear that all other options have been considered, including public transport improvements, demand management and traffic management.
  I have said that we had a good response to the consultation process. We organised consultation exercises on a regional basis to encourage debate in each area about the needs and priorities. This is much in line with our intention to strengthen the English regions and encourage partnership, co-ordination of programmes and local decision making. We do not want everything to be directed from London.
  Our recent publication of the White Paper entitled "Building Partnerships for Prosperity", with its proposals for new regional development agencies, shows the direction in which we wish to move. The Government envisage that RDAs will influence the development of integrated transport strategies for each region. Their exact role will be considered further as part of our work on the integrated transport White Paper.

  245
  As part of the roads review consultation exercise for the eastern region, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the Government Office conducted two working sessions for local transport authorities, business and environmental interests at which every trunk road in the region was examined in detail. The results of that exercise were fed into a regional conference on integrated transport on 23 October, which was attended by more than 200 delegates. This process allowed plenty of time for delegates to contribute to the consultations following these events.
  On 3 December, my noble Friend the Minister for roads invited all hon. Members from constituencies in the eastern region to hear a summary of the consultation results and to put their points direct to her. I know that the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend that meeting due to his duties as a Whip, but I hope that he will be able to attend the further meeting that has been arranged for 20 January. We regard it as important for Members to be able to make representations directly to the Minister. All these various strands of consultation will feed into our decision-making process.
  The responses from the regional consultation indicate that local bypasses are generally popular and seen as valuable on environmental and safety grounds, which is a point that the hon. Gentleman made. Indeed, the eastern region office has received more than 300 letters about trunk road schemes in the region.
  I move on to the specific issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. All remaining improvement schemes for the A I 0 were withdrawn from the programme in 1996. The Wadesmill, High Cross and Colliers End bypass had successfully cleared public inquiry so its removal from the programme caused no small consternation in all those communities along the A10 that would have benefited.
  In the regional consultation, the argument for the reinstatement of the Wadesmill scheme accorded with the views that the hon. Gentleman expressed this evening. The regional consultation exercise has also considered which roads need to be managed nationally. One view was that the A10, lying between the A1 and M11, could be de-trunked and managed locally by Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire county councils. Preliminary discussions were held some time ago between the Highways Agency and the county councils and some of the works identified are being put in hand. However, a decision on de-trunking will not be made in advance on the review. In the meantime, the planning protection for the A10 Wadesmill, High Cross and Colliers End bypass is being maintained.
  No proposal for an A 10 Royston south-east bypass has featured in the trunk road programme, but I am aware than the hon. Gentleman and residents of Royston have pressed for the inclusion of such a scheme for some years. It would be impossible for any Royston bypass to be included in the short-term programme, as no preparatory work has been done. As I explained earlier, besides the short-term investment programme, our review will also propose corridor studies to bring forward strategies for longer-term development of the trunk road network.
  246
  At this stage in the consultation process, I am unable to give any indication as to the likelihood of either scheme featuring in the final programme, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his representations will receive the most careful consideration. I will deal with the A505 Baldock bypass separately, as it is a local scheme being promoted, as the hon. Gentleman said, by Hertfordshire county council. It is not part of the trunk road review. The£33 million bypass was successfully taken through public inquiry in 1995, but it has not been started, as very few major schemes have been started in the past two years. In our guidance for this year's transport policies and programme submissions, we have warned local authorities that it is very unlikely that any major schemes will start construction in 1998–99. In Hertfordshire's latest TPP, the main works are shown to start in July 1999, but there is a considerable amount of archaeological investigation to do on site before construction work can start. There are also supplementary orders to progress.
  In view of the difficulties in obtaining traditional funding, Hertfordshire has considered taking the project forward by using the local authority private finance initiative. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, it has had preliminary discussions with my officials to explore the work that would be needed to promote such a project. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the council is concerned that it may have to invest considerably more resources in the project, in preparing a PFI contract, without any guarantee of success.
  Generally, we do not fund scheme preparation, and grants become payable only in the year in which the works start. Therefore, we would not normally fund such preparation, but we have allocated a further £200 million for private finance transport schemes, and will consider again the difficulties that authorities have in funding the cost of contract preparation, and the uncertainty inherent in the process.
  The Government's approach to projects where authorities seek a partnership with the private sector are clear. Over recent months, the Government have acted on their commitment to deliver on public-private partnerships in the local authority sector. We have taken three major steps. The new Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 has removed legal barriers for authorities. The level of 1998–99 investment that we are prepared to back has been announced—at £500 million this is double the resources available this year. Last week, we announced the criteria for new streamlined procedures to give the private sector and local authorities greater assurance—at an earlier stage—that commercially viable projects that accord with Government priorities will secure support.
  Government Departments, the, Treasury task force, the Local Government Association—through the public-private partnership programme, the 4Ps—and local authorities will work together in promoting projects that are high priority and viable propositions.
  I am aware that, because it is new, authorities face different costs in developing project procurement cases using the design, build, finance and operate—DBFO—route. At present, this is still an expensive process because there are very few precedents. However, the costs will fall as the documentation and procedures become familiar.

  247
  For road schemes, my Department has released to the 4Ps the model contract used by the Highways Agency for eight DBFO roads. While this needs further work to fit the circumstances of local authority projects, it is still a substantial contribution to minimising the costs.
  The hon. Gentleman asks that we should go further and give direct financial support to authorities for their initial costs. However, the Government must consider the case for any such support in the context of the many other bids that we receive from authorities each year.
  Before the House rises for the recess, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will announce the TPP settlement for 1998–99. I cannot prejudge the announcement now, but every year more worthwhile projects are submitted than can possibly be afforded. Authorities have already been warned that the available funding is likely to be tightly constrained.
  248
  I repeat that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing these interesting matters to the attention of the House. I welcome the debate and the points made by the hon. Gentleman in support of bypass schemes in north-east Hertfordshire. I hope that he will be able to attend the meeting with my noble Friend the Minister for Roads in the new year to make a further contribution to the consultation process.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I am unable to give any of the assurances that he seeks about these schemes tonight as we are still in the middle of the consultation process, but I reassure him again that the proposals that he has put forward will be considered very carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o ' clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects Sir Richard Eyre's review of the funding of the Royal Opera House to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [20930]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have asked Sir Richard Eyre and his group to report to me by 1 May 1998.

  Excellence in Sport
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for fostering excellence in sport; and if he will make a statement. [21586]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have today announced that Sheffield will be the headquarters of the New United Kingdom Sport Institute (UKSI).

  The joint decision taken by Ministers and the United Kingdom Sports Council (UKSC) is an historic moment for sport. I believe it will provide our very best sporting talent with the facilities and backup to help them challenge and beat the rest of the world. Sheffield will be the heart of a network—setting the standards and giving leadership to the nationwide network of facilities.

  We have decided to locate the headquarters site at Sheffield because the bid: offered an extremely cohesive site with good transport and infrastructure; had responded particularly well to the vision and strategy set out by the Government and UKSC on the framework for the network; and builds on the existing public investment in sports facilities in Sheffield.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to allow hon. Members to challenge a refusal by a Minister to provide the information requested by means of a written parliamentary question. [21168]

  Dr. David Clark
  Ministers are committed to answering parliamentary questions in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 19 March 1997. If a Member believes that he or she has not received a satisfactory answer to a question, it is open to him or her to challenge the relevant Minister on those grounds.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the powers of Ministers to refuse to provide information requested in response to written parliamentary questions will be curtailed by the proposals included in the White Paper on Freedom of Information. [21167]

  Dr. David Clark
  Ministers are required by the House to answer parliamentary questions in accordance with the Resolution of 19 March 1997. This states:"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997)".

  At such time as a Freedom of Information Act comes into force, the House will no doubt wish to consider amending the reference in that Resolution to the Code of Practice accordingly.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if information relating to the Sovereign and her family in respect of their public roles will be available to the public under the proposals set out in the White Paper on Freedom of Information; and if he will make a statement. [21194]

  Dr. David Clark
  Such information, where it is held by Government Departments, would be within the scope of the proposed Freedom of Information Act. Whether the information can be disclosed in particular cases will depend on whether it passes the harm and public interest tests integral to the Act's access provisions.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how long the consultation period in respect of the White Paper on Freedom of Information will last; and what target date he has for the introduction of a Bill to give effect to its provisions. [21142]

  Dr. David Clark
  Comments and views on the proposals in the White Paper "Your Right to Know" (Cm 3818) are invited by 28 February 1998. Later in the year we will publish a draft Bill, also for consultation. In the light of comments received about this, a Bill will be introduced to the House as soon as the legislative programme permits.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will carry out an assessment to establish whether the test of substantial harm in the White Paper on Freedom of Information could obviate the need for the blanket exemption proposed for the security services. [21169]

  Dr. David Clark
  This issue was considered in developing the proposals set out in the White Paper. The reasons why an exclusion from the Act was considered necessary for the Security and Intelligence Services are explained in paragraph 2.3.

  Appointments
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-departmental public bodies were in existence on 1 April; what percentage of appointments to these bodies were(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities; and when the annual list of such bodies will be published. [21504]
  79
  Dr. David Clark
  These figures are set out in the Cabinet Office (OPS) booklet "Public Bodies 1997", which is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. On 1 April 1997 there were 1,128 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in existence. As of 1 September 1997, 32 per cent. of the appointments to bodies listed in "Public Bodies" were held by women, an increase of 1 per cent. over the previous year; and 3.6 per cent. were held by members of the ethnic minorities, an increase of 0.3 per cent. over the previous year.

  This Government are determined to keep the number of NDPBs to a minimum and Ministers are taking a personal look at the need for each NDPB they sponsor. The Government are also taking action to increase the number of women and members of ethnic minorities represented on the boards of such bodies.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what estimate he has made of the likely effect of the Millennium Experience in displacing visitors from other London attractions during 2000. [18618]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The British Tourist Authority predicts that the Millennium Experience will add considerable value to the tourism product offered by this country, estimating that visitors will on average extend their stay in Britain by more than a day in order to take in the Experience. Existing London attractions should regard the Millennium Experience not as a threat, therefore, but as an opportunity to attract more visitors themselves.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he and the Prime Minister were present throughout each session of the IGC at Amsterdam. [20474]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were present at each session of the IGC at Amsterdam. Inevitably one or other had to leave the room from time to time, but at no time were both absent.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the status of the Falkland Islands is being considered as part of the Dependent Territories Review. [21202]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The review of the Dependent Territories covers generic issues (such as nomenclature and constitutional status) relevant to all remaining DTs, including the Falkland Islands. Given the special factors which apply to the Falklands no individual review of their status is being carried out.
  80
  We are committed to upholding the right of the Falkland Islanders to remain British. We have no doubts about British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and do not regard that sovereignty as negotiable.

  Export Forum
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 596, on the DTI/FCO Export Forum, if he will make a statement on his plans to help United Kingdom companies export their goods abroad. [21293]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department will continue to give the highest importance to helping British business perform to its full potential in overseas markets. Our response to some Export Forum recommendations will need to await the completion of the DTI/FCO Comprehensive Spending Review.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Court of Justice Case C-409/95
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library the written observations drafted on behalf of the UK Government and submitted to the European Court of Justice in case C-409/95 between Helmut Marschall and Land NordRhein-Westfalen. [20290]

  The Attorney-General
  It is not the practice of the Government to release copies of pleadings in cases before the European Court of Justice. Such pleadings are addressed to the Court and are prepared with the specific purpose of informing the Court and the other parties of the arguments of the party submitting the pleadings. The practice is in accordance with the exclusion in paragraph 4(e) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (information relating to legal proceedings).

WALES

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of his proposed reforms of non-departmental public bodies and agencies on the economy in Wales. [19383]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government of Wales Bill provides for the merger of the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority for Wales and the Development Board for Rural Wales. This will achieve the Government's objective of reducing the number of unaccountable public bodies in Wales, and will provide for more efficient and effective economic development services across the whole of Wales.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many whole-time equivalent publicly funded officials were employed by non-departmental public
  81
  bodies in May; and what estimate he has made of the number to be so employed by 2000. [20125]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  As at May 1997, there were 2,169 full-time equivalent staff employed in executive NDPBs in Wales. Before the National Assembly for Wales is established in May 1999 the Government will take action to reduce the number of executive bodies in Wales from 19 to 14 and, thereafter, the assembly will be able to reduce further their number. This is likely to result in a reduction in the number of staff employed, but it is not possible at this time to estimate precisely what the actual numbers will be in 2000, as that depends on decisions yet to be taken.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many whole-time equivalent civil servants were employed in his Department in May 1997; and what estimate he has made of the number who will be so employed in 2000. [20102]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department employed some 2,300 whole-time equivalent civil servants in May 1997. Staffing levels for the year 2000 will be determined by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the members of the Conservative Party whom he consulted prior to selecting a Conservative representative to sit on the Assembly advisory board; [20132]

  (2) if he will list the representatives of the (a) Liberal Democrats and (b) Plaid Cymru whom he consulted prior to making appointments to the Assembly advisory board. [20139]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I consulted a wide range of interests before deciding on the membership of the Welsh Assembly Advisory Group. These consultations were confidential, and will remain so.

  Private Office
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the operational costs of running his private office in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and what estimate he has made of the costs in (i) 1997–98 (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [20098]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Costs vary with levels of Ministerial activity and time spent between London and Cardiff. The cost of Ministerial private offices in the Welsh Office was £724,230 in 1995–96 and £720,625 in 1996–97.

  Some £483,000 has been expended in 1997–98 to the end of November. The cost for the remainder of the year will reflect the nature and scale of Ministerial commitments.

  Budgets for 1998–99 have yet to be determined. For 1999–2000 budgets will take account of the role of the Secretary of State following the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Second Homes
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce the outcome of the consultation on second home council tax discounts in Wales. [21502]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend proposes to make regulations to widen the scope of Welsh local authorities' discretion to charge up to the full council tax on second homes. The regulations will have effect in relation to council taxes for 1 April 1988 onwards.

  For a dwelling to fall within one of the new prescribed classes it will not be necessary for it to have previously been a sole or main residence. Nor will it be necessary for the dwelling to have been unused as a sole or main residence for the immediately preceding six months.

  We propose to prescribe two classes in the regulations. One class will relate to dwellings with a restriction on occupancy by law which prohibits their use for a period of at least 28 days in any 12-month period. The other class will relate to dwellings which have no such restriction on occupancy.

  These changes will allow local authorities the discretion to charge owners of dwellings in both classes up to the full council tax, or to decide on different treatment for homes which have the occupancy restriction and those which have no such restriction.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum and Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the time it will take his Department to complete work on applications made in December 1997 for(a) one year's leave to remain on the grounds of marriage, (b) settlement after having one year's stay on the grounds of marriage, (c) leave to remain as a student, (d) permission to stay under the provisions of the EU law and (e) asylum; [19026]

  (2) what was the average time his Department took to deal with applications for (a) one year's leave to remain on the grounds of marriage, (b) settlement after having one year's stay on the grounds of marriage, (c) leave to remain as a student, (d) permission to stay under EU law and (e) asylum made in (i) November 1995, (ii) April 1996, (iii) November 1996 and (iv) April 1997. [19025]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  For applications on the basis of marriage, as a student or for asylum which have been decided, the available information is given in table 1. Data are not available in the same form for residence permits or residence documents issued. The percentages of applications decided within 1 month, 2 months or 6 months of receipt are given in table 2.

  Data are also given for the latest available date. We expect to deal with most new marriage, student, and asylum applications made in December 1997 in shorter time scales than those shown for September or October 1997.
  83

  Table 1: Average time between application and decision, in months

  Application type

  Month of decision

  November 1995

  April 1996

  November 1996

  April 1997

  October 1997

  One year's leave to remain after marriage

  5.9

  7.2

  6.7

  8.0

  7.3

  Settlement one year after marriage

  2.5

  2.2

  2.2

  2.6

  3.1

  Leave to remain as a student

  2.1

  3.8

  3.0

  4.3

  3.1

  Asylum:

  Pre-1993 Act cases

  40.3

  43.7

  47.8

  53.2

  58.2

  Post 1993 Act cases

  9.7

  11.1

  12.6

  13.7

  13.8

  Table 2: Percentage of residence permits and residence documents issued

  Per cent.

  Month of decision

  November 1995

  April 1996

  November 1996

  April 1997

  September 19971

  Residence permits

  within 1 month

  37

  45

  56

  33

  11

  within 2 months

  70

  69

  82

  63

  35

  within 6 months

  96

  92

  96

  88

  67

  Residence documents

  within 1 month

  23

  22

  22

  16

  6

  within 2 months

  40

  51

  41

  40

  19

  within 6 months

  84

  73

  74

  64

  43

  1 The reduction in the percentage of permits and documents issued within these timescales compared with earlier returns reflects the fact that resources have been targeted at deciding older applications.

  Police (Riot Training)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the plastic baton round training referred to in the Minister of State's letter of 18 August to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley was provided(a) by the Royal Ulster Constabulary or (b) for the Royal Ulster Constabulary; [20029]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers are permitted to use firearms against unarmed demonstrators; [20048]

  (3) if Surrey Police Force has taken the actions referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley of 18 August concerning the Otec Ultima system; [20045]

  (4) which United Kingdom police forces use the Otec Ultima training programme; [20042]

  (5) if he will make it his policy to ensure that United Kingdom police forces using the Otec Ultima trainer observe the principle of minimum force; [20043]

  (6) which foreign military, security or police forces have been supplied with the Otec Ultima Multi Media Weapons trainer; and if the training package included the video sequence displaying police using firearms on unarmed demonstrators; [20044]

  (7) if police baton gunners trained on the Otec Ultima system have been retrained in accordance with his Department's guidelines on the discharge of plastic baton rounds on unarmed demonstrators. [20046]

  Mr. Michael
  I do not know which foreign military, security or police forces have been supplied with the Otec Ultima Multi Media Weapons training system but I understand that a marketing video for the system, which included a scene of a police officer firing a gun at rioters in a training simulation, was sent abroad by a British company. The scene was entirely inappropriate and, as 84
  I explained to my hon. Friend on 18 August, it has been dropped from the current marketing video. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the scene to my attention. The training system is used by the City of London, Metropolitan and Surrey police forces. None of these forces uses the system for baton round training. The training referred to in my letter of 18 August concerned an invitation to tender for the provision of a simulator to help in the training by the Royal Ulster Constabulary of its baton round gunners. That letter did not call upon Surrey police to take any action.

  The Home Office has not discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers circumstances in which officers would be permitted to use firearms against unarmed demonstrators because, as I said in my answer on 12 June 1997, Official Report, column 512, it would be entirely wrong for police forces to train officers to fire on unarmed demonstrators. All officers trained in the use of plastic baton round launchers have been trained in accordance with Home Office guidelines on the use of baton rounds for dealing with public disorder. Any officer using force must comply with section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing crime or arresting an offender. I would expect chief officers to ensure that this is fully reflected in any training of officers.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers concerning his Department's guidelines on the discharge of plastic baton rounds against unarmed demonstrators. [20047]

  Mr. Michael
  The Association of Chief Police Officers was consulted about Home Office guidelines on the use of baton rounds for dealing with public disorder when they were first issued in 1981 and during subsequent
  85
  revisions, the most recent of which was in 1995. A copy of the guidelines is in the Library. I am aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers have been considering whether, in their view, any amendments to the guidelines should be made; but no proposals have been put forward and no recent discussions on this subject have taken place with the Home Office.

  Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are made, and by whom, on the quality and the variation of food served to people being held in the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre. [20619]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Harmondsworth Detention Centre is managed under contract to the Home Office by Group 4 Total Security Ltd., and meals are prepared for detainees by contract caterers.

  The Area catering advisor of the Prison Service Catering Services is contracted to visit the centre regularly in order to survey the consumer dietary preferences, to review the menu cycle, and to examine the food budget balance. The contract caterers respond to comments from the adviser and monitor the "take up" rate of the menus offered, so as to be able to amend the meals and menus appropriately.

  The centre is also regularly inspected for food hygiene by the Environmental Health Officer of the London Borough of Hillingdon in accordance with the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Group 4's local managers check daily that meals prepared are within the "use by" date, and also sample the meals on a random basis and in response to any complaints. Meals are also regularly sampled by members of the Harmondsworth Visiting Committee, an independent body appointed by the Home Secretary to monitor the care and treatment of detainees. Immigration Service staff also occasionally sample meals.

  Youth Justice
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the responses to the consultation papers on Youth Justice and Community Safety Orders are published before the Crime and Disorder Bill receives its Second Reading. [20372]

  Mr. Michael
  Summaries of the responses to the consultation papers "Tackling Youth Crime". "New National and Local Focus on Youth Crime" and "Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System" were placed in the Library on 15 December 1997. A summary of the responses to the consultation paper "Community Safety Order" has been placed in the Library today.

  Departmental Wages
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time employees are paid at the rate of £3.84 an hour in his Department. [20605]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]Forty-seven, out of a total of 48,192 full-time employees.

  General Elections
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics his Department collates on expenditure of candidates in general elections. [21503]

  Mr. Straw
  The total expenses of candidates in general elections between 1857 and 1992 are set out in the tables below. Table 1 shows the actual expenditure. Table 2 has the figures indexed to 1992 prices.

  The figures for the 1997 general election are not yet available.

  Table 1: General elections, 1857 to 1992 total expenses of candidates

  £ million

  Year

  Expense

  Year

  Expense

  1857

  0.43

  1929

  1.21

  1859

  0.40

  1931

  0.65

  1865

  0.71

  1935

  0.72

  1868

  1.29

  1945

  1.07

  1874

  1.02

  1950

  1.17

  1880

  1.62

  1951

  0.95

  1885

  0.79

  1955

  0.90

  1886

  0.49

  1959

  1.05

  1892

  0.76

  1964

  1.23

  1895

  0.62

  1966

  1.14

  1900

  0.63

  1970

  1.47

  1906

  0.96

  1974 February

  2.10

  1910 January

  1.07

  1974 October

  2.26

  1910 December

  0.79

  1979

  3.69

  1918

  —

  1983

  6.31

  1922

  1.02

  1987

  8.31

  1923

  0.98

  1992

  10.78

  1924

  0.92

  Notes:

  Figures are not available for the 1918 election.

  Includes personal expenses.

  Table 2: General elections expenditure at 1992 prices 1857–1992

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  Year

  Expenditure

  1857

  26.51

  1929

  38.30

  1859

  25.09

  1931

  21.32

  1865

  39.72

  1935

  24.73

  1868

  72.97

  1945

  22.57

  1874

  53.20

  1950

  19.91

  1880

  93.96

  1951

  14.75

  1885

  49.18

  1955

  12.01

  1886

  30.45

  1959

  11.88

  1892

  47.10

  1964

  12.16

  1895

  39.16

  1966

  10.39

  1900

  35.87

  1970

  11.31

  1906

  56.00

  1974 February

  10.49

  1910 January

  61.48

  1974 October

  11.32

  1910 December

  45.52

  1979

  8.89

  1918

  —

  1983

  10.32

  1922

  27.23

  1987

  11.35

  1923

  29.08

  1992

  10.78

  1924

  27.79

  Notes:

  Figures are not available for the 1918 election.

  Includes personal expenses.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the payment of grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to provide additional support for ethnic minorities. [21487]
  87
  Mr. Straw
  We fully recognise the value of work which section 11 grant has supported and the importance that local authorities and communities attach to this. We have commissioned a study to consider how such support needed for members of ethnic minorities can best be provided. The exercise is being conducted by my Department in collaboration with the Department for Education and Employment. I very much hope that local authorities and other interested parties will contribute views. The findings of the study, which are expected to be available in the spring, will inform our further consideration.

  Immigration Detainees (Minors)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) where the legal responsibility for unaccompanied minors detained in immigration detention centres rests; [20655]

  (2) whether the protection and care of unaccompanied minors in Campsfield House Immigration Detention Centre is the responsibility of the Oxfordshire Child Protection Committee. [20657]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is our policy not to detain unaccompanied minors save only in very exceptional circumstances. Normal procedure is to grant temporary admission wherever possible, either into the care of a close relative or friend, or into the care of social services. In the few instances where detention is considered essential, accommodation appropriate to the age of the detainee is provided and a member of staff is appointed to act as a chaperon as necessary.

  Legal responsibility for unaccompanied minors detained in immigration detention centres rests with the Home Office. Any assistance offered by the Oxfordshire Child Protection Committee would always be given consideration.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the arrangements to secure the accountability of, and to monitor the actions of, private security personnel working in immigration detention centres, with particular reference to the custody and care of unaccompanied minors. [20659]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The performance of private sector security companies employed under contract to manage and operate immigration detention centres is monitored by on-site Immigration Service staff and, where appropriate, by specialist Home Office personnel. In addition, Immigration Service staff based at Immigration Service Headquarters are involved in the quality assurance process and hold regular review meetings with senior management from Group 4 Total Security Ltd., and Wackenhut United Kingdom Ltd., in order to ensure that the highest standards are maintained and that all contractual obligations are met.

  It is not normal policy or practice to detain unaccompanied minors and these are held only in the most exceptional of circumstances. All private sector companies involved in immigration detention are aware of the special significance of their duty of care in the case of unaccompanied minors.
  88
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what separate accommodation is provided for unaccompanied minors detained in immigration detention centres. [20656]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our normal policy is not to detain unaccompanied minors, and no accommodation is specifically set aside for their use in immigration detention centres. When it is necessary to detain an unaccompanied minor, a single room is provided in a discrete part of the detention centre used for those in need of close care or support.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied minors have been detained in Campsfield House, Oxfordshire, in each month of 1997(a) under Immigration Act powers and (b) under other legislation. [20658]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Many of those who are liable to detention under powers conferred by the Immigration Act 1971, and who may at some stage have sought asylum in the United Kingdom, are not in possession of documents satisfactorily establishing either their identity or nationality. Some hold identity documents but claim to be younger than the ages shown therein. It is perhaps inevitable in these circumstances that there will be some cases where the precise age of the individual is in dispute.

  During 1997, 12 persons claimed to be under 18 years of age while detained at Campsfield House. Information on when those persons first entered detention, under Immigration Act powers, at Campsfield House is given in the table. None of those persons were detained at Campsfield House as at 10 December 1997.

  Age assessment remains an inexact science and definitive assessments cannot be made. The Immigration Service liaises closely with the Refugee Council's Panel of Advisers for Refugee Children. All cases where there is a dispute as to the age of an applicant are referred to the Panel.

  While there is no minimum age below which a person may not be detained under powers conferred by the Immigration Act, under current guidelines detention is not usually considered appropriate for unaccompanied children or for persons under the age of 18. It is normal practice to grant temporary admission to those who are clearly unaccompanied minors, usually into the care of social services.

  Month first detained at Campsfield House of persons alleged to have been aged under 18 years when detained there during 19971

  Month

  Number of persons

  January

  2—

  March

  2—

  May

  4

  June

  2—

  July

  2—

  October

  2—

  Total

  12

  1 Those persons were detained solely under Immigration Act 1971 powers.

  2 Signifies one or two persons. Numbers are not given because individuals, whose records are confidential, could then be identified.

  Prisoners (Telephone Calls)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on prison policy and rules relating to the(a) issue of and (b) payment for telephone cards and access to and use of prison telephones for contact with close relatives outside the jurisdiction; and how many minutes and how many calls are permitted each week for prisoners who are (i) on remand and (ii) on trial. [20337]

  Ms Quin
  In accordance with the rules and policy set out in Prison Service Standing Order 5 and Circular Instructions 61/1989 and 21/1992 (copies of which are in the Library) governing prisoner access and use of cardphones, prisoners may purchase from the prison shop phonecards using their earnings or private cash. Foreign nationals with close family ties abroad are exempted from the limits on access to private cash which apply under the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme.

  Current policy on conditions of use allow all prisoners to have free access to a cardphone during association hours and at such other times as is reasonably practicable. Cardphones should normally be available for use of a period of not less than two hours a day. However, governors have discretion to impose time limits or a booking system for each prisoner if this is necessary to ensure equitable access to cardphones in their establishment.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many family telephone calls and of what duration Brian McHugh was permitted to make in(a) September, (b) October and (c) November 1997. [20332]

  Ms Quin
  Mr. McHugh made 34 calls in September 1997; 28 calls in October 1997; and 30 calls in November 1997. All the calls made were to members of Mr. McHugh's family. The length of Mr. McHugh's calls varied from three to 20 minutes.

  The standard procedures concerning the use of telephones by high risk prisoners at Belmarsh Prison do not set an upper limit on the duration of any telephone call. Prisoners cannot, however, make calls when their phonecards have expired or when the call would prevent another prisoner's pre-booked telephone call taking place.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what submissions he has received from(a) the legal representatives of Roisin McAliskey and (b) others concerning her proposed extradition; and if he will make a statement. [20284]

  Mr. Straw
  Roisin McAliskey's solicitors submitted formal representations on 28 November 1997 asking me, exceptionally, either to reconsider the authority to proceed issued on 2 January 1997 or to take a final decision on surrender under section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989 before a decision is reached in the committal proceedings.

  The Divisional Court ruled in 1994 that the Secretary of State does not have the power to reconsider an order to proceed (which would extend to an authority to proceed), once issued. Nor does section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989 allow me to take a decision, either
  90
  to order return or, on the basis of my discretion contained in that section, to decide not to order return, until a decision on committal is taken by the magistrate.

  I have agreed, without prejudice to a final decision by the courts on committal or my own on surrender, to start considering the representations put before me.

  In respect of submissions from others, since Roisin McAliskey was arrested for the purposes of extradition on 26 November 1996, 7 Parliamentary Questions have been tabled: 16 letters from right hon. and hon. Members and 162 letters from members of the public have been received. One letter was handed in to the Home Office during a demonstration on 20 November and approximately 85 messages have been received via the Internet.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. NcNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the principal purposes of the draft Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons approved by the European Committee on Crime Problems in June 1997 and indicate the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the draft. [20286]

  Mr. Michael
  The Additional Protocol was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in September and will be opened for signature on 18 December 1997.

  The Protocol has two purposes. First, where a national from one state who is serving a custodial sentence in another state escapes from custody and returns to his home state, the Protocol allows the sentencing state, with the consent of the home state, to transfer the remainder of the sentence to the home state to continue enforcement. The consent of the fugitive offender is not required to such a transfer. This provision will be of particular value where the home state, for legal or constitutional reasons, does not extradite its own nationals and where at present no action can be taken against the fugitive offender.

  The Protocol also enables a serving prisoner who is the subject of a deportation or expulsion order which will result in his eventual removal to be transferred, without his consent but subject to certain safeguards, to the state named in the order to serve the remainder of his sentence. At present, such orders are normally activated only at the end of the sentence. Early activation of the order would enable the state of destination to attach appropriate post-release conditions in more serious cases.

  The Government support the Protocol and are considering what primary legislation would be needed before it could be ratified by the United Kingdom.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the differences in prison regime for prisoners in each class of risk assessment within the Category A band separately indicating the conditions for those prisoners presently held in HMP Belmarsh who continue to occupy cells previously designated as a special secure unit. [20334]
  91
  Ms Quin
  Category A prisoners are assigned to one of three escape risk classifications: standard risk, high risk and exceptional risk.

  It is not possible to give a definitive account of prisoner regime by escape category. This will vary with the facilities available within each prison and in particular tends to be significantly different between remand prisons, such as Belmarsh, and dispersal prisons, such as Whitemoor, which hold convicted Category A prisoners.

  Within dispersal prisons, additional restrictions will apply to exceptional risk prisoners who are held apart from other prisoners within a Special Secure Unit and who are subject to closed visits. In general terms, high risk prisoners within dispersal prisons have a similar regime to standard risk prisoners with a few additional constraints such as searching, the conduct of visits, allocation to activities, and vetting of letters and telephone calls.

  Because of the additional complexities of a large remand prison such as Belmarsh, and in particular the greatly increased levels of prisoner movement with the associated increased risks of escape, high risk prisoners at Belmarsh are held apart from the rest of the prison population within the High Secure Unit (HSU). The regime within the HSU is similar to that within the rest of the prison with the exception that prisoners do not have access to other parts of the prison and all activities such as visits, exercise and gymnasium are conducted within purpose-built facilities in the HSU building itself.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances family visits for remand prisoners previously held in the Special Secure Unit at HMP Belmarsh and currently on trial is permitted in respect of the use of(a) the visitors' children's room and (b) children's books, crayons or toys. [20335]

  Ms Quin
  There is no specific children's room for visitors to those prisoners previously held in the Belmarsh Special Secure Unit. A box of toys and games is available for the use of visiting children.

  Remand Prisoners (Injuries)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what record is maintained of the number of occasions on which remand prisoners are unable to appear in court as a result of injuries sustained en route; if he routinely receives reports of such injuries; and to whom trial judges report concerns in such cases. [20333]

  Ms Quin
  Between April 1993 and July 1997, the responsibility for transporting to court all prisoners other than those in the highest security category has progressively been contracted out to the private sector.

  The Prisoner Escort and Custody Services of the Prison Service monitor all such contracts and require the submission of reports on all injuries sustained by prisoners while in the contractor's custody. These include details of the injuries sustained, the circumstances in which they were received, for example a road traffic accident, self harm, etc., and the action taken. Any such incident which may call into question the actions of the contractors or their staff is fully investigated by the prisoner escort monitor.
  92
  Incidents involving injuries to prisoners in the custody of escort contractors while on their way to court are extremely rare. Only two cases have been recorded where they were serious enough to prevent attendance.

  Incidents relating to category A prisoners are reported to Prison Service Headquarters as well as being subject to full reports. However, figures relating to injuries to remand prisoners while in transit to court are not compiled centrally.

  Trial judges are able to express any concerns about the late delivery or non-delivery of prisoners to the escort contractor, the escort monitor, the establishment dispatching the prisoner or Prison Service Headquarters.

  All cases relating to prisoners moved by private sector contractors are investigated by the escort monitor. If, as a result of this investigation, a prisoner custody officer (PCO) is found to have been at fault, the escort monitor has the power under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to recommend the revocation of the PCO's certificate.

  Also, under the terms of the contract, the escort monitor may impose penalty points in cases where the contractor has failed to deliver the service specified. These penalties may lead to the imposition of financial remedies.

  Where individual PCOs have not performed their duties satisfactorily they will be subject to the contractor's own disciplinary procedures.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Sir Donald Acheson to complete his review of the effect on prisoners' health when detained in a special secure unit; and if he will make a statement. [20283]

  Ms Quin
  There is currently only one special secure unit in operation at Whitemoor prison. Sir Donald Acheson visited the unit last month and I expect him to submit his report to the Prison Service shortly.

  Expulsions and Deportations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons currently serving a prison sentence in England and Wales will be subject upon completion of their sentence to an expulsion or deportation order to(a) Ireland, (b) states that are party to the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and (c) elsewhere. [20285]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Reliable information on those persons currently serving a prison sentence who may, on completion of their sentence, be subject to deportation action can be obtained only through examination of individual case records. Such information is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost. Persons subject to deportation action are entitled to appeal against their stated removal destination and, hence, the issue of which country a person is to be removed to will not be resolved until their relevant appeal rights have been exhausted. In practice, reliable information on removal destination is not available centrally until removal has been effected. I regret that the information requested is not, therefore, available.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 103, if the Prison Service was notified of the Government's support for the broad intentions of the UN texts; and if he will make a statement on their implementation. [20338]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service was notified of them, is committed to adhering as fully as possible to those recommendations that affect it, and has responded to occasional queries about them from the relevant United Nations bodies.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Council if she will publish the names of all those people she has appointed to public bodies since 1 May, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [19982]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  All the 21 appointments to which I referred in my answer of 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 130, are, as I indicated, unpaid. The names of those appointed, and the bodies to which they have been appointed (in each case as members), are as follows:

  Imperial College, Governing Body

  Mr. W. Banks

  Mr. A. Buxton

  Dr. D. Chatterji

  UMIST, Court

  Miss D. Gibbins

  Mr. D.A. Robson

  University of Hull, Court

  Mr. J. Gwinnell

  Mr. M. Hollingberry

  Mrs. S. Smith

  University of Sussex, Court

  Mr. M. Burrell

  Ms G. Rebuck

  Professor B. Supple

  University of Ulster, Court

  Mrs. M. Breslin

  Lod Glentoran

  Victoria University of Manchester, Court

  Col. J. Timmins

  Mr. A. Watson

  Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Mrs. S. Cosgrave

  Professor J. Harper

  General Medical Council

  Mr. J. I. Davies

  Ms S. Leggate

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Council

  Mrs. R. Berry

  Mr. J. Scudamore

  94
  Since 2 December I have also appointed the following as members of the bodies listed below, again all on an unpaid basis:

  Registered Homes Tribunals, Panel of Experts

  Mr. C. E. Boman

  Dr. M. A. Ishak

  Dr. S. Kumar

  Dr. A. Martin

  Dr. R. K. Prasad

  Mrs. A. Ross

  Mr. R. SeQueira

  Mr. C. E. Wakefield

  Mr. R. Ward

  Royal College of Art, Court

  Mr. K. Grange.

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the President of the Council when she expects(a) to receive and (b) to publish the strategy of the anti-drugs co-ordinator. [20299]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator— Keith Hellawell—takes up his position formally on 5 January. I expect him to submit his proposals for a new strategy a few months after that, following an extensive consultation process.

  The Government hope to publish their strategy document in the Spring.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. David Shayler
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received as to whether Mr. David Shayler should appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee. [20458]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have not received any representations on this subject.

  Anglo-French Summit
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of furnishing the Canary Wharf venue for the Anglo-French summit; and what was the contribution from non-governmental sources for furnishing and decorating the venue.[20467]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of holding the British French summit at Canary Wharf was as follows:

  £

  Transport of Artworks

  2,361.75

  Transport of Models

  2,049.90

  Transport and depreciation costs on furnishings

  4,959.62

  Floral decorations

  500.00

  Telecommunications

  7,334.00

  Hire of flags and flagpoles

  292.50

  Hire of photocopiers

  916.52

  Interpretation

  2,343.00

  Government Hospitality Fund (lunch, coffee, kitchen)

  18,395.84

  Total

  39,153.13

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to set measurable targets for the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. [20582]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: I refer to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), 8 December 1997 Official Report, column 409. The Unit will draw up key indicators of social exclusion and recommend how they can be tracked.

  British-Ugandan Asian Service
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister who represented the Government at the British-Ugandan Asian Service at Westminster Abbey. [21178]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government were not represented at the British Ugandan Asian Service at Westminster Abbey. But I welcome this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the contribution made to British society by the Ugandan Asians since their arrival here 25 years ago.

  Agricultural Produce Procurement
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to continue the policy of the Prime Minister promoting increased domestic procurement of agricultural produce; and what plans he has to audit the levels of domestic procurement. [21164]

  The Prime Minister
  Sourcing of supplies is a matter for the food industry. The Government's policy remains to help our farmers and growers to match their world-class products with a similar level of excellence in marketing.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Care Industry
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the funding arrangements for the training of people aged under 25 years in the care industry; and if he will make a statement. [19290]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 December 1997]: The Department has no plans to review the funding arrangements for the training of people aged under 25 years in the care industry.

  Further Education (New Deal)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what provision there will be in the New Deal funds put up for bidding next year to colleges of further education for the consequent impact of those funds on current facilities and infrastructure; and if he will make a statement; [20087]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the additional administrative responsibilities placed on current facilities and infrastructure in colleges of further education by the New Deal funds which are to be bid for next year; and if he will make a statement. [20114]
  96
  Dr. Howells
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 November 1997, FE colleges will have the opportunity to bid for well over £100 million of New Deal funds next year. I am confident of the sector's ability to rise to the challenge and contribute to the success of this programme.

  Access and Foundation Courses
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many (i) access and (ii) foundation course students are currently enrolled on courses which(a) are and (b) are not an integral part of a course of higher education. [20088]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information on foundation courses is limited. A survey conducted by the Higher Education Quality Council indicated that there were approximately 8,000 students on foundation courses which were integral parts of higher education courses in England in 1995–96. Equivalent figures for foundation courses which are not parts of higher education courses are not available. For access courses, figures collected by the Further Education Funding Council show that there were 27,200 students on access to higher education courses in further education sector colleges and external institutions in England in November 1996. Access courses are classified as further education courses, although some are designed for entry to specific higher education courses.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students currently enrolled on access and foundation courses applied for the course before 23 July; and if he will make a statement. [20089]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of students went on to higher education (i) within one year and (ii) within three years of having completed a foundation or access course in the last year for which figures are available. [20090]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Oxford and Cambridge Universities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received in respect of the Government's plans for Oxbridge funding. [20515]

  Dr. Howells
  We have received around 200 letters over the last five months about the issue of college fees at Oxford and Cambridge. There have also been debates in both Houses. We have also met representatives of both Universities and their Colleges and, as my hon. Friend knows, I met him and the Master of Gonville and Caius College Cambridge on 2 December.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he last met the Vice-Chancellor of(a) Oxford and (b) Cambridge University. [20514]
  97
  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge on Wednesday 10 December.

  Foundation Schools
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the new foundation schools will be funded; and how the arrangements for funding these schools will differ from those made for community schools. [20360]

  Mr. Byers
  Under the new school framework, recurrent funding will be provided by LEAs for community, foundation, and voluntary schools under revised local management of schools (LMS) arrangements. The details of this new LMS regime are currently under consideration, but it is the Government's firm intention that there should be no unfair discrimination between different school categories.

  LEAs will be responsible for all the costs of capital work at foundation schools, as they will be for community schools. The only significant difference is that, where they provide a new or additional site for a foundation school, they will convey their interest in the site—excluding the playing fields—to the school's trustees, foundation body or governing body.

  School Performance
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what requirements are placed on local education authorities' officers to inform their elected members of the performance of all of the schools in the authority's area, on a regular basis with particular reference to those which(a) are underperforming and (b) require extra support. [20376]

  Mr. Byers
  Each local authority is free to determine arrangements where officers report to elected members. However, under the proposals in the School Standards and Framework Bill now before Parliament, each authority will have in place by April 1999 an Education Development Plan agreed by elected members and approved by the Secretary of State, which will set out the performance and targets of all schools within the authority's area, including those which are underperforming or need support.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy that public spending on higher education should increase in line with the growth in gross domestic product. [21159]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government intend that, over the course of this Parliament, public spending on education should increase as a proportion of national income, as the cost of social and economic failure is reduced. Detailed plans for the longer term, including for higher education, will be announced next Summer as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The Government have already shown their commitment to maintaining and improving quality in higher education, as well as expanding access, through the package of
  98
  measures announced on 23 September which made available an extra £165 million for higher education for 1998–99.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to implement Recommendation 19 of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. [21158]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government agree with the National Committee of Inquiry that familiarising students with work is an important way of enhancing their employability. We are already taking action to ensure that more student work placements become available. Next year, our Higher Education and Employment Development Programme will be providing £1.8 million to support projects working to provide more student work placements. These projects will include the creation of a national network to identify, exchange and disseminate emerging good practice on student work placement issues.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to announce the appointment of the chairman of the review committee that will examine the framework for determining pay and conditions of service for those in higher education. [21162]

  Dr. Howells
  The setting up of an independent review committee, as recommended by the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, is the responsibility of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and the higher education unions. My right hon. Friend has offered to facilitate the appointment of a chairman, rather than to nominate the chairman as recommended by the Committee. An announcement on the appointment of a chairman will therefore be a matter for UCEA and the unions.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance will be given to students over the age of 50 years beginning higher or further education courses in 1998 towards the cost of living and tuition fees. [21156]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the new arrangements for higher education student support, students aged over 50 will be eligible for means-related help with tuition fees on the same basis as other students. In particular, if they are on low incomes they will continue to receive free tuition.

  The majority of students over 50 are part-time and are therefore ineligible for student loans. Under the current student loans scheme full-time students who are aged 50 or over when their course starts are also ineligible. We do not plan any changes in the eligibility requirements for loans—including the age restrictions—for 1998–99. However, we are reviewing the position for future years in the context of the White Paper on lifelong learning due to be published in the new year. Both full and part-time students in higher education will be eligible for Access Funds from 1998–99, regardless of their age.
  99
  Students in further education will not be covered by these new arrangements. In 1998–99 they will be able to apply for a discretionary award from their local education authority. These arrangements are being reviewed for subsequent years.

  Veterinary and Architecture Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional assistance will be given to(a) veterinary and (b) architecture students, beginning degree courses in 1998 and later, towards the cost of tuition fees for the fourth and subsequent years of their courses. [21157]

  Dr. Howells
  We have no plans to make special arrangements for additional assistance to such students.

  University Applications
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers of students applying to universities for admission in 1998, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [20506]

  Dr. Howells
  The data requested are not available centrally. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) collects the postcode of applicants, which would enable individual constituencies to be identified, but at present no such analysis has been carried out. It is up to UCAS to decide whether or not to undertake one and to make the results publicly available.

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of the National Testing System for fourteen-year-olds, (i) in total and (ii) broken down into costs for(a) printing, (b) postage of the test papers, (c) payments to the external markers and (d) fees charged by the company which processes the results, in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [21294]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The estimated overall costs of implementing the 1997 tests for 14-year-olds in English, mathematics and science was some £13.4 million. This included:(a) printing costs of around £1.6 million; (b) distribution costs of around £0.6 million; and (c) external marking costs of around £9.4 million. Fees paid to the data collection agency for processing the national results are commercially sensitive, but national data collection costs, which include this fee and other associated costs, were around £0.4 million.

  Disability Rights
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will appoint a person with a learning disability to the Disability Rights Task Force; and if he will make a statement on the rights of people with learning disabilities. [21043]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 15 December 1997,Official Report, column 7.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to withdraw payment of aid to Zimbabwe. [21204]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have made it clear to the Government of Zimbabwe that we cannot provide aid for their programme of land acquisition in its current form, although we are open to discussions on alternative approaches to land reform.

  We will be discussing with the Government whether we are able to establish a partnership with them on the basis outlined in the White Paper on International Development as a foundation for future aid commitments.

  Tenders
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how she ensures that overseas tenders for which her Department are preparing are conducted in such a way as to ensure(a) value for money and (b) that all tenders have an equal chance of winning the contract. [21007]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My Department has in place systems which require that all contracts which are to be funded by DFID are reviewed and agreed by specialist advisers within the Department. We look for value-for-money by ensuring that invitations to tender are clear, unambiguous, and attract the widest possible field of interested suppliers. We are careful to check specifications and instructions to tenderers to ensure that all suitably qualified tenderers have an equal opportunity.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the extent to which the system of allowing export duty payable on aid contracts in India gives all those tendering an equal opportunity. [21009]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The rules concerning the application of all taxes and duties are clearly defined in contracts which are funded by the Department for International Development. Although these may vary from one contract to another, depending upon the particular needs of the recipient of the aid, all are designed to ensure that everyone who tenders is given an equal opportunity.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has evaluated on the circumstances surrounding the current tender for the machinery to monitor and control the supply of electricity to the City of Hyderabad in India; and if she will make a statement. [21008]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to draw attention to this valuable work. Not only will the project enable the electricity utility to operate more efficiently and therefore at lower cost but, more important, it will greatly improve the efficiency of the use of fuel, thereby reducing emissions and contributing to the fight against global warming. My Department has
  101
  been fully represented in the formulation and design of the project, the production of the contract documents, and the evaluation of the bids. East Midlands Electricity International are the British experts representing the Department for International Development in this work, which has also been monitored by experts in electrical engineering and procurement from my Department.

  The response to the invitation to tender has been excellent, with five bids submitted. The evaluation process has been completely transparent and fully in accordance with the very clear rules set out in the Instructions to the Bidders.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ponsonby Rules
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the(a) Government and (b) parliamentary publications relating to the operation of the Ponsonby Rules in relation to the European Communities Act 1972. [19353]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  [holding answer 11 December 1997]:The practice known as the Ponsonby Rule applies to all treaties signed by the United Kingdom which are subject to ratification, acceptance or approval and to any treaty to which the United Kingdom intends to accede. It provides for such treaties to be laid before Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days before the United Kingdom ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to them. Since 1 January 1997 such treaties when laid before Parliament have been accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum (copies of guidance for Departments entitled "Guidelines on Explanatory Memoranda for Treaties" were placed in the Libraries of both Houses). The practice has no particular relationship to any Act of Parliament, and there has been no recent Government or Parliamentary publication relating to it.

TREASURY

  Taxation and Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees would face combined marginal withdrawal rates of tax and benefits of(a) 100 per cent. or above, (b) 90 per cent. or above, (c) 80 per cent. or above, (d) 70 per cent. or above, (e) 60 per cent. or above and (f) 50 per cent. or above if they were (i) to work an extra one hour per week and (ii) to earn an extra £10 per week before tax. [19009]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Estimates for the number of families estimated to be facing high marginal deduction rates, after (i) working an extra hour a week and (ii) earning an extra £10 per week are contained in the following table:

  Numbers facing high Marginal Deduction Rates (thousands)

  (i) Working an extra hour a week

  (ii) Earning an extra £10 a week

  Current estimates

  100+

  5

  ∗

  5

  90+

  105

  105

  105

  80+

  355

  350

  360

  102

  Numbers facing high Marginal Deduction Rates (thousands)

  (i) Working an extra hour a week

  (ii) Earning an extra £10 a week

  Current estimates

  70+

  630

  625

  645

  60+

  640

  635

  655

  50+

  645

  640

  660

  Note:

  The estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000; ∗denote a figure of less than 2,500. Current estimates, are based on the combination of taxes and benefits which each benefit unit receives.

  Source:

  Based on Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to 1996–97 levels, adjusted to benefit caseloads using Housing Benefit Management Statistics and the Family Credit Statistical Sample. Figures are calculated for benefit units in receipt of income-related benefits where at least one partner works 16 hours a week or more.

  Ministerial Announcements
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ministerial announcements have not been made in the first instance to the House; and of those how many were(a) speeches to outside bodies, (b) press releases, (c) press briefings and (d) made by other means, since 1 May; and if he will make a statement about his Department's policy in respect of making public ministerial announcements. [18888]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 320.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members his Department employs; what is the total salary and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May. [19305]

  Mrs Liddell
  The Treasury employs five Special Advisers, four paid and one unpaid. In addition, two paid appointments to the Council of Economic Advisers have been made on Special Adviser terms. Information on the paybill costs for Special Advisers within individual departments cannot be provided, in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned. Information on the total paybill for Special Advisers was given in the answers my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave to the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 472–73.

  The Private Finance Projects Taskforce (Treasury Taskforce Ltd.) is a private company. It employs nine staff. Salaries and benefits are a matter for the company but the full annual budget will be below the £2.5 million budget for the former Private Finance Panel, which was stood down on 30 September.

  The Task Force on Tax and Benefits does not employ any staff. The Chairman is unpaid and does not receive any expenses.

  The remaining members of both Taskforces are officials or private sector secondees filling official posts. It is not possible to distinguish the cost of their time spent on Taskforce-related work.
  103
  The Chancellor's Department and Agencies do not employ any review body members.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total Exchequer revenues, excluding VAT, have come from business taxation in each of the last five years. [19816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The proportion of total revenue from taxes and national insurance contributions that has come from corporation tax, employers' national insurance contributions, non-domestic rates, petroleum revenue tax and other taxes and royalties on business is shown in the table.

  Direct taxes on business as a proportion of total tax and national insurance contributions

  Per cent.

  1992–93

  24.6

  1993–94

  24.4

  1994–95

  24.0

  1995–96

  24.6

  1996–97

  25.7

  The Public Finances
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will restate Table 2.1, page 21, in the "Pre-Budget Report November 1997" to show figures on a cash basis. [19935]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: The figures shown in table 2.1 of the "Pre-Budget Report" can be converted onto a cash basis using the projections of money GDP shown in table B.2, page 98.

  Overseas Trusts
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend United Kingdom tax law to ensure that United Kingdom beneficiaries of overseas trusts are liable to United Kingdom taxes; and if he will make a statement. [19754]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Hitchen and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on 10 December 1997, Official Report, columns 575–76.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) public sector borrowing requirement on a current balance basis in cash terms and (b) cyclically adjusted public sector borrowing requirement on a current balance basis in cash terms, for (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [19932]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: Table B6 of the "Pre-Budget Report" shows the projections of the public sector current balance as a per cent. of GDP. Estimates of the cyclically adjusted current balance as a per cent. of GDP can be derived from the "Pre-Budget Report" projections of the deviations of
  104
  output from its trend level, shown in the table, and the published estimates of the effect of changes in GDP on the PSBR, given in the Treasury Occasional Paper "Public Finances and the Cycle". The projections of the current balance and cyclically adjusted current balance as a per cent. of GDP can be converted onto a cash basis using the projections of money GDP shown in Table B2 on page 98 of the "Pre-Budget Report."

  Projected deviations of output from its trend level1 (per cent.)

  1996–97: -¾

  1997–98: +½

  1998–99: 0

  1999–2000: -¾

  2000–01: -½

  2001–02: -½

  Note:

  Central case, in which it is assumed that output was at its trend level in the first half of 1997. A positive figure indicates that output is above its trend, level.

  Public Sector
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government in relation to the future net wealth of the public sector. [19953]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: The Government believe balance sheet data, including public sector net wealth, provide useful information on the conduct of fiscal policy and the state of the public sector. A discussion paper on the public sector balance sheet has been published as part of the consultation process initiated in the "Pre-Budget Report." Meeting the golden rule over the economic cycle should prevent a repeat of the large fall in public sector net wealth in the first half of the 1990s.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors will determine the timing of the introduction of a 10 pence starting rate of income tax; and if he will make a statement. [19936]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: As the Chancellor's "Pre-Budget Statement" made clear, the Government are committed to introducing the l0p starting rate of tax as soon as it is prudent to do so.

  Pensioners (Winter Fuel Bills)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the one-off payments to pensioners to assist with their winter fuel bills will be taxed as income. [20121]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: No. These payments will not be taxed.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department has current dealings with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) suppliers which are not millennium compliant; and on what date his Department will cease to deal with (i) non-governmental organisations and (ii) suppliers which are not millennium compliant. [20528]
  105
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: CCTA issued detailed guidance in May 1997 on the handling of the Year 2000 problem. The Treasury is implementing this advice. All contractual relationships with non-compliant non-governmental organisations and suppliers who provide strategic goods and services that will be effected by non-compliance will cease on or before the date when the problem takes effect.

  Allergic Reactions
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died from allergic reactions to(a) peanuts and (b) other foodstuffs during (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996. [20388]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Sir Patrick Cormack, dated 16 December 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on the number of deaths due to allergic reactions from peanuts and other foodstuffs in 1995 and 1996.
  The figures are given in the table:

  Deaths certified as due to allergic reactions from peanuts and other foodstuffs, England and Wales, 1995 and 1996

  Peanuts

  Other foodstuffs

  1995

  2

  3

  1996

  0

  3

  Three deaths in 1995 mentioned allergic reaction to "nuts". These have been classified under "other foodstuffs" although they may have involved peanuts.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many fatalities due to carbon monoxide poisoning there have been in each of the last 10 years. [20723]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 16 December 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent question on fatalities due to carbon monoxide poisoning in each of the last 10 years.
  The number of deaths in England and Wales from carbon monoxide poisoning (ICD∗986) in each of the last ten years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Deaths

  1987

  1,268

  1988

  1,524

  1989

  1,324

  1990

  1,537

  1991

  1,508

  1992

  1,520

  106

  Year

  Deaths

  1993

  1,229

  1994

  1,206

  1995

  1,116

  1996

  1,016

  ∗ International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  For the years 1987–92, the deaths shown were those registered in the year; for the years 1993–96, the deaths are those that occurred in the year.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the Financial Services Act 1986 to permit small tranches of capital to be raised for(a) high technology and (b) other SMEs. [20962]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The aim of the Financial Services Act 1986 is to give people the protection and the assurance that they need to have confidence to invest. The Government are mindful of the need to ensure that, in doing this, adequate attention is paid to the costs of compliance and to the need to allow sensible market developments.

  The Government are aware of the particular financing needs of high technology firms and small to medium sized enterprises. To this end, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has recently convened a high level group of industry and government experts to provide early advice on the regulatory and fiscal climate affecting the financing of high technology firms.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the funds raised under the Christian Aid/Jubilee 2000 Coalition Campaign were applied to reduce the UK's bilateral debt owed by Tanzania; what conditions were attached to the award of funds; and what plans he has to allocate any future funds raised in this way to other countries. [20774]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The funds raised under the Christian Aid/Jubilee 2000 are offset against the UK's bilateral debt with Tanzania. No conditions were attached to this debt reduction. There are currently no plans to use the contributions being made by the public for debt reduction for other countries.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current value of funds received and distributed by HM Treasury through the Christian Aid/Jubilee 2000 Coalition; and if he will place in the Library a copy of HM Treasury's agreement with the Government of Tanzania relating to the use of these funds. [20775]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The total value of the funds received up until December 15 as a result of the Christian Aid/Jubilee 2000 campaign is £5,050. This is being used to reduce Tanzania's bilateral debt with the UK. We will seek the agreement of the Tanzanian Government to place the relevant correspondence in the House of Commons Library.
  107
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors he took into account in choosing Tanzania as the recipient of funds sent to the Treasury as part of the Christian Aid/Jubilee 2000 Coalition Campaign on debt cancellation; and what consultation his officials conducted with non-governmental organisations in(a) Tanzania and (b) elsewhere before deciding how to use these funds. [20773]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The use of the Christian Aid/Jubilee 2000 funds to reduce Tanzanian bilateral debt with the UK was agreed by the previous Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The Tanzanian Government and Christian Aid were consulted at the time of the Paris club meeting in January 1997 at which debt rescheduling for Tanzania was agreed.

  Bingo Halls
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in bingo halls. [20496]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 16 December 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on the number of people employed in bingo halls.
  The number of people who are employed in bingo halls can not be determined to this level of detail. The lowest level which can be provided is for gambling and betting activities (the classification which includes bingo halls as one of the components). Information from the Annual Employment Survey shows that there were 72,500 employees in gambling and betting activities in Great Britain in September 1996.

  Paymaster General
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Paymaster General is inhibited from altering his involvement with the Orion Trust because of inside knowledge of planned changes in tax law; and if he will make a statement. [20978]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 December 1997,Official Report, columns 575–76.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 573, what steps he plans to increase the accuracy of the method used to calculate unemployment statistics. [21140]
  108
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 16 December 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent question asking what steps he plans to take to increase the accuracy of the method used to calculate unemployment statistics.
  The ONS has recently been reviewing the future presentation and dissemination of labour market statistics. Wide-ranging public consultation was initiated in the May 1997 issue of Labour Market Trends, and a summary of responses was published in the October issue. Responses to the consultation indicated strong support for:
  —ONS plans to provide an Integrated First Release covering all Labour Market Statistics;
  —the proposals to give increased prominence to data from the Labour Force Survey.
  It is taking longer than hoped to put together a comprehensive package which meets users' needs. An announcement about the future of labour market statistics will be made in early 1998.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15255]

  Mr. Hoon
  Except for the Legal Aid Board— established on 1 April 1989—which incurred £4,215 of such expenditure in 1994–95, expenditure on overseas travel is not monitored separately from other travel and subsistence in my Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Chief Executives of HM Land Registry and the Public Record Office will be replying separately.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 December 1997:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about expenditure on overseas travel by the agencies for which his Department is responsible.
  Our accounts systems are not designed in such a way as to allow this information to be produced without lengthy research. I regret therefore that your question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.
  Although I stated in answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled in a previous session that the Public Record Office spent £7,708 on overseas travel in 1994–95, my experience of the time taken to produce that figure has guided my reply on this occasion.
  109
  Letter from Dr. Stuart Hill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 December 1997:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on expenditure on overseas travel. The information is shown below insofar as it is available:

  Expenditure

  (i) 1980–81

  Figures could only be provided at disproportionate cost

  (ii) 1987–88

  (iii) 1990–91

  (iv) 1991–92

  (v) 1992–93

  1 £4,750

  (vi) 1993–94

  1 £3,780

  (vii) 1994–95

  1 £8,084

  (viii) 1995–96

  1 £2,550

  (ix) 1996–97

  1. Airfares £5,804

  2. Other expenditure £5,180

  (x) 1 May-30 September 1997

  1. Airfares £8,505

  2. Other expenditure £1,896

  1 A breakdown of total expenditure for these years is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  VAT Appeals
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if NHS trusts are entitled to appeal against a decision of HM Customs and Excise to a VAT tribunal. [19995]

  LCD HQ

  Legal Aid Board

  Publicity

  Advertising

  Publicity

  Advertising

  Public Trust Office Advertising

  1993–94

  Nil

  36,209

  141,000

  135,259

  n/a1

  1994–95

  18,258

  66,002

  207,000

  308,458

  Nil

  1995–96

  76,798

  45,341

  197,367

  254,738

  3,617

  1996–97

  41,053

  76,172

  200,462

  388,362

  1,918

  1997–98 (year to date)

  24,364

  117,395

  135,205

  401,927

  1,991

  1997–98 (full year estimate)

  77,277

  258,857

  155,000

  469,729

  1,991

  1 Advertising costs of Public Trust Office prior to 1994–95 are included in LCD Headquarters.

  Estimates for 1998–99 cannot be provided as budgets have not yet been determined.

  There has been no expenditure on publicity in any of the years specified for the Court Service and the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct and none is planned for 1998–99.

  The only advertising that the Court Service carries out is for recruitment. These adverts are placed locally and, as a result, the amount spent could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  It is Government policy that the Public Trust Office does not advertise for the services it provides. The advertising costs shown in the table relate to recruitment of staff. There has been no expenditure on publicity in any of the years specified for the public Trust Office.
  110
  Mr. Hoon
  Any organisation that pays VAT, including NHS trusts, can appeal against a decision of HM Customs and Excise to a VAT tribunal.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the public cost per hour of proceedings in(a) a VAT tribunal and (b) a High Court undertaking judicial review of a disputed VAT ruling. [19994]

  Mr. Hoon
  The average cost per hour of any proceedings in the High Court is £231.19. This includes the cost of maintaining the court room, paying the judiciary and providing administrative assistance. Detailed information is not collected on the cost per hour of proceedings in a VAT tribunal, but the Court Service estimates it to be about £137. Neither figure includes the cost to HM Customs and Exercise of defending a VAT ruling.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) the 1997–98, year to date, (vi) the 1997–98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998–99 planned expenditure. [15257]

  Mr. Hoon
  Expenditure by my Department on publicity and on advertising (for recruitment of staff and judicial appointments) is shown in the table.

  The Chief Executives of HM Land Registry and the Public Record Office will be replying separately.

  Letter from Dr. Stuart Hill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 December 1997:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on the expenditure on all forms of advertising. The information is as follows:

  £

  (i) 1993–94

  26,787

  (ii) 1994–95

  81,835

  (iii) 1995–96

  173,241

  (iv) 1996–97

  114,496

  (v) 1997–98 to date

  97,240

  (vi) 1997–98 full year estimate

  117,000

  (vii) 1998–99 planned expenditure

  —

  1 Planned expenditure figures for 1998–99 are not yet available. The annual non-staff budget setting process is currently taking place.

  111
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 December 1997>:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about expenditure on publicity and advertising by the agencies for which his Department is responsible.
  Total expenditure by the Public Record Office has been:

  £

  1993–94

  144,505

  1994–95

  127,900

  1995–96

  167,000

  1996–97

  131,000

  1997–98 (year to date)

  59,051

  1997–98 (full year estimate)

  117,700

  1998–99 (planned expenditure

  120,000

  Conditional Fee Agreements
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department(a) has carried out, (b) has commissioned and (c) plans to

  Official Hospitality

  Financial year

  LCD1

  Legal Aid Board

  Court Service

  Public Trust Office

  1980–81

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  1987–88

  18,886

  Not exceeding £500

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  19,023

  Not exceeding £500

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  20,895

  Not exceeding £500

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  20,697

  Not exceeding £500

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  20,477

  Not exceeding £500

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–95

  16,647

  Not exceeding £500

  n/a

  n/a

  1995–96

  22,960

  Not exceeding £500

  6,605

  914

  1996–97

  18,898

  Not exceeding £500

  4,400

  982

  1 May to 30 September 1997

  4,336

  Not exceeding £500

  1,870

  202

  1 Includes figures for the Public Trust Office and Court Service up until 1995–96. The Public Trust Office became an Agency on 1 July 1994 and the Court Service on 1 April 1995.

  Data are not available for 1980–81 as this predates the operation of the department's computerised expenditure monitoring systems.

  The Chief Executives of HM Land Registry and the Public Record Office will be replying separately.

  Letter from Dr. Stuart Hill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 December 1997
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on the expenditure on official hospitality. The information is as follows:

  £

  (i) 1980–81

  Figure not available

  (ii) 1987–88

  Figure not available

  (iii) 1990–91

  7,413

  (iv) 1991–92

  13,993

  (v) 1992–93

  9,189

  (vi) 1993–94

  7,083

  (vii) 1994–95

  12,888

  (viii) 1995–96

  33,654

  (ix) 1996–97

  46,036

  (x) 1st May-30th September 1997

  23,337

  Hospitality is defined within the Land Registry as 'Local entertainment costs approved within central guidelines for visitors and/or meetings'. The amounts quoted in the last three years reflect the Land Registry's activities in the international arena with a marked increase in the number and duration of visits by officials responsible for land administration in other countries.
  112
  carry out and publish concerning the effect of the extension of the use of conditional fee agreements and the withdrawal of legal aid for money claims on solicitors' firms; and at what cost. [21278]

  Mr. Hoon
  KPMG have been commissioned to undertake an analysis of the business case for a solicitor's firm to undertake money claims under conditional fee agreements without requiring that their clients pay money in advance. The cost of the proposal accepted is £61,000 excluding VAT and expenses.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official hospitality for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1991–92, (v) 1992–93, (vi) 1993–94, (vii) 1994–95, (viii) 1995–96, (ix) 1996–97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997. [15254]

  Mr. Hoon
  Expenditure on official hospitality is given in the table.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 16 December 1997:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about expenditure on official hospitality by the agencies for which his Department is responsible.
  Total expenditure by the Public Record Office has been:

  £

  1993–94

  8,298

  1994–95

  6,752

  1995–96

  7,120

  1996–97

  8,220

  1 May 1997 to 30 September 1997

  8,784

  Our pre 1993–94 accounts systems were not designed readily to produce such information and I regret therefore that the figures that you request for earlier years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the research that has been commissioned or received into small claims, with special reference to research(a) following up the concerns expressed in the National Audit Office survey relating to

  113
  unrepresented litigants and (b) concerning how many and what types of litigants and what types of case are unable to proceed without legal help or legal aid. [21279]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) My Department has commissioned no research specifically following up the concerns expressed in the NAO survey. However, both Professor Baldwin's recently published book "Small Claims in the County Courts in England and Wales" and the statistical monitoring undertaken by the Court Service are relevant. (b) Consideration is being given as to the feasibility of such a project.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when Professor Baldwin's research into the small claims courts will be published; and what were the terms of reference of his work. [21277]

  Mr. Hoon
  The report of Professor Baldwin's research "Monitoring the Rise in the Small Claims Limit: Litigants' Experiences of Different Forms of Adjudication" was published on 15 December. He was asked to interview two groups of litigants who had been involved in cases in the range £1,000 to £3,000: a control group whose cases had gone to trial in open court, and those whose cases had been dealt with as small claims arbitrations, and to report his findings.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the factors that underlay the Lord Chancellor's decision to recommend an increase in the small claims limit to £5,000. [21205]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision was based on a high level of litigant satisfaction with the small claims procedure compared with a lower level of satisfaction with the open court procedure for claims of the same size.

  Type

  Under £1,000

  £1,000–£3,000

  £3,000–£5,000

  £5,000–£10,000

  £10,000–£15,000

  Unliquidated

  Total

  Personal injury

  880

  185

  0

  0

  0

  1,320

  2,385

  Other negligence

  7,265

  1,945

  110

  35

  0

  4,660

  14,020

  Debt

  51,190

  12,475

  955

  185

  35

  3,190

  68,035

  Non-possession housing disputes

  1,140

  440

  35

  0

  0

  0

  1,690

  Other

  4,405

  1,470

  75

  0

  0

  1,980

  7,925

  Total

  64,875

  16,545

  1,175

  220

  35

  11,230

  94,050

  (The figures are based on a three month sample and are rounded to the nearest 5. "Other" claims include those concerning breach of contract and return of goods).

  Details of the number of arbitrations in 1997 have not yet been collated, but will be available early in the new year.

  Actions Data
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many actions have(a) been issued and (b) proceeded to trial with a value of between £10,000 and £15,000 in each of the last three years, broken down into personal injury, other negligence, debt claims, housing claims and other claims; and what data he has collated on the average costs of these claims. [21275]
  114
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in each year or part year since the small claims limit was increased to £3,000, how many applications were made to rescind the automatic reference to arbitration; and how many of these were granted, broken down by the type of case and the value of the claim. [21276]

  Mr. Hoon
  The small claims limit was increased to £3,000 in January 1996. During 1996, 712 applications were made to rescind the automatic reference to arbitration, of which 586 were granted. Between January and October this year 696 applications were made and 539 were granted. Details of the type of case and value of claim of those applications that were granted are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in each year or part year since the small claims limit increased to £3,000, how many claims have(a) been issued and (b) proceeded to a hearing with the small claims court, broken down by (i) personal injury, other negligence, debt, housing and other, and (ii) by value of the claim in the bands (1) under £1,000, (2) £1,000 to £3,000, (3) £3,000 to £5,000, (4) £5,000 to £10,000 and (5) £10,000 to £15,000. [21271]

  Mr. Hoon
  The "small claims" limit increased to £3,000 in January 1996.

  (a) claims are referred to the small claims or arbitration procedure only if they are defended. It is not therefore possible to identify at the point of issue how many claims will be referred to arbitration.

  (b) The details of the number of claims that issued in 1996 that proceeded to a small claims arbitration hearing is as follows:

  Mr. Hoon
  During 1996 the number of actions that were issued and proceeded to trial as follows:

  (a) Issued

  (b) Trial

  Personal injury

  1,720

  16

  Other negligence

  960

  16

  Debt

  14,940

  246

  Other (including housing)

  5,220

  63

  These figures are based on a two month sample.

  The information requested was not collected centrally prior to 1996. This information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. In addition, details of the number

  115
  of actions issued that proceeded to trial during 1997 have not yet been collated, but will be available early in the new year. The information on costs awarded in court was not collected centrally prior to 1997, but will also be available for 1997 early in the new year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her policy for the future of the coal industry. [18325]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government's policy is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 1002–03, the Government will be reviewing the long-term energy requirements of the nation, and considering the role of coal will clearly be a part of this process.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the decision was made to extend coal contracts with power stations by three months. [20881]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: This is a matter for the generators and RJB Mining plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government intervened over the coal contracts with power stations for 1998. [20882]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Negotiation of coal contracts is a matter for the companies concerned but we have encouraged and we continue to encourage the generators and RJB Mining plc to finalise their negotiations on power station coal deliveries beyond March 1988.

  Biotechnology
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the spending level of the(a) Biochemical Engineering Research Council and (b) Biochemical Engineering Training Council for each of the last 10 years. [19240]

  Mr. Battle
  In April 1994, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council took over responsibility for research and postgraduate training in biochemical engineering from the former Science and Engineering Research Council. The accompanying figures show expenditure (in cash) on research and training over the last ten years. The research expenditure figure for 1994–95 is inflated because the SERC funded the research on the basis of claims whereas the BBSRC uses an expenditure profile. Similarly, the figures for expenditure on training after 1993–94 are best initial estimates, as the data were calculated on a different basis by the two Councils concerned.

  £ thousands

  Year

  Research expenditure

  Training

  1987–88

  1,033

  1,109

  1988–89

  2,028

  1,298

  1989–90

  2,357

  1,490

  116

  £ thousands

  Year

  Research expenditure

  Training

  1990–91

  3,376

  1,753

  1991–92

  4,497

  1,842

  1992–93

  5,914

  2,291

  1993–94

  8,277

  2,502

  1994–95

  9,854

  2,300

  1995–96

  7,043

  2,200

  1996–97

  5,234

  1,600

  1997–98

  15,350

  1,100

  1 Estimated.

  Benchmarking
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what guidance has been issued within her Department and agencies on benchmarking; and if any consultation exercises have been undertaken; [19583]

  (2) how the system of benchmarking will be used, and what criteria will be adopted, to achieve best value for money functions within her Department and its agencies; [19580]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Benchmarking is a widely used management tool and the DTI's Management Best Practice Directorate has been closely involved in developing and promoting it. The Department has a dedicated central point which can advise on these and other quality tools and put staff in touch with others involved in benchmarking activity both within Government and elsewhere. The Department's own Quality Tool Kit also includes information on benchmarking. No consultation exercises have been undertaken on the use of these techniques.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the names of all those people who she has appointed to public bodies since 1 May, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed, and whether they receive remuneration. [19977]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I list the new appointments made by the Department since 1 May 1997. Those which receive some remuneration are identified with an asterisk.

  National Consumer Council

  Dr. Shamit Saggar∗

  Mr. Richard Greenslade∗

  Mrs. Loraine Ashton∗

  Mr. Michael Green∗

  Mr. Stephen Locke∗

  Mr. James Humble∗

  Miss Helena Weisner∗

  Welsh Consumer Council

  Mrs. Barbara Hicks∗

  Ms Sioned-Mair Richards∗

  Mr. Stephen Delahaye∗

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Ms Jane Bennett∗

  Mr. William Ure∗

  Mr. John Hanlon∗

  Hearing Aid Council

  Mr. John Raine∗

  117

  Mr. Jonathan Ormerod∗

  Ms Christine Pearce∗

  Gas Consumer Council

  Ms Sue Leggate∗

  Mrs. Linda Williams∗

  Mr. John Bellis∗

  Mr. Andres Gomez-Lobo

  Ms Gita Sootarsing

  Mr. James Corbett

  Post Office Users Council for Scotland

  Mrs. Patricia Stewart

  Mr. Michael Gossip

  Post Office Users Council for Northern Ireland

  Mr. Gerard Trainor∗

  Miss Roz Goldie∗

  Mr. Ted Rafferty

  Mr. William Irwin

  Mrs. Jane Mckee

  Mr. Ernest Stewart

  Mrs. Deirdre McAuley

  Post Office Users Council for Wales

  Mr. Eifion Pritchard∗

  English Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Mr. Peter Sayers

  Mr. Brian McNally

  Mrs. Barbara McClennan

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Mr. Barry Stevens

  Mrs. Wendy Reynolds

  Mr. Mark Haggar

  Northern Ireland Committee on Telecommunications

  Mrs. Jean McVitty

  Mr. John Kerr

  Mr. Brian St. John Collins

  Mr. John Campbell

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Ms B Beckett∗

  Prof. Hazel Genis∗

  Prof. M. Gibbons∗

  Prof. D. Greenaway∗

  Prof. N. MacCormick∗

  Prof. L. Borysiewicz∗

  Prof. A. MacGregor∗

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger∗

  T. Robbins∗

  B. Ross∗

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Dr. Yvonne Olwen∗

  Prof. Simon Conway Morris∗

  Prof. Iain Johnston∗

  Prof. John Lawton∗ CBE

  Prof. G. Randall∗

  Horticulture Research International

  Prof. James Callow∗

  Prof. Tim Flowers∗

  Prof. John Gray∗

  Advisory Committee on Coal Research

  Dr. Julia King

  118

  Energy Advisory Panel

  Dr. Mary Archer

  Tony Cooper

  N. Evans

  D. Green MBE Dr. Dieter Helm

  P. Ibbotson OBE

  Prof. A. Kemp

  M. Parker

  Dr. A. White

  Measurement Advisory Committee

  B. Goldfinch

  W. Stewart

  B. Lyons

  D. Brown

  M. Berridge

  B. Gelletly

  M. Ford

  Overseas Project Board

  S. Doughty

  London and South East Industrial Development Board

  Ann Gardner

  M. Rhead

  A. Holmes

  North West Industrial Development Board

  J. C. Dixon

  D. McCall

  J. Strachan

  South West Industrial Development Board

  Dr. R. Bown

  I. G. Lowe

  Eastern Region Industrial Development Board

  J. Carter

  M. Clarke

  D. Collins

  Ms C. Dickson

  Ms E. Oddie.

  Export Initiatives
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish details of the arrangements under which work previously carried out under the Home Office Export Initiative will be carried out by the overseas trade services section of her Department. [20016]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, under the banner of Overseas Trade Services, give advice and assistance to all British companies seeking to trade overseas, including those companies from the security industry. This includes access to help provided under the Export Promoter Initiative and Trade Fair and Overseas Seminar Support Scheme.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers and (b) trade associations representing the policing and security sector concerning the operation of the export initiative previously managed by the Home Office. [20015]
  119
  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to her by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 11 December 1997,Official Report, column 648.

  Oil Exploration Licences
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list her responsibilities in respect of issuing licences for oil exploration; what monitoring of companies after the issuing of such a licence is undertaken by her Department, with particular reference to the interpretation of clauses within the licence; what sanctions her Department has available in respect of companies found to have caused environmental damage through breach of their licence conditions; and what action her Department has taken in the past three years against such companies. [20107]

  Mr. Battle
  The Secretary of State grants licences to search and bore for, and get petroleum within Great Britain and her Continental Shelf. In issuing the licences, I seek to ensure the thorough exploration for and economic exploitation of petroleum, while having due regard to the interests of other users of the sea (where appropriate) and the possible impact of licensed activities upon the environment.

  Activities carried out under petroleum licences are subject to the obligations contained in Model Clauses attached to the licence as well as the separate conditions controlling their timing, extent and method. The drilling of wells and the development of any discoveries are subject to separate consents which may attract conditions. Failure to comply with these obligations and consents may lead to the revocation of the licence. Compliance monitoring is undertaken by a team of inspectors based in the Department's Aberdeen office, as well as through returns submitted by licenses about their operations and random surveillance flights carried out on a regular basis.

  Where petroleum operations have led to suspected breaches of legislation, then papers have been sent to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration of further action. In 1997, there have been three such cases.

  Computer (Century Date Change)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Ministerial representation on the Committee on the year 2000 problem announced on 27 November. [20375]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Direction of the Prime Minister the composition of the Group is as follows:

  Composition

  President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Chair)

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  120

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office.

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  The chairman of Action 2000 is invited to attend.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when her Department received the report from the UK Atomic Energy Authority concerning options for environmental remediation at the Dounreay nuclear waste disposal shaft; and when she expects to take a decision on the proposals. [20760]

  Mr. Battle
  The UKAEA Board endorsed recommendations relating to the Dounreay Intermediate Level Waste Shaft at its meeting on 4 November. My officials immediately started studying the UKAEA's recommendations. I have since received advice from my officials which I am considering. It is clearly important to allow time to give proper consideration to such important issues and it is my intention to consult the Scottish Office and DETR before making a decision.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of her Department's staff are secondees from the private sector; and which firms they are seconded from. [20947]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  There are 113 secondees working in the Department from the following companies:

  Alan Paine Knitwear Ltd.

  AMEC Process and Energy Ltd.

  AMW Associates

  Anglian Water International (UK)

  Arthur Anderson

  AWE plc

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  Bank of Ireland

  Barclays Bank plc

  Beaumont Colson Ltd.

  BNFL

  Boxhome Limited

  British Aerospace plc

  British American Tobacco Co. Ltd.

  British Computer Society

  British Embassy Tokyo

  British Nuclear Fuels

  British Steel plc

  British Telecom plc

  British SI

  Bt International Business

  BT plc

  Business Link

  Coopers and Lybrand

  CRL

  Crosrol Ltd.

  121

  Deloitte and Touche

  Drinks Marketing Consortium

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  Epinet Communications plc

  Ericsson Ltd.

  Ernst and Young Services Ltd.

  Etrl Europe Ltd.

  European Gas Turbines (GEC Alstrom)

  Ferryfast Produce Ltd.

  FINA plc

  Frank Roberts and Sons Ltd.

  GEC Marconi Avionics Ltd.

  GEC Marconi Communications Ltd.

  General Accident

  General Traffic Ltd.

  Genesis Communications

  Geoteam Wimpol Ltd.

  Glaxo Wellcome plc

  Glengarnock Garments Ltd.

  Grant Thornton

  Guiness Brewing Worldwide Ltd.

  Hambros Bank Ltd.

  Herbert Smith

  Huntings Engineering Ltd.

  Hyder plc

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.

  ICI plc

  International Distributor Centre

  International Knitwear

  John Laing International Ltd.

  John Swires and Sons Ltd.

  Jones Cranes Ltd.

  Kidsons Impey

  Lancashire Enterprises plc

  Lanimer Knitwear Ltd.

  L. G. Mouchel and Partners

  Lockstair Ltd.

  M. A. I. D. plc

  Madge and Hoyle Ltd.

  Marks and Spencer plc

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd.

  Meggitt plc

  MITI

  Mobil

  Morlands (Glastonbury) Ltd.

  Morris Singer Ltd.

  Nat West Markets

  NatWest

  NHS Supplies

  Normalair-Garrett Ltd.

  North Cape (Scotland) Ltd.

  Nuclear Electric Ltd.

  Ove Arup and Partners

  Pirelli Cables Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse

  Prince Associates

  Reyrolle Projects Ltd.

  River Don Castings Ltd.

  122

  Rover Group Ltd.

  Royal Bank Leasing Ltd.

  Russo-British Chamber of Commerce

  Siemens ATM

  Silver Altman

  Sims Portex Ltd.

  Smith Kline Beecham

  Texaco Ltd.

  The Bank of England

  The Export Association

  The Institute of Export

  The West India Committee

  Thomas Chislett

  Turner and Newell plc

  Unilever

  Unilever International

  World Trade Development Limited

  York Synthetics Ltd.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms are in place to oversee and regulate operational matters within the Post Office. [20944]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for operational matters within the Post Office rests with the Board and management.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review the arrangements for the regulation of the Post Office. [20945]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This issue will be considered in the context of our review of the Post Office.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the implications of the European Parliament and Council Directive on Common Rules for the Development of Community Postal Services and the Improvement of Quality of Service for the Post Office, and on the timetable for transposing the directive into United Kingdom law. [21110]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Directive provides a regulatory framework for the development of European postal services and is expected to raise service standards and increase competition throughout the EU. Minimal change will be required from our efficient, low cost and profitable Post Office. The Directive must be transposed into UK law within one year of adoption.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department has current dealings with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) suppliers which are not millennium compliant; and on what date her Department will cease to deal with (i) non-governmental organisations and (ii) suppliers which are not millennium compliant. [20523]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: The DTI's own programme of millennium compliance projects is due to be completed by April 1999 and it incorporates activity to ensure that the supply of IT goods and services and other goods containing embedded integrated circuit chips to the Department and exchanges of computer data

  123
  between the Department and non-governmental organisations are also compliant. This work includes ensuring compliance where such services or exchanges are delivered through or supported by a non-governmental organisation's own IT systems.

  Sterling Levels
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the impact of current levels of sterling on(a) manufacturing and (b) exporting. [20898]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: I receive numerous representations from business about many aspects of economic performance, including the impact of the current level of sterling on the manufacturing sector and exports. Business people tell me frequently that they need macroeconomic stability over the medium term in order to succeed. The economic policies followed by the Government are designed to achieve that stability.

  Toyota
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will establish the extent to which the French offered abatement of social and employment regulations for the projected new Toyota car factory. [20915]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: In accordance with the State Aids Framework for the Motor Industry, the French authorities will need to seek Commission approval for aid to the investment project. Abatement of social and employment regulations is unlikely to fit within the criteria of accepted support.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to secure continued structural fund support for the regions from the European Union. [19398]

  Mrs. Roche
  Following the publication of the Commission's communication "Agenda 2000" in July, we are discussing the reform of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds with the Commission and other Member States, with the aim of securing a package which is fair to all Member States—especially to the United Kingdom and its regions—affordable and durable, and simpler and more efficient.

  Energy
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has commissioned into the use of coal as a clean source of energy; and how much money the Government are planning to spend on this research. [21291]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 6 June 1997,Official Report, column 276.

  My Department has undertaken a detailed review of the UK's future clean coal technology requirements in consultation with industry and universities. This review has just been completed and examined what further support the Government should provide to clean coal
  124
  technology research, development and demonstration. An announcement will be made about the outcome of the review once Ministers have had time to consider the review's recommendations alongside those arising from the Department's wider Comprehensive Spending Review exercise.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much coal, gas oil and electricity has been imported into the United Kingdom in the calendar years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997; and how much she estimates will be imported in 1998, 2008, and 2018; and for each of these years, what estimate she has made of the cost of the imports of each of these energy sources. [21274]

  Mr. Battle
  The latest available information is as follows. Data are only available up to and including the third quarter of 1997. Similar data for the years 1998, 2008 and 2018 are not available. The previous Administration published energy projections for the UK as Energy Paper 65 in March 1995, which is available in the Libraries of both Houses. While these projections implicitly included the contribution from imports to the UK's energy supply, projections of imports themselves were not separately made.

  It should be borne in mind that the UK also exports fuels, and has been a net exporter of fuels in both volume and value terms in each year since 1993. In 1996, net exports of fuels benefited the UK Balance of Payments by £4.2 billion. Indications are that net exports of fuels will benefit the UK economy by a similar amount in 1997.

  Volume of imports of fuels into the UK

  Million tonnes of oil equivalent

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Q1 to Q3 1997

  Coal and other solid fuels

  14.2

  13.0

  10.8

  11.5

  12.7

  11.1

  Crude oil and oil products

  73.6

  75.4

  67.6

  61.5

  62.6

  46.2

  Natural gas

  5.5

  4.3

  3.0

  1.3

  1.4

  1.0

  Electricity

  1.4

  1.4

  1.5

  1.4

  1.4

  1.0

  Total

  94.7

  94.2

  82.9

  75.7

  78.2

  59.2

  Value of imports of fuels into the UK

  £ million

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Q1 to Q3 1997

  Coal and other solid fuels

  744

  731

  598

  601

  694

  554

  Crude oil and oil products

  5,456

  5,844

  7,930

  4,778

  5,857

  3,845

  Natural gas

  397

  327

  231

  105

  117

  72

  Electricity

  369

  426

  388

  408

  391

  289

  Total

  6,965

  7,328

  6,148

  5,892

  7,059

  4,760

  Source:

  Volumes—Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1997 and Energy Trends.

  Values—HM Customs and Excise.
  125
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the known extent of the United Kingdom's indigenous sources of coal, gas and oil; and what is her estimate, based on present consumption levels, of when each will run out. [21272]

  Mr. Battle
  Remaining reserves in present discoveries of oil on the UK Continental Shelf at the end of 1996 are estimated to be up to 2,025 million tonnes. For gas the estimate is 1,960 billion cubic metres. These existing reserves, at 1996 depletion rates, could last for 16 and 22 years respectively. However, additional reserves continue to be discovered each year, and it is therefore likely that production of oil and gas will continue beyond these dates. Allowing for the full potential from as yet undiscovered reserves raises the estimates of reserves to 5,075 million tonnes of oil and 3,795 billion cubic metres of gas. At 1996 depletion rates, total oil and gas reserves could thus last for 39 and 42 years respectively. However these estimates are highly uncertain and future depletion rates will be affected by prices and the utilisation of the UK-Belgium gas interconnector which will provide opportunities for sales into Europe.

  For coal, the remaining reserves at existing mines, which could be extracted economically, were estimated to be around 1 billion tonnes at the end of 1994, sufficient for 20 years at current rates of production. However, additional coal reserves in the UK are substantial and their availability and rate of depletion will depend on future energy prices and the demand for coal.

HEALTH

  Medical Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many papers published on medical issues which his Department has funded in whole or part have been found to rest on bogus research in the last year. [16682]

  Ms Jowell
  None as far as the Department is aware. All research reports are peer reviewed and quality assured.

  Dialysis Treatment (South Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many renal patients from the South Lancashire health area per thousand receive dialysis treatment; and what is the national average. [18152]

  Mr. Boateng
  Sixty-six South Lancashire residents were receiving renal dialysis as at 30 September 1997. This equates to 0.21 per cent. of population of 310,000. Figures are not collected on the same basis nationally.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members his Department employs; what is the total salary and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May. [19307]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health employs two special advisers.
  126
  The number and identity of special advisers in each Department was previously provided in a written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 13 November 1997, Official Report, columns 615–17. Information on the total paybill for special advisers was provided in the answers my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave to the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Kingston and Surbition (Mr. Davey) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  The total number of Task Force members is 9; these are all unpaid.

  The current number of Review panel and Advisory Group members is 41. All of these are unpaid.

  In addition, a Royal Commission into long-term care of the elderly has just been announced which will have 12 members, all unpaid.

  Insulin
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to monitor the consequences of standardising insulin strengths; and what have been the results of such monitoring. [19252]

  Ms Jowell
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency are responsible for the continuous monitoring of the safety of all licensed medicines and the safety of insulin is therefore under continuous review. Monitoring the safety of medicines includes assessment of reports of suspected adverse drug reactions, continuous scrutiny of the medical and scientific literature and review of safety reports produced by manufacturers. The Medicines Control Agency is not aware of significant safety issues having arisen as a result of standardising insulin strengths. The Medicines Control Agency and Committee on Safety of Medicines will continue to monitor closely the safety of insulins.

  Silicone Breast Implants
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is within the NHS in England for women who suffer from ruptured silicone breast implants, to have them removed. [19275]

  Mr. Boateng
  The decision whether to remove a silicone breast implant is a clinical one between patients and clinicians.

  Cancer
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to improve the identification and treatment of male cancers; what assessment he has made of the use of gene therapy in such treatment; and what plans he has to support research in this area. [19504]

  Mr. Boateng
  The two major male cancers are testicular and prostate cancer.

  Raising awareness of cancer among general practitioners and patients and encouraging them to be alert that symptoms may be due to serious disease such as cancer is an important aspect of the Government's policy

  127
  for cancer services set out in "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", copies of which are available in the Library.

  In September 1995, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund jointly with the Department of Health launched a campaign to encourage testicular awareness through publication of a leaflet entitled "A Whole New Ball Game" so that testicular cancer could be detected early. There have been marked improvements in the treatment of testicular cancer over the last 20 years and now over 95 per cent. of patients can be cured.

  Professional bodies in the United States of America and the United Kingdom have published guidelines on treatment of prostate cancer. The Department of Health funded Clinical Oncology Information Network, jointly with the British Association of Urological Surgeons, has produced some further guidelines which are currently out for consultation and are due to be published next year.

  The National Screening Committee has recommended that there is currently no case for a national screening programme for prostate cancer. This recommendation has been accepted by Ministers. There is at present no medical evidence to suggest that a screening programme for testicular cancer should be introduced.

  Gene therapy for cancer is still at the research stage. At January 1997, 10 gene therapy trials involving cancer were approved in the UK by the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee. None of these involve testicular or prostate cancer. However all cancer research has the potential to lead to developments in the treatment of other forms of cancer.

  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Council is currently co-ordinating four trials in the area of testicular cancer. These are: a randomised trial of two schedules of radiotherapy for stage 1 seminoma of the testis, following orchidectomy; a randomised trial of single agent carboplatin with radiotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of Stage 1 seminoma of the testis, following orchidectomy; a randomised trial of 3 x Bleomycin, Etoposide and Cisplatin (BEP) versus 3 x BEP + 1 x Etoposide and Cisplatin (EP) and the five day schedule versus three days per cycle in good prognosis germ cell cancer; a retrospective study of second cancers following radiotherapy for stage 1.

  The Council is co-ordinating two trials in the area of prostate cancer. These are: a double blind placebo-controlled trial of oral sodium clodronate for locally advanced prostatic adenocarcinoma; a double blind placebo-controlled trial of oral sodium clodronate for metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma.

  The Council have recently awarded two grants in the area of male cancers with a total value of £50,000. Research into male cancers is underpinned by a significant amount of basic research relevant to all cancers.
  128
  While the Council does not support any work on gene therapy in the treatment of male cancers, it does provide support for more basic research into gene therapy which will underpin and inform future more applied work in the area.

  The Department of Health's Policy Research Programme (PRP) is currently undertaking a systematic review of minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia and cancer. The study is being undertaken at the University of Newcastle at a cost of some £40,000.

  A study into the development and clinical evaluation of trans-rectal ultrasound devices for thermotherapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia is currently being undertaken at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at a cost of £130,000.

  In addition another study, a mortality study of cadmium exposed workers with particular reference to lung and prostatic cancer, was completed last year and has reported. The study was undertaken at Imperial College at a cost of £32,000.

  The National Health Service Research and Development Programme's Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme has also undertaken two studies into prostate cancer.

  These are: a systematic review of detection, management and screening for prostatic carcinoma, at a cost of approximately £54,000; a review of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for detecting and managing prostatic carcinoma, at an approximate cost of £13,000.

  These two studies have reported. The HTA Programme is developing work on treatment for the spectrum of prostate cancers likely to be revealed by a screening programme. If more successful treatments can be developed it may be appropriate to look again at the potential effectiveness of introducing a screening programme at a future date. The HTA Programme is also funding three projects on treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, costing £785,000 over four to five years.

  The NHS R and D Cancer Programme has funded a systematic review of the early natural history of prostate, skin and oral cancers at a cost of £46,000.

  Product Licensing
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the minutes of discussions between the Licensing Authority and Marketing Authorisation holders associated with the granting of product licences; [20509]

  (2) if he will publish the recommendations of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [20510]

  Ms Jowell
  Discussions associated with the granting of product licences, and the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, are usually confidential between the parties concerned, since they may concern commercially sensitive information.
  129
  We are committed to making available as much information as possible. We have therefore asked the Medicines Control Agency to examine its current policies on access to information about medicines. We will consider, in due course, what further action may be necessary to maximise such access while safeguarding legitimate confidential interests. We shall do so, taking account of the White Paper on Freedom of Information we published this month and in the context of European Community licensing and control procedures.

  Meals on Wheels
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) those health trusts which charge VAT for meals they provide as part of a meals on wheels service and (b) those that do not. [21137]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department collects information on the number of meals prepared and supplied by the National Health Service as part of a meals on wheels service. In the annual collection carried out in autumn 1996, the following local authorities used the NHS to supply some of their meals on wheels: Leicestershire, Surrey, Devon, Somerset, Staffordshire, Calderdale, Stockport, East Riding, and North Yorkshire.

  The information collected centrally does not, however, cover the way in which the NHS charges the local authority for these meals.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects appointments to all vacant chairmen and non-executive posts in NHS trusts in Buckinghamshire to be made; and if he will make a statement. [20820]

  Mr. Milburn
  The outstanding appointments will be made as soon as possible.

  Optical Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department issued guidance to opticians giving clarification of general ophthalmic services procedures; to what extent the measures it contains are enforceable; what estimate he has made of the regional impact of the procedures on take up of(a) eye tests and (b) free eye tests for those on benefits; and in what areas the advice differs from previous guidance issued by his Department. [20926]

  Mr. Milburn
  The guidance, issued in November 1997, is only intended to aid understanding of the National Health (General Ophthalmic Services) Regulations 1986 and the National Health Services (Optical Charges and Payments) Regulations 1997. These Regulations set out the statutory obligations which Optometrists and Ophthalmic Medical Practitioners, who contract to provide general ophthalmic services, are required to observe.

  The guidance reflects advice given by the Department in response to casual inquiries over recent years and is not expected to alter the trend in the increase in the overall number of sight tests which is currently running at about 2.6 per cent. per annum.

  Food Poisoning and Allergy Deaths
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risk associated with eating each type of food linked with fatal cases of food poisoning, infection or allergic reaction on which his Department collates data. [20768]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health keeps food poisoning issues under review. The Government are advised on this matter by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF). The ACMSF has issued the following reports;

  Report on Vacuum Packaging and Associated Processes (1993)

  Salmonella in Eggs (1993)

  Campylobacter (September 1993)

  Report on Verocytotoxin Producing Escherichia coli (1995)

  Report on Poultry Meat (1996).

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library. The ACMSF's reports include assessments of the risks associated with foods and food processes and include recommendations to both the food industry and the consumer.

  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment is currently considering the factors that influence the development of peanut allergy in infants and young children and is preparing advice to mothers. A report is expected in the spring.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the National Institute for Clinical Excellence can compel local purchasers to buy drugs and treatments of proven effectiveness. [20821]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will develop and disseminate clinical guidelines based on relevant evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

  It will remain for individual clinicians to judge what is the best treatment for particular patients.

SCOTLAND

  Urquhart Castle
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the timetable for his Department's consideration of the Urquhart Castle planning application; and if he will make a statement.n [19738]

  Mr. Dewar
  I am currently considering Historic Scotland's Notice of Proposed Development for improved visitor facilities at Urquhart Castle and expect to reach a decision in the near future on how this proposal is to be processed.

  Teaching Quality
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if teaching quality assessment will continue in Scotland after 1998. [21152]
  131
  Mr. Wilson
  In response to the recommendations in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council have proposed that they cease Teaching Quality Assessment on completion of the current cycle in 1998.

  Nurses
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the shortfall in the number of NHS nurses in each specialty in Scotland, by health board area, on 1 December. [21160]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is not available centrally, although vacancies, including those which have lasted for more than three months, are monitored at 31 March by the Pay Review Body, and the indications are of a small increase in the levels in 1997 compared to 1996 for Scotland. Contacts with the Service, particularly through the annual exercise to forecast student nurse intakes to colleges five years ahead, do no indicate any general problem, although there are recruitment difficulties for certain specialist areas.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish a Scottish Forum for Higher Education to advise him on the strategic direction of higher education in Scotland. [21154]

  Mr. Wilson
  I expect to announce a decision, on the Garrick recommendation that I should establish a Scottish Forum for Higher Education, early in the New Year.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Action Group on Scottish Education has made to(a) raise education standards and (b) reduce truancy levels in Scottish schools. [21150]

  Mr. Wilson
  Implementation of the Government's initiative to raise standards in Scottish schools is being overseen by the Action Group on Standards in Scottish Schools. I chair the Group and membership is widely drawn from within and beyond education.

  In September, with the endorsement of the Action Group, we issued for consultation a strategy paper for the development of a framework of school targets in key areas with national introduction in the school year 1998–99. The key areas are, in the first instance, literacy, numeracy and attainment. The outcome of the consultation was discussed by the Group on 15 December. The Group gave broad support to the principle of target setting; agreed that improvement could be achieved in every school; and agreed also that comparability among similar schools was important. The Action Group agreed to meet again in February to take matters forward.

  Other areas such as attendance are of critical importance to a school's ability to meet performance targets. In due course, I shall be seeking the Action Group's views on the scope for setting targets in this, and other crucial areas.

  Sixth Year Colleges
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his policy to encourage the creation of sixth year colleges in Scotland to teach subjects at advanced higher level. [21149]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has no such policy.

  Veterinary and Architecture Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional assistance will be given to(a) veterinary and (b) architecture students beginning degree courses at Scottish institutions in 1998 and later towards the cost of tuition fees for the fourth and subsequent years of their courses. [21155]

  Mr. Wilson
  Scottish domiciled students beginning degree level courses in veterinary medicine or architecture at Scottish institutions in 1998 or later will be assisted on the same basis as those studying most other subjects. Where the course is one year longer than the comparable course in England and Wales, they will not be liable to contribute to their tuition costs in the final year.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance will be given to students over the age of 50 years beginning higher or further education courses in Scotland in 1998 towards the cost of living and tuition fees. [21151]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under the new student support arrangements for full-time higher education, students aged over 50 will be eligible for means-related help with tuition fees on the same basis as other students, which means that if they are on low incomes they will continue to receive free tuition.

  Under the current student loans scheme full-time students who are aged 50 or over when their course starts are not eligible and we do not plan any changes in those arrangements for academic year 1998–99. We will however be reviewing the position for future years in the context of the move to 100 per cent. loans for maintenance. Both full-time and part-time students in higher education will be eligible for Access Funds from academic year 1998–99, regardless of their age.

  Students in further education will not be affected by these changes and will continue to be able to apply for a bursary from their college or education authority, as appropriate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) number and (b) distribution of abattoirs in the United Kingdom which are approved for organic livestock; and what is the (i) procedure and (ii) cost of registering as an organic abattoir. [18883]
  133
  Mr. Morley
  The production standards of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) require abattoirs slaughtering organically reared animals to be registered with an approved organic inspection and certification body. Six such bodies exist in addition to UKROFS itself. Registration is designed to ensure that there is an audit trail to demonstrate that meat sold as organic has come from organically reared animals and to provide reassurance on welfare and handling standards. In order to register, the abattoir must demonstrate, to the inspection and certification body, compliance with the requirements. The costs vary, as each body has its own scale of charges, but typically would be in the region of £210 per annum for registration and inspection plus compliance costs, for example of record keeping.

  UKROFS holds records of 29 abattoirs certified for organic production: 22 in England, two in Wales, four in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland.

  Beef
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances it is permissible to export beef products derived from animals which are over 30 months of age. [20314]

  Mr. Rooker
  The export of beef products obtained from bovine animals of any age slaughtered in the United Kingdom is prohibited. The re-export of products made from beef obtained from bovine animals slaughtered outside the UK is permitted.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet farming representatives regularly in order to update them on progress in lifting the ban on beef exports; and if he will make a statement. [20246]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have regular discussions with farming representatives which include progress on lifting the export ban. The Scientific Steering Committee has given a positive opinion on the principle of the Date Based Export Scheme. We will be discussing next steps with the Commission shortly. First discussion of the Export Certified Herds Scheme at the Standing Veterinary Committee is expected soon.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of beef imports to the United Kingdom originate from cattle aged below 30 months; and if he will make a statement. [20247]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) Regulations 1996, imported beef sold in the UK must be derived from cattle under 30 months of age at slaughter. There is an exemption from this requirement in respect of beef derived from cattle born, reared and slaughtered in the following countries (which the Government regard as BSE-free):

  Argentina

  Australia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Paraguay

  134

  Poland

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Uruquay

  USA

  Zimbabwe.

  In 1996 these countries accounted for 48 per cent. of total UK imports. There were no imports from Poland.

  Mr. MacGregor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk of contracting new-variant CJD as a result of eating beef on the bone; and how this differs from his earlier assessment of CJD risk in eating beef prior to the latest SEAC advice on boning. [20472]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have published SEAC's view that there is a 95 per cent. chance of no cases and a 5 per cent. chance of one case of new-variant CJD arising as a result of exposure from the dorsal root ganglion in food in 1998. Previous studies did not identify this tissue separately as one contributing to infectivity levels.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will introduce further controls on specified risk material in Great Britain; if they will apply to imports; and if he will make a statement.[21486]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I received advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) in May that our existing controls on specified bovine material and heads of sheep and goats should be extended to cover the spleen of all sheep and goats and the spinal cord of sheep and goats aged over 12 months or with one permanent incisor tooth erupted through the gum. In addition, SEAC advised that all the controls should be applied to imports. I was pleased, therefore, when the European Commission adopted in July Decision 97/534/EC which provides for Community-wide controls on the use and destruction of specified risk material (SRM) and for controls on products of animal origin imported into the Community to ensure they are SRM-free. In reaching agreement on that Decision I accepted that the Community-wide controls should take effect from 1 January 1998. However, it subsequently became clear that the Decision would create serious practical difficulties, in particular for importers of pharmaceutical and medical products. The Commission therefore proposed a new Decision to replace 97/534/EC which took account of these problems.

  The Standing Veterinary Committee failed to agree on a new Decision to replace 97/534 but did agree to postpone its implementation until 1 April 1998. As I have made clear previously, however, I am not prepared to tolerate any slippage in the introduction of Community-wide controls on SRM. I have therefore decided, in the interests of public health, to introduce unilateral interim controls in Great Britain. I have accordingly laid before Parliament today the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 and the Specified Risk Material Order 1997, both of which will come into force on 1 January 1998. Together, these consolidate existing national legislation providing for destruction of certain bovine materials and heads of sheep and goats and extend

  135
  them to the spleen of all sheep and goats and spinal cord of sheep and goats over 12 months of age. They will also prohibit imports of specified risk material (SRM) except where they are for technical use. Imports of certain animal products for food and animal feed, including imports from EU Member States, will need to be accompanied by official veterinary certification confirming that they do not contain and were not derived from SRM. Products manufactured before 1 January 1998 and those containing material derived from Australia and New Zealand will be exempt from this requirement.

  Equivalent legislation is being introduced in Northern Ireland to come into force at the same time.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of home-produced beef is from(a) steers, (b) heifers and (c) young bulls. [21198]

  Mr. Rooker
  Between Janaury and October 1997, 54 per cent. of home killed beef and veal by weight was from steers, 30 per cent. from heifers and 16 per cent. from young bulls. Cattle killed under the Over Thirty-month Scheme, Selective Cull and Calf Processing Aid Scheme are not included within home killed beef and veal production.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the membership, terms of reference and date of reporting of the Review of Fisheries Legislation and Administration he announced in July. [20359]

  Mr. Morley
  We hope to announce the terms of reference of the Review of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Legislation, and the membership of the review team shortly.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the value of the ewe premium in each EU country. [20367]

  Mr. Rooker
  The final rate of Sheep Annual Premium for the 1997 scheme will not be set until early in the new year. The latest Commission estimate of the premium per ewe applying in all member states of the EU is ECU 14.206. Balance payments in each member state will be made at the premium rate set, (less advances paid) converted into national currency using the conversion rates applying to the scheme on 4 January 1998. At the current conversion rate the estimated total premium in sterling would be £11.50.

  Lambs
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the average market price for lambs for slaughter received by farmers, for each month since January 1995 at British markets. [20366]

  Mr. Rooker
  The average price of finished lambs is published by the Department in the Agricultural Market Report Part 1, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The prices are collected by the Meat and Livestock Commission on a weekly basis and cover markets in England and Wales.

  Retail Butchers and Small Abattoirs
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the factors leading to increases in the running costs of(a) retail butchers and (b) small abattoirs in recent years. [20364]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government carry out a cost compliance assessment on the financial implications of all new legislation and the likely effects on small businesses such as retail butchers and small abattoirs. These Regulatory Appraisals (previously known as Cost Compliance Assessments) are placed before Parliament when legislation is laid and are available from the Library of the House. We are not in a position to take follow-up action to determine how accurate are the estimates made, nor to update them for the effects of inflation.

  Krebs Report
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Krebs's Report on badgers and bovine TB. [21012]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that Professor Krebs' Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers is published today, as is the Government response to the report.

  In November 1996, Professor John Krebs FRS began scientific review on behalf of the then Government into the links between bovine tuberculosis and badgers. His terms of reference were:
  "To review the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle and badgers and assess the scientific evidence for links between them; to take account of EU policies on reducing and eliminating the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle; to take account of any risk to the human population; and accordingly to review, in the light of the scientific evidence, present Government policy on badgers and tuberculosis and to make recommendations".

  Professor Krebs was assisted in his review by Professor Roy Anderson FRS, Professor Ivan Morrison, Professor Douglas Young, Professor Tim Clutton-Brock FRS, and Dr. Christl Donnelly, as well as by two research assistants.

  The Government are most grateful for the vigour, and rigour with which Professor Krebs and his Team have tackled their remit. They believe that the report represents the best available scientific advice across this difficult area which is of great interest both to farmers, whose livelihood can be badly affected by bovine tuberculosis, and to conservation groups. The Government are disposed to accept the recommendations in the report in principle, subject to further consideration of the public expenditure, legal and practical implications.

  The report concludes that the available evidence, albeit largely indirect, strongly supports the view that badgers are a significant source of TB in cattle; but that it is not possible to state how large a contribution badgers make to cattle infection.

  The main recommendations are that:

  (a) the current policy of limited culling of badgers should end, and be replaced by a policy of no culling in most of the country;

  137

  (b) a trial should be set up in certain areas with a history of repeated occurrence of TB to quantify the efficacy and cost effectiveness of badger culling to control bovine TB. Culling of all badgers will take place in some of the trials areas on a carefully designed experimental basis. This will be compared with the culling of all badgers assumed to be linked with bovine TB outbreaks in other trial areas, and no culling of badgers in a last set of trial areas. The aim will be to establish a rigorous scientific foundation for policy in the future, which should benefit all with an interest in this area;

  (c) outside the culling trial areas, there should be an experimental comparison of the effectiveness of different cattle husbandry methods in controlling bovine TB. The livestock industry should take the lead here, with help from Government;

  (d) the Government's research strategy for bovine tuberculosis should be redirected, and in particular there should be new work on developing a vaccine to protect cattle against TB.

  The Government recognise that the subjects covered by the report are of profound concern both to those in badger conservation groups, and to livestock farmers. Account also needs to be taken of the fact that bovine tuberculosis can be transmitted to humans, although the number of cases is very low because of measures such as milk pasteurisation. The Government are therefore setting a period of two months (until 27 February 1998) for comments on how the recommendations should be implemented.

  Departmental Wages
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many full-time employees in his department are paid at an hourly rate of between(a) £3.42 and £3.50, (b) £3.51 and £3.75 and (c) £3.76 and £4. [20612]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Staff in the Department and Agencies are salaried and are not paid by the hour. However, I am able to provide a breakdown based on salary levels divided by normal full-time working hours of 36 hours per week in London or 37 hours elsewhere. This is as set out. The figures are based on 1997 salaries which took effect from 1 April.

  Full-time staffpaid between£3.42 and£3.50/hour

  Full-time staffpaid between£3.51 and£3.75

  Full-time staffpaid between£3.76 and£4/hour

  Core-MAFF

  57

  561

  86

  PSD

  10

  2

  0

  VMD

  0

  0

  0

  VLA

  0

  0

  0

  CSL

  0

  0

  1

  MHS

  0

  0

  6

  CEFAS

  0

  1

  0

  FRCA

  0

  1

  0

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals to improve farm animals' welfare he has received from the Council of Ministers to be carried forward during the UK presidency of the EU. [20977]
  138
  Mr. Morley
  The last time the European Commission submitted a proposal on farm animal welfare for consideration by the Council of Ministers was in June 1997. This was the proposal concerning additional standards for road vehicles used to carry livestock on journeys exceeding eight hours, which is currently under discussion in the Council. We have been pressing the Commission hard—but so far fruitlessly—to bring forward their overdue proposals to update the EU rules on the welfare of laying hens and the welfare of animals and poultry at slaughter, as well as their promised proposal to safeguard the health status of breeding pigs resting at staging points. These are all subjects we wish to progress during our forthcoming Presidency. We will keep up our pressure on the Commission.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the current review of social security will include the system for paying funeral expenses to poor families. [16860]

  Mr. Denham
  The payment of funeral expenses will not be considered specifically within the current review programme. We will, however, consider whether changes to the scheme are needed during the Department's on-going review of Social Security.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to protect sufferers of asbestos-related diseases from the provisions of the Social Security Bill in respect of the backdating of claims to one month. [19324]

  Mr. Bradley
  The proposed rules will provide for up to one month's automatic backdating for non-income related benefits and up to month's backdating of claims for income-related benefits in specified situations. This will include circumstances where the person is ill or disabled and has no relative, friend or adviser to assist them in making a claim. There will also be a number of exceptions which may allow backdating beyond the one month limit.

  People suffering from mesothelioma will continue to benefit from the removal of the 90-day waiting period for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and the widening of the range of occupations covered for this disease.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the numbers of lone parents who are owner occupiers; and how many such lone parents are in receipt of mortgage interest support. [18085]

  Mr. Bradley
  The estimated number of lone parents who are owner occupiers is 520,000. The latest available information shows that 97,000 lone parents are in receipt of mortgage interest payments through the benefit system.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of lone parent premium there were in each year since 1990; and how many new claims for lone parent premium were made in each year. [18083]
  139
  Mr. Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Lone parent premium recipients in Great Britain May 1990 to February 1997

  000s

  Enquiry

  One or more listedbenefit

  Income support

  Income-basedJobseeker'sAllowance

  HousingBenefit/Council TaxBenefit

  May 1990

  900

  790

  n/a

  110

  May 1991

  980

  870

  n/a

  110

  May 1992

  1,070

  960

  n/a

  110

  May 1993

  1,130

  1,010

  n/a

  120

  May 1994

  1,180

  1,040

  n/a

  140

  May 1995

  1,210

  1,060

  n/a

  150

  May 1996

  1,230

  1,060

  n/a

  170

  February 1997

  1,030

  1,020

  10

  n/a

  Notes

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  2. Income Support sample size: 1 per cent. up to and including 1993, 5 per cent. thereafter.

  3. Figures include estimates due to the data collection procedure in Scotland.

  4. The information does not include second adult rebate cases.

  5. Community Charge Benefit was replaced by Council Tax Benefit from April 1993.

  6. Housing benefit/Council Tax Benefit and Community Charge Benefit figures exclude those receiving Income Support, and the overlap between Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  7. Information is not available on the number of new claims from lone parents made in the same period.

  Sources

  1. Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry, 1991.

  2. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 1997.

  3. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries without Income Support, taken at the end of May in each year given.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she plans to publish the reports comparing the control groups and the control areas for the New Deal for Lone Parents scheme. [20052]

  Mr. Bradley
  The final report is scheduled for publication in autumn 1999.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if it is the objective of the New Deal for Lone Parents scheme to get lone parents into full-time work; [20039]

  (2) how many of the 433 lone parents who have got work through the New Deal for Lone Parents have full-time jobs; and how many are no longer claiming benefits. [20027]

  Mr. Bradley
  The objective of the New Deal for Lone Parents is to help lone parents on Income Support improve their incomes by assisting them to take up or increase paid work.

  We do not expect that all lone parents moving into work will be able to do so on a full-time basis. There will be individuals whose personal circumstances are such that this will not be a viable option. We know, however, that the majority of lone parents want to work, and we expect that their aim will be to move towards financial independence.
  140
  Up to the end of November, 864 lone parents had been helped into work through the Government's New Deal for Lone Parents. Although the majority will have moved into work of 16 or more hours per week, information on the hours of work is not yet available in all cases. Of the 655 cases where information is currently available, 568 lone parents had moved into work of 16 or more hours per week. Of this group, 540 are not currently receiving Income Support.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the mortgage interest rate paid by the Benefits Agency for those on income support. [19351]

  Mr. Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 856.

  Tax and Benefit Rates
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on the number of people facing combined marginal withdrawal rates of tax on benefits of(a) 100 per cent. or above, (b) 90 per cent. or above, (c) 80 per cent. or above, (d) 70 per cent. or above, (e) 60 per cent. or above and (f) 50 per cent. or above of cutting the taper on family credit and on housing benefit by 10 per cent., if no other changes were made to the tax and benefit system. [19257]

  Mr. Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Marginal tax rate

  Difference in numbers facing highmarginal tax rates, following a reductionof 10 per cent. in the family credit andhousing benefit tapers

  100+

  1—

  90+

  -60,000

  80+

  -195,000

  70+

  +45,000

  60+

  +200,000

  50+

  +210,000

  1 Denotes less than 2,500.

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  2. Figures are calculated for benefit units where at least one partner works 16 hours or more.

  3. Figures are based on the 1994–95 Family Resources Survey, uprated to 1996–97 levels of prices and benefit rates.

  Disability Payments
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made as to the proportion of those currently receiving disability living allowance who would be eligible for employment options under the New Deal programmes. [19466]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age, and we are introducing New Deal programmes to help into work the young unemployed; the long-term unemployed; and lone parents. Those Disability Living Allowance recipients who are also receiving Jobseeker's Allowance will have access to the New Deal programmes for the young unemployed and the long-term unemployed, which will both include opportunities for subsidised employment; and Disability
  141
  Living Allowance recipients bringing up children on their own will be able to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  Under our New Deal for people with a disability or long-term illness, we have set aside up to £195 million to finance a range of options aimed at helping participants to move into or stay in work. As a first stage we are this week initiating the bidding process under which we will fund a number of innovative schemes. We also plan to introduce personal advisers to help people overcome barriers to work, initially on a modest scale. These initiatives will inform decisions about how best to offer help to all those sick and disabled people who need it. Under this programme Disability Living Allowance recipients who are not in a job would be offered help to move into work; and where necessary those who already had jobs would be offered help to stay in work.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for the future of attendance allowance benefits. [17876]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to creating a modern Social Security system which effectively tackles poverty and welfare dependency, and which provides help where it is most needed. As a first step we are undertaking a comprehensive review of the Department's expenditure. The review is wide-ranging and includes consideration of the complex range of benefits paid to people who are disabled or have health problems. We want to end the exclusion of disabled people; to empower them to play a full part in society, and to develop an approach which focuses on people's abilities and their capacities instead of their disabilities and incapacity.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement as to the planned date of publication of the report on the review of the disability living allowance. [17651]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: We are committed to creating a modern Social Security system which effectively tackles poverty and welfare dependency, and which provides help where it is most needed. As a first step we are undertaking a comprehensive review of the Department's expenditure. The review is wide-ranging and includes consideration of the complex range of benefits paid to people who are disabled or have health problems. We want to end the exclusion of disabled people; to empower them to play a full part in society, and to develop an approach which focuses on people's abilities and their capacities instead of their disabilities and incapacity.

  Direct Payments (Fuel)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he proposes to take to ensure that eligible households continue to have access to the fuel direct payment method. [19698]

  Mr. Bradley
  We have no current plans to change the basis of the direct payments scheme which is available to all claimants receiving Income Support and income based Jobseeker's Allowance who meet the qualifying criteria.

  Students
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions the Scottish Office Education Department have had with the Department of Social Security on a common definition of a full-time student; and if he will make a statement. [19759]

  Mr. Bradley
  No discussions have taken place between the two Departments but any proposals for a common definition of a full-time student for Social Security and student support purposes would be subject to consultation with all interested Departments, including the Scottish Office.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the amount lost to the Government through benefit fraud for the year 1996–97 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [19233]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: The previous Administration estimated the level of fraud at £4 billion a year. This figure relates to Great Britain as a whole. There is no separate estimate for Scotland.

  The Government are currently examining the estimate of fraud in the light of further analysis of the findings of the on-going programme of benefit reviews.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value in today's figures of the national insurance contributions paid by an employee on(a) average industrial earnings, (b) twice average industrial earnings and (c) three times average industrial earnings in the periods (i) 1967–77, (ii) 1977–87 and (iii) 1987–97. [19915]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested as average industrial earnings data are not available. Information based on the average weekly earnings index for male manual employees produced by the Office of National Statistics is set out in the table.

  Total contributions paid at November 1997 prices

  Period

  Averageearnings£

  Twice averageearnings£

  Three times average earnings£

  1967–77

  6,540.85

  7,755.96

  7,755.96

  1977–87

  10,160.22

  16,108.92

  16,108.92

  1987–97

  12,476.04

  19,877.64

  19,877.64

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what uniform rate of employer national insurance contributions would be required on earnings above the lower earning limit to maintain current employer NICs revenues, if employer NICs were to be abolished on the slice of earnings below the LEL. [20992]

  Mr. Denham
  If this change took effect from April 1998 a single employer contribution rate of 11.6 per cent. would be needed to maintain contribution revenues for 1998–99.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if those aged under 25 years who lose their entitlement to jobseeker's allowance by refusing to take up any of the four options which have been offered to them under the Welfare to Work scheme will also lose their entitlement to any other benefits they are receiving. [20026]

  Mr. Bradley
  Young people who are sanctioned because they unreasonably refuse to take up one of the four options offered under the New Deal, will lose their Jobseeker's Allowance but retain passported benefits such as Housing and Council Tax Benefit, and other benefits unaffected by the sanction, such as Child Benefit.

  Sensory Disabilities
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to increase awareness of existing disability benefits amongst people with sensory disabilities. [20706]

  Mr. Denhani
  Modernising the Social Security System is one of this Government's key priorities. We are committed to ensuring that the benefits system is accessible to all the Department's clients.

  The publicity of existing disability benefits is an operational matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 15 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security asked Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what plans she has to increase awareness of existing disability benefits amongst people with sensory disabilities. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  The Benefits Agency aims to ensure that all customers have equality of access to the benefits system. We provide information in alternative formats for people with disabilities, including information for deaf, blind and partially sighted people.
  For blind and partially sighted people we currently produce information in braille, large print and on audio cassette. A new edition of FB19, A guide for blind and partially sighted people— social security benefits, will be available for customers in January 1998. Also, in April 1998 we will be re-launching our series of videos for deaf people which will be presented using British Sign Language (BSL) and will be subtitled.
  These products are produced in consultation with customer representative organisations in order to ensure that they provide the best possible access for customers with specialist needs. We evaluate and develop these products continuously.
  The recently announced overhaul of benefits literature will of course encompass material for people with sensory disabilities and consideration of the most appropriate alternative formats.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated savings which will arise from the changes to invalidity benefit and the introduction of incapacity benefit in 1998–99. [21096]

  Mr. Denham
  We estimate the savings in 1998–99 to be £1,830 million.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the people who will receive reduced council tax benefit under the proposed restrictions will be(a) renters, (b) owner-occupiers with mortgages and (c) owner occupiers who own outright. [20991]

  Mr. Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. The known tenure of benefit units receiving reduced Council Tax Benefit under the proposed restrictions is set out in the table:

  000s

  Tenure

  Number affected

  Rented

  20

  Owner-occupied1

  25

  Not identified2

  15

  Total

  65

  1 It is not possible to say how many of these have mortgages, although it includes approximately 10,000 who get help with mortgage interest through Income Support and Jobseekeer's Allowance (income based).

  2 It is likely that the majority of these cases will be owner-occupiers.

  1. Information is based on the May 1995 Housing Benefit Management Information System 1 per cent. sample, uprated in line with the forecasts behind the 1997 Departmental Report.

  2. Numbers of recipients have been rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  3. Total will not sum due to rounding.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Household Growth
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new homes that will need to be built in the Leicestershire countryside to accommodate projections of household growth. [19403]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have made no such estimate. The number and location of new homes in Leicestershire is primarily a matter for the relevant local authority to consider through the development plan process. My Department has published projections of household growth for counties, but not for areas within them.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for a regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside. [19404]

  Mr. Caborn
  Where there is popular demand in individual English regions, we will legislate for the establishment of a directly elected regional assembly— but that is not for the present Parliament.

  In the meantime we will build on the arrangements for regional chambers which are being established by local authorities and others on a voluntary basis.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the role of parish councils within regional development agencies. [19405]
  145
  Mr. Caborn
  Regional development agencies will build on the constructive relationships that the Rural Development Commission has established with parish councils and other local bodies.

  Green Belt Land
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on new building on green belt land. [19406]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's policy on Green Belts is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2. There remains a presumption against inappropriate development in Green Belts unless there are very special circumstances justifying the development which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the role of the green belt in encouraging economic activity in inner city areas. [19408]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 1993 my Department published a research study "The Effectiveness of Green Belts" which highlighted the role of Green Belts in helping urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Planning Policy Guidance note 2 on Green Belts was revised in 1995 to take account of the research results.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution of coal-fired power generation to the output of greenhouse gases. [19407]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to "Energy Paper 65", which was published in March 1995. This gives the projections for energy use and energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide for the period 1995 to 2020, and includes projections of power station fuel use and total power station carbon dioxide emissions.

  Transport (London)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the proposed Greater London Authority will have powers to invest in London Transport Underground Ltd. [19410.]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proposed Greater London Authority, working through the London Transport Authority, will have a duty to produce and deliver an integrated transport strategy for London, which will need to include the Underground. As our Green Paper made clear, the LTA's role should include oversight of the public private partnership for the London Underground which we are urgently developing.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in response to the changes in SSA announced in the 1998–99 local government settlement. [19411]
  146
  Ms Armstrong
  We have received a number of representations from local authorities and others on Standard Spending Assessments.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his review of the mechanisms in respect of local government finance. [19412]

  Ms Armstrong
  We announced the review of local government finance in July, taking forward our Manifesto commitments, in close collaboration with local government, business and other representative organisations. We will be consulting more widely on possible changes shortly and set out our proposals on Local Government in a White Paper next spring.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in response to the changes in economic and social needs indices announced in the 1998–99 local government settlement. [19416]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in response to the changes in economic and social needs indices announced in the 1998–99 local government settlement. [19418]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have received a number of representations from local authorities and others in response to the changes in the economic and social needs indices announced in the provisional 1998–99 local government finance settlement.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a statement on the outcome of his review into the area cost adjustment. [19415]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to commission further research to examine the specific cost approach to calculating the area cost adjustment element of standard spending assessments.

  The research should report in May 1998. We will discuss its findings with the Local Government Association. Decisions will be taken on Standard Spending Assessments for 1999–2000 next autumn.

  Permitted Pollutants (Quotas)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to introduce schemes to permit the trading of quotas of permitted pollutants. [19414]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to implement the best package of instruments for delivering existing and future environmental policy commitments. These in principle may include the trading of emissions quotas, as well as pollution charges or other instruments. There are no current proposals for the introduction of Emissions Quota Trading.

  Thames Gateway Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions which regional development agency will take the lead responsibility for the Thames gateway initiative. [19417]
  147
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Thames Gateway area will be covered by the Regional Development Agencies for London, the South East and the Eastern Region. It will be for these three Agencies to agree on arrangements for handling issues such as the Thames Gateway, which straddle their boundaries. This will include whether one of the Agencies should take a lead responsibility and, if so, which one should take that role.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the role of the Rural Development Commission following the introduction of regional development agencies. [19419]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are considering this as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. We expect to reach conclusions in the New Year.

  Peripheral Areas (Economic Regeneration)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to assist the economic regeneration of peripheral areas of the country. [19420]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to pursuing policies that pursue jobs, growth, and competitiveness in a sustainable way that is compatible with protecting the environment and promoting social cohesion. This commitment is put into practice through initiatives such as the Single Regeneration Budget which supports partnership-led projects which address local needs and priorities. Our proposal to establish regional development agencies in England from 1 April 1999 will ensure that these policies and initiatives are taken forward in a way which takes account of all interests within regions—urban, rural, sub-regional and local.

  Kyoto Summit
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Kyoto summit on climate change. [19421]

  Mr. Prescott
  This Government are committed to tackling the threat of climate change. The role we played in securing a deal in Kyoto demonstrated this to the world. I will be making a statement on the outcome of the Kyoto conference straight after these questions.

  Personal Social Services
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on social service provision of the change in the level fo the SSA for personal social services. [19422]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No such assessment has been made, because the impact of any change in the level of the SSA for personal social services depends upon local 148
  authorities' decisions on the size and allocation of their budgets.

  A3 Hindhead Tunnel
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the A3 Hindhead tunnel. [19433]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received a considerable number of representations about the A3 Hindhead Improvement. We are considering these as part of the Roads review.

  Rail Underground Integrated Ticketing
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to integrate ticket sales between the rail network and London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [19434]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Train operators and London Transport already have joint ticketing initiatives which cover rail, underground and bus services. We are keen to build on this. It is important that London has a properly integrated transport network, including ticketing. That is why our plans for London governance include establishing a Greater London Authority charged with devising and implementing an integrated transport policy.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to encourage the timeous completion of the channel tunnel rail link. [19435]

  Dr. Strang
  Under the CTRL Development Agreement, London and Continental Railways are contractually committed to completing the rail link within five and a half years of their securing the main financing of the project.

  Rail Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage co-operation between Railtrack and train operating companies over infrastructure projects requiring major financial investment. [19436]

  Dr. Strang
  Railtrack's licence now requires the company to consult train operators more fully on its investment plans. We have given the Franchising Director a remit to secure cost effective investment in the network. We are committed to establishing a new rail authority, with stronger powers to promote investment.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to encourage local councils to introduce traffic calming measures. [19437]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Traffic calming is already well established in the UK. it is one of the tools used in
  149
  managing traffic better and in improving road safety. Traffic calming has proved to be effective in constraining vehicle speed and in reducing the number and severity of road accidents, particularly in residential areas.

  The Department provides local authorities with guidance and advice on traffic calming measures through our Traffic Advisory leaflets and day-to-day technical advice.

  Transport Noise
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for noise reduction measures on existing roads. [19438]

  Dr. Strang
  There are several alternative approaches for reducing the noise of traffic on existing roads which need to be considered more fully. Tackling the problem of traffic noise will be an important element in our Integrated Transport policy which will be published as a White Paper next year.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide assistance to people who are subject to the effects of transport noise. [19441]

  Dr. Strang
  The adverse impacts of transport noise are an important concern for Government. There have been significant reductions in the noise from new road vehicles and aircraft, which have led to marked improvements in the noise climate, although in the longer term projections suggest that without further improvements, previous reductions in noise from vehicles would be offset in many areas by traffic growth. We are considering policies on noise as an important strand in the development of our Integrated Transport Policy, on which we will be publishing a White Paper next year.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make provisions in the Highways Agency budget to provide greater soundproofing of existing motorways. [19447]

  Dr. Strang
  There are several approaches to reducing the noise of traffic on existing roads which need to be considered more fully. Tackling the problem of traffic noise will be an important element in our integrated transport policy which will be published as a White Paper next year.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met London Underground management to discuss the future of London Underground. [19439]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions last met the Chairman of London Transport and the Managing Director of London Underground on 3 December.

  European State Airline Subsidies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to meet the European Transport Commissioner to discuss subsidies to European state airlines. [19440]

  Dr. Strang
  I meet Commissioner Kinnock from time to time, when we discuss a range of aviation and other transport issues.

  Integrated Transport Strategy
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress towards an integrated transport strategy in rural areas. [19442]

  Dr. Strang
  The question of how best to deliver an integrated transport strategy for rural areas is being given full consideration in our fundamental review of transport policy. Our proposals for implementing that strategy will be set out in the forthcoming transport White Paper.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage the purchase of new rolling stock in the privatised railway system. [19443]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Existing franchise agreements already include commitments by franchisees to introduce new rolling stock. However, we want to see even more new rolling stock orders and we expect the rolling stock leasing companies to play a big role in procuring new trains, taking reasonable commercial risks to achieve high levels of investment in the rail industry.

  Vehicle Approval Test
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the design of American cars failed the new single vehicle type approval test. [19444]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Earlier this year, some American cars failed the pilot single vehicle approval test for various reasons related to at least one of the following—lighting, rear-view mirrors, interior fittings, exterior projections and deep-tinted glazing. However, the recent proposals to relax the SVA requirements and recognise American standards would reduce the reasons to lighting and, for a few cases only, mirrors and exterior projections.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received expressing concern about the introduction of the single vehicle approval test on 1 January 1998; if he will make delay the introduction of the test; and if he will make a statement. [20709]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: We have received nearly 1,600 such representations, the majority of which are pre-printed duplicates. The mandatory aspects of SVA that were due to come into effect on 1 January 1998 for cars originating outside the European Union have for the time being been postponed until 1 May 1998, because the European Commission has instructed us to defer implementing the proposals set out in our recent consultation.

  Road Vehicles (Fuel Efficiency)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase fuel efficiency in road vehicles. [19445]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are a number of measures in place to increase fuel efficiency, including the 6 per cent. annual fuel duty increases announced by the Chancellor in July, the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force and negotiating with the motor manufacturers a voluntary agreement at European level. We will be considering further measures as part of the new climate change programme we will be developing next year.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Miss Mcintosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the financing of the National Air Traffic Services. [19446]

  Dr. Strang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London on 3 November 1997,Official Report, column 63.

  We are considering a range of options for the financing of NATS.

  Local Government Employees
  Mr. David Steward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions when the review into the political restrictions affecting local government employees will be completed. [19409]

  Ms Armstrong
  We intend, in the New Year, to publish for consultation any proposals for change resulting from the review.

  Lost Shipping (The Gaul)
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 295, if he will publish the report from HMS Mohawk dealing with her involvement in the search and rescue operation conducted following the disappearance of The Gaul. [20356]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  HMS Mohawk was one of several vessels that took part in the search of the Eastern Greenland and Western Barents Seas between 11 and 14 February 1974. The search was co-ordinated from HMS Hermes and a report of the search was filed on 19 February. A complete narrative of events is included at Annexe A of that report. Both the report and the narrative give details of HMS Mohawk's contribution to the search operation. The report has been retrieved from files held by the Marine Safety Agency and copies of the report and the Annexe have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 295, what the (a) contents and (b) sources were of the 13 reports received on the possible location of the wreck of The Gaul. [20353]
  152
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The positions reported and their sources were:

  72°04'N

  25°05'E: RAIRO—Norwegian fishing vessel

  72°10'N

  27°45/'E: POSEIDON—German support vessel

  72°03'N

  25°04'E: MARBELLA—UK fishing vessel

  72°13'N:

  23°40'E: ELLA HEWITT—UK fishing vessel

  72°N

  25°E: SWANELLA—UK fishing vessel

  71°20'N

  28°25'E: ROVER—UK fishing vessel

  70°40'N

  16°54'E: Unnamed Soviet merchant vessel

  71°43'N

  27°07'E: ROSS CANAVERAL—UK fishing vessel

  71°20'N:

  28°25': Norwegian Maritime Authority

  72°13'N

  24°20'E: MHS RHYL—Royal Navy vessel

  71°37'N

  29°50'E: LORD NELSON—UK fishing vessel

  71°30'N

  27°00'E: ST. ROMAN—UK merchant vessel

  72°10'N

  27°45'E: Norwegian Coastguard Search and Rescue Report.

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 296, what was the cost of each proposal received to search for the wreck of The Gaul. [20357]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Five proposals were received in the two years following the loss of The Gaul. Their cost estimates ranged from £15,000 to £100,000.

  Rail Staff (Redundancies)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff employed by(a) the British Railways Board and (b) its successor companies, have been made redundant during each of the last 10 years. [20469]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from the British Railways Board that, in each year from 1987–88 to 1996–97, the following numbers of British Rail staff were made redundant:

  Year

  Number of staff

  1987–88

  2,000 (approx.)

  1988–89

  2,200 (approx.)

  1989–90

  1,700 (approx.)

  1990–91

  850 (approx.)

  1991–92

  800 (approx.)

  1992–93

  8,500 (approx.)

  1993–94

  8,000 (approx.)

  1994–95

  6,322

  1995–96

  3,568

  1996–97

  1,700 (approx.)

  153
  Equivalent information for BR successor companies is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on public safety of the changed rules for testing the maintenance and operation of the signalling system recently introduced by Railtrack. [20402]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that Railtrack's rules and procedures for signalling works testing are set out in mandatory Railway Group Standards. These published engineering standards are amended as necessary from time to time. The safe maintenance and testing of railway signalling is a matter for Railtrack, unless there is reason to believe that their systems are deficient. The Health and Safety Executive has informed me that Railtrack's overall performance in terms of signalling safety demonstrates a high standard, and that it has no reasons at present for major concerns on this subject.

  Railways (Station Staff)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff were employed on station duties involving direct contact with the public(a) by each of the British Rail train operating units during their final year of operation and (b) by each of the franchised train operating companies in the latest year for which figures are available. [20471]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not available centrally. British Rail did not maintain records of numbers of staff employed on station duties involving direct contact with the public. Any such figures relating to franchised train operators are an operational matter for them.

  Swale Crossing
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the need for the second Swale crossing; and if he will make a statement. [20352]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received a considerable number of representations on the need for the second Swale crossing, which would be provided by the A249 Iwade-Queensborough Improvement scheme. Most of the representations express strong support for the scheme. We are currently considering all representations as part of the Roads Review consultation.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his recent visit to India. [20940]

  Mr. Prescott
  I briefly visited India on 20 November as part of a series of round-the-world meetings I had in the build-up to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Kyoto. In India, I met Prime Minister Gujral and Professor Soz, Minster for the Environment and Forests and had useful discussions with them about 154
  climate change and transport matters. We were able to work closely with the Indian delegation and other developing countries in the subsequent Kyoto Conference.

  Property Transfer Rules
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to complete his Department's review of property transfer rules and house purchase practices. [21022]

  Ms Armstrong
  Following a successful pilot study, the main stage of a wide-ranging study to track house sales and purchases will commence in January. I expect to be in a position to announce the results of the study next autumn.

  Departmental Wages
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many full-time employees in his Department are paid at an hourly rate of(a) £3.17, (b) between £3.17 and £3.50, (c) between £3.51 and £3.75 and (d) between £3.76 and £4. [20604]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The number of staff earning these hourly rates is as follows:

  (a) £3.17 an hour: 30

  (b) between £3.17 and £3.50: 801

  (c) between £3.51 and £3.75: 138

  (d) between £3.76 and £4.00: 65.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of the previous Government's road building schemes have been subjected to cost benefit analysis in the course of his Department's Roads Review. [20558]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: During their development, all of the previous Government's road building schemes have been subjected to cost benefit analysis. No new information has been collected in the course of the current Roads Review which would enable a new cost benefit analysis to be carried out. Existing information is being reassessed in the light of the five fundamental criteria (accessibility, safety, economy, the environment and integration) identified in the Roads Review consultation paper "What Role for Trunk Roads in England?"

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the guidelines which the Highways Agency follows in determining whether or not it conducts a cost benefit analysis for new road schemes; and what changes he has made to these guidelines since 1 May. [20559]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The Highways Agency carries out a formal cost benefit analysis using the computer program COBA (or, in certain circumstances, URECA) for all new road schemes costing more than £1 million. Schemes costing less than that amount are also subject to economic appraisal conforming to the same economic principles and using the same economic parameters, but may employ less

  155
  sophisticated methods. No changes have been made to these guidelines since 1 May. A new road assessment methodology is being considered as part of our strategic Roads Review.

  London Government
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out his proposals on the London referendum campaign; if he will make a statement on the costs of(a) his Department's White Paper and (b) publicity campaigns in respect of the referendum; and if he will list the other costs to public funds incurred to date in respect of the proposals. [20409]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: It is our intention that the London referendum campaign should inform Londoners of what it is they will be voting on and encourage them to use their vote. The early part of the campaign will highlight, in particular, the availability of votes by post or proxy. The campaign will be factual and neutral. The Government will not provide any state aid to campaigns either for or against the proposal.

  The budget allocation for the White Paper is £350,000, which includes the cost of distributing a summary leaflet to every household in London, translating the leaflet in eight languages in addition to English, and producing versions of the leaflet in braille, large print and audio cassette formats.

  The total budget allocation for the referendum publicity campaign, including back-up services, is £950,000.

  Expenditure incurred to date in respect of our proposals for the Greater London Authority totals an estimated £204,500. This includes £75,000 on the Green Paper and associated summary leaflet, £16,000 on other research, £13,500 on factfinding trips to America, Germany and Spain and approximately £100,000 on departmental staff costs.

  Trunk Roads (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will conduct a review of the siting of verge safety fencing on trunk roads in Staffordshire. [20556]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 16 December 1997:
  Glenda Jackson has asked me to reply to your recent question about conducting a review of the siting of verge safety fencing on trunk roads in Staffordshire.
  A review of verge safety fencing was already commissioned and we expect a report from our agents, Staffordshire County Council, in the early part of next year. As soon as we have had an opportunity to consider the recommendations I will write to you again to keep you informed.
  You may also be interested to learn that our programme for installing central reserve safety fencing on existing trunk roads is progressing well. Currently two further schemes are being installed
  156
  in Staffordshire this financial year. One, on the A38 between Weeford and Bassett's Pole and the other along the A34 between Walton and Darlaston.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Outdoor Advertising Sites
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the Exchequer of the avoidance of the payment of business rates on outdoor advertising sites; and if he will make a statement. [20715]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has no information on which to make such an estimate. All property liable for non-domestic rates is to be entered on rating lists, the maintenance of which is the statutory duty of the Valuation Office.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he was notified that plutonium was being shipped from Sellafield in roll-on roll-off ferries; how many shipments and how much plutonium has been carried since October 1996; how much plutonium and how many shipments are planned in the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [20289]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The then Department of Transport was notified of such a shipment in June 1996: a single shipment has since taken place, in October 1996, containing 83 kg of plutonium as non-irradiated mixed oxide fuel. Details of future plans are a commercial matter for BNFL.

  Local Authority Pensions
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals in the local government settlement on local authority pension provision. [19399]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This year's Local Government Finance Settlement took full account of the pension liability of local authorities.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many driving licence holders have had their licences revoked under section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in each of the past five years. [21232]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of driving licences revoked on medical grounds for each of the last five years is as follows. The figures relate to great Britain (separate figures for Scotland are not available).

  1992: 11,072

  1993: 9,246

  1994: 9,637

  1995: 11,025

  1996: 11,127

  1997: 11,273 (to date).

  157
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many persons applying for a driving licence have had a licence refused under section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in each of the past five years. [21234]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of driving licences refused on medical grounds for each of the last five years is as follows. The figures relate to Great Britain—separate figures for Scotland are not available.

  1992: 7,450

  1993: 5,928

  1994:5,911

  1995: 5,602

  1996: 6,365

  1997: 6,381 (to date).

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many driving licence holders who have had their licences revoked under section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 have appealed under section 100 against the revocation of a licence in each of the last five years; [21233]

  (2) how many persons who have applied for a driving licence and have had a licence refused under section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 have appealed under section 100 against the refusal of a licence in each of the past five years. [21235]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not kept separately for licences which are refused and revoked. The total figures are as follows (figures in brackets relate to Scotland).

  Programme

  1995–96 outturn

  1996–97 estimated outturn

  1997–98 plans

  1998–99 plans

  Housing and construction

  6,638

  15,939

  15,118

  5,529

  Regeneration

  1,351

  1,374

  1,397

  1,206

  Environment Protection

  361

  377

  363

  2354

  Countryside

  127

  126

  125

  123

  Non-AEF Local Government3

  309

  226

  378

  482

  Motorways and trunk roads

  1,760

  1,573

  1,491

  1,352

  London Transport4

  903

  918

  651

  300

  Croydon Tramlink

  0

  25

  50

  40

  Civil Aviation Authority

  34

  -13

  -34

  -40

  Railways5

  501

  1,010

  1,846

  1,774

  Other transport services grant6

  991

  876

  795

  684

  Other DETR7

  836

  901

  785

  763

  Total DETR8

  13,812

  13,330

  12,964

  12,565

  Ordnance Survey

  13

  12

  7

  4

  Office of Water Services

  9

  19

  10

  10

  Office of Rail Regulator

  9

  8

  9

  9

  1 This line is reduced to reflect receipts from the sale of the Housing Corporation's loans portfolio of £500 million in 1996–97 and £652 million in 1997–98.

  2 Includes technical adjustments to the Environment Agency's baseline amounting to £2.4 million and a transfer of £2 million from Administration for RIMNET (Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network).

  3 The Department's spending on local government outside of Aggregate External Finance.

  4 1997–98 figure includes £2 million for Channel Tunnel Rail Link related works but excludes £58 million carried forward from previous years. 1998–99 figure excludes funding for CTRL related works (which has been transferred to the Railways line).

  5 Includes some privatisation effects (receipts from sale of businesses—other than Railtrack—less profits lost when businesses are sold). In particular, for 1997–98 and 1998–99, includes deferred ROSCO (rolling stock company) receipts of £43 million and £26 million.

  6 Includes expenditure on local transport.

  7 Includes administration costs and Health and Safety Executive.

  8 Roundings may mean totals do not quite sum. 1998–99 total reflects a £10 million transfer to the Home Office and the surrender to the Exchequer of £10 million which is no longer required because Housing Revenue Account Subsidy debt commutation will not now take place.

  158

  1994: 22 (2)

  1995: 39 (5)

  1996: 57 (19)

  1997: 47 (10) (to November).

  Figures for previous years are not available.

  Departmental Spending Plans
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to make any changes to the 1998–99 departmental spending plans for which he is responsible. [21373]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government are currently in the middle of their Comprehensive Spending Review. We are also working hard on developing an integrated transport strategy, the conclusions of which will be published in a White Paper next Spring.

  The Government are committed to retaining public expenditure next year within the overall planned spending limits and some tough decisions have had to be made. Within my Department's total spending ceiling, however, I shall be making some changes. In particular, I shall make some extra resources available for health and safety and environment protection, and make sure that we derive the best possible value from transport expenditure. With the latter in mind, I shall be increasing 1998–99 provision for trunk roads maintenance compared with provision this year to prevent further wasteful deterioration and for grant aimed at taking freight off the roads.

  Spending plans for 1998–99 (expressed in £ millions) across my programmes can be summarised as follows:
  159
  Full details of these plans will be set out in the 1998 Departmental Annual Report which is expected to be published in March.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to make an announcement about the distribution to local authorities of capital resources for housing for 1998–99. [21374]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are committed to providing good quality homes for everyone and today I am pleased to announce a package of funding that will help local authorities provide new homes with registered social landlords, improve the housing stock and help reinvigorate communities.

  Councils will receive Housing Investment Programme allocations totalling nearly £770 million for 1998–99. There is £544 million for general purpose allocations, or housing "Annual Capital Guidelines", £166 million for private sector renewal and £59 million for disabled facilities grants.

  In addition to Housing Investment Programme allocations, councils will receive allocations under the Capital Receipts Initiative of nearly £570 million. These have been allocated two-thirds in accordance with
  160
  assessed need and one third in accordance with the total of eligible set-aside receipts generated by each authority between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1997. These much needed resources will begin to redress years of under-investment in housing.

  We have made changes in the way that the HIP resources are allocated by moving away from a fully competitive system to a system which places greater emphasis on need. The HIP allocation has therefore been made half on the basis of need and half on the basis of Ministerial discretion, which takes into account the assessment of each authority's efficiency and effectiveness in meeting housing need in their area.

  In addition we are releasing, for the first time, the Government's assessment of all authorities' performance relative to other authorities in the same region. Four factors are assessed: housing strategies, programme delivery, housing management and tenant involvement. Each authority has then been placed in one of four performance bands. Publishing performance bands will encourage authorities to improve their performance, particularly those which are below average.

  I am depositing tables in the Library of the House showing each authority's performance band, Annual Capital Guideline, allocations for private sector renewal and disabled facilities grant and allocation under the Capital Receipts Initiative for 1998–99.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the annual production of nuclear waste at(a) Rosyth dockyard, (b) Devonport dockyard and (c) the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, for each year from 1986 to date, broken down by category of waste; and how much of each category of waste is presently held at each site. [19783]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 December 1997]: The annual figures for the production of nuclear waste at the Atomic WeaponsEstablishment (AWE) Aldermaston for the years 1986 to date, and the current holding, are set out as follows:

  AWE Aldermaston

  Year

  Low level wasteSolids(m3)

  Intermediate levelwasteSolids(m3)

  1986

  3,776

  162

  1987

  1,910

  219

  1988

  824

  230

  1989

  1,350

  152

  1990

  1,775

  103

  1991

  1,512

  154

  1992

  1,594

  141

  1993

  2,205

  71

  1994

  1,676

  36

  1995

  1,626

  41

  1996

  1,728

  78

  Current holdings on site

  487

  2,549

  The date for Rosyth and Devonport Royal Dockyards is maintained by the companies that now own the Dockyards, as required under the terms of their nuclear site licences.

  For Low Level Waste, the figures available from 1986 to date, and shown in the table, are based on the volume of waste disposed of, not the volume of waste produced, but a close relationship between the two may be assumed. Current holdings of Low Level Waste are also shown.

  Royal Dockyards—Low level waste (Solids)

  Year

  Rosyth (m3)

  Devonport (m3)

  1986

  130

  Not held

  1987

  192

  211

  1988

  116

  40

  1989

  76

  72

  1990

  171

  108

  1991

  38

  54

  1992

  53

  86

  1993

  31

  20

  1994

  127

  75

  1995

  96

  126

  1996

  154

  40

  Current holdings on site (estimated)

  31

  27

  For Intermediate Level Waste, the production figures are not readily available in this form as they do not have to be recorded year on year. Intermediate Level Waste holdings change as new waste is produced, and as
  162
  accumulated waste undergoes radioactive decay until it changes into Low Level Waste and can be disposed of. There is no straightforward correlation between holding and production figures. Current holdings of Intermediate Level Waste are as follows:

  Royal Dockyards—Intermediate level waste (Solids)

  Year

  Rosyth(m3)

  Devonport (m3)

  Current holdings on site (estimated)

  20

  25

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines are currently awaiting disposal; where they are presently located; and what estimate he has made of the amount of nuclear material present in each submarine, separated into high, intermediate and low. [19786]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 December 1997]: There are 11 decommissioned nuclear powered submarines awaiting disposal. The location of each is as follows:

  Location

  Dreadnought

  Rosyth

  Churchill

  Rosyth

  Swiftsure

  Rosyth

  Revenge

  Rosyth

  Resolution

  Rosyth

  Warspite

  Devonport

  Conqueror

  Devonport

  Courageous

  Devonport

  Valiant

  Devonport

  Renown

  Rosyth

  Repulse

  Rosyth

  Two of these submarines (Renown and Repulse) are to undergo defuelling, prior to interim storage afloat pending disposal. These are the only submarines which contain high level waste in the form of the spent fuel cores. I am withholding information about the exact amount of high level material contained within the submarines under exemptions la-c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Immediately after the defuelling process there are 75 tonnes of intermediate level material and 140 tonnes of low level material, which will decay in time, in each submarine. Within the intermediate level material there is a mix of long life and short life material, decaying at different rates, and it is not possible to estimate readily the tonnages of radioactive material on individual submarines at this time. During storage afloat, the submarines are regularly monitored and maintained to ensure that they pose no health hazard to dockyard workers or the public.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members his Department employs; what is the total salary and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May. [19306]
  163
  Mr. George Robertson
  My Department currently employs two Special Advisers. Details of remuneration are withheld under exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. They were included in the answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the questions from the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 472–73. No MOD Task Forces have been established. My Department has set up one high-level review since 1 May: the Strategic Defence Review. In this context, I have established a panel of 18 experts to provide me with advice. Panel members are unpaid, but may claim expenses.

  Vanguard Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the advantages of modifying Vanguard class submarines to take vertically launched conventionally armed land attack missiles; [20083]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages of fitting Vanguard submarines with conventionally armed land-attack missiles launched through torpedo tubes. [20085]

  Dr. Reid
  No such assessments have been made.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the budget for booking entertainers on behalf of the armed forces to perform in Bosnia in 1997–98. [20630]

  Dr. Reid
  The forecast cost of the entertainers booked to perform for British forces participating in the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in former Yugoslavia during financial year 1997–98 is £225,600.

  Chinese Government (Visits)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what visits to the United Kingdom by Chinese Government defence officials are planned. [20700]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A Chinese Army officer is due to attend the Royal College of Defence Studies course starting in January 1998. To date there are no other firm plans for Chinese Government defence officials to visit the UK in 1998, but invitations have been issued to the head of the Chinese Defence Research and Technology Bureau and the Chief of the Chinese Navy. Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the British military presence in the Falkland Islands is excluded from the Strategic Defence Review. [21203]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government are committed to sustaining the right of the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. In the Strategic Defence Review, appropriate provision will be made fully to discharge defence responsibilities in respect of the Falkland Islands.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the tours of duty undertaken by 164
  members of the General Service Battalion since 1994 and those planned for the next two years indicating the numbers involved. [20322]

  Dr. Reid
  In 1994 the First Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment was stationed in Cyprus as a resident battalion, the manning requirement for which was 539 officers and men. It returned to the United Kingdom in May 1995 and converted to its current primary role of a mechanised infantry battalion with a manning requirement of 625 officers and men. Since then the battalion has completed one six month operational tour in Northern Ireland from December 1995 to June 1996 and on 15 December 1997 it deployed on another such tour, also in Northern Ireland. In both cases the minimum manning strength required is 510 officers and men. On current plans, the battalion is unlikely to be deployed on another operational tour in the next two years.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the duties of part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service battalions. [20324]

  Dr. Reid
  The duties of the Part-Time element of the Home Service are exactly the same of those of the Full-Time element and include foot and vehicle patrols, vehicle checkpoints, helicopter-borne operation, searches and static guard duties.

  The Part-Time soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service form an important and integral part of the Army in Northern Ireland. The Part-time element supplements the Full Time companies, particularly at nights and weekends and, depending on the security situation, can also provide an enhanced operational capability or operational reserve.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total salary costs for part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment in the last year for which figures are available. [20326]

  Dr. Reid
  The total salary costs for part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997 were approximately £13,660,000.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 321, what were the total staffing levels of the Royal Irish Regiment in December 1997 (i) in total and (ii) broken down (1) into numbers of full-time and part-time, (2) by gender, (3) by perceived religious or community origin of each gender and (4) battalion. [20328]

  Dr. Reid
  As explained in my answer of 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 324, this information will not be available until early next year. I will write to my hon. Friend when the figures are available.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment are otherwise(a) employed and (b) unemployed; and if he will estimate the numbers of part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment falling into each standard occupational category in their civilian roles. [20327]
  165
  Dr. Reid
  As at 1 December 1997, the number of Royal Irish Regiment Home Service part-time soldiers was approximately 1,870, of whom my Department estimate some 1,520 are otherwise employed and 350 are otherwise unemployed.

  Estimates of the numbers of part-time members falling into each standard occupational category in their civilian roles are as follows:

  Number

  Managers and Administrators

  115

  Professional Occupations

  50

  Associate Professional and Technical Occupations

  75

  Clerical and Secretarial Occupations

  60

  Crafts and Skilled Manual Occupations

  375

  Personal and Protective Service Occupations

  30

  Sales Occupations

  90

  Plant and Machine Operatives

  340

  Other Occupations

  385

  Province Reserve and Rural Reinforcement Battalions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 324, what was the overall strength in September (a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997 of the Province Reserve Battalion and the Rural Reinforcement Battalion broken down into numbers fully committed to Northern Ireland and the numbers actually deployed there. [20305]

  Battalion

  Number of patrols

  Police division

  Approximate district council constituencies

  3rd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  96

  J

  Craigavon, Lisburn, Banbridge

  4th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  230

  L

  Fermanagh

  5th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  24

  O

  Magherafelt, Limavady, Coleraine, Moyle, Ballymoney

  7th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  0

  A and E

  Belfast, North Down, Castlereagh

  8th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment1

  233

  H

  Armagh

  9th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  50

  D and B

  Lisburn, Antrim

  1 st Battalion Grenadier Guards

  104

  G

  Down, Ards, Newry and Mourne

  1 st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  28

  N

  Derry, Strabane

  1 st Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment2

  165

  L

  Omagh, Dungannon, Fermanagh

  2nd Battalion The Light Infantry

  125

  D

  Carrickfergus, Newtonabbey

  1 st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment

  54

  N

  Derry, Strabane

  1 st Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  169

  K

  Cookstown, Dungannon

  1 st Battalion The King's Own Scottish Borderers3 1

  333

  H

  Armagh, Newry and Mourne

  1 st Battalion the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment4

  195

  B

  Belfast

  3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment5

  0

  D

  Carrickfergus, Newtonabbey

  A patrol is defined as any foot or mobile patrol in support of the RUC, regardless of size or duration.

  Patrols conducted by the Army for local security around bases are not included.

  Some battalions operate in more than one Police Division.

  Notes

  1 Includes the Queen's Royal Hussars whose squadrons support other battalions in three infantry Brigade's area.

  2 Includes one company of the Rural Reinforcement Battalion, currently the 1st Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.

  3 Includes one company of the Province Reserve Battalion, currently the 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

  4 Took over from the 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers on 15 November 1997.

  5 Relocated to the Maze on 27 October and then subsequently to the mainland on 21 November. (One company remained in Province as the Prison Guard Force). The 2nd Battalion the Light Infantry have taken over its area of operations.
  166
  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is set out as follows:

  Committed

  Deployed

  1995

  Province Reserve Battalion (PRB)

  638

  138

  Rural Reinforcement Battalion (RRB) (1)

  —

  —

  1996

  PRB

  651

  216

  RRB

  419

  419

  1997

  PRB

  599

  147

  RRB

  496

  136

  Figures as at 30 September. The Rural Reinforcement Battalion did not exist in 1995. At 30 September 1995, its predecessor, the Fermanagh Roulement Battalion (comprising 583 personnel) was fully committed and deployed in the Province.

  Patrols
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many patrols were carried out by each battalion stationed in Northern Ireland in the last month for which figures are available broken down by parliamentary constituency or other convenient geographical division. [20306]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested for the period 10 November to 8 December (inclusive) is set out as follows, broken down by Police Division and approximate corresponding district council constituencies:

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

North of England: Grants
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the problems of the north of England are being treated with the same urgency and measure of financial resources as similar problems in Scotland and Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are concerned to ensure that the north of England is treated as equitably as other parts of the United Kingdom. However direct comparisons of public expenditure between the English regions and Scotland and Wales are not possible. Unlike Scotland and Wales, the English regions do not receive block grants to cover all services but are funded through a range of government programmes. Those programmes are generally allocated to reflect needs at regional and local level.
The Government are, however, committed to promoting growth, opportunity and fairness in the English regions. As a clear signal of their commitment, the Government published a White Paper, Building Partnerships for Prosperity, on 3rd December. That paper sets out the Government's plans for setting up regional development agencies.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, one admires the skill with which the noble Lord defends the Government's otherwise open goal. If it is in order, I wish also to add my congratulations to the Government on their perspicacity in using the noble Lord's skills. As he will not give us any information, I hope I may ask him how accurate it would be to say that government spending, local and national, in the north-east and the north generally is 30 per cent. less than it is in Scotland, and marginally less than that in Wales? Does the noble Lord realise that it seems to most people that the Government are bent on massaging through their policy of devolution by persuading the protagonists of that policy in Scotland and Wales that they can have their cake and eat it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, flattery will get the noble Lord nowhere. In this case the first Answer that I gave was entirely accurate and does not allow the noble Lord to draw the conclusion that government spending in the north-east or the north of England—I am not sure which he wants to alight on—is 30 per cent. lower than in other parts of the country. As I made clear in my first Answer, we know the figures relating to some services, but figures relating to a large number
492
of services, including, for example, the National Health Service and central Government's contribution to local authorities, are not calculated on a regional basis. There is no basis for the noble Lord to make the assumption that he does.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, has the Minister seen the figures out today which show that all-cause death rates in Wales are 13 per cent. higher than in England; there is a 10 per cent. higher incidence of cancer in Wales; and for heart disease the figure is 17 per cent. higher? Bearing in mind that the gross domestic product in Wales is only 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom average, do not these figures suggest that some urgent attention needs to be given to the problems of Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend quotes correctly figures that I have not seen. I have no reason to doubt that. He is certainly correct in saying that GDP per head in Wales is only 83 per cent. of that in England. However, if one takes identifiable general government expenditure—which is all that we can take and excludes the expenditure I have already referred to—the figure for Wales is 109.5 per cent. of the GB average.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that my noble friend is concerned to help the north of England. I can perhaps suggest a way in which he may be able to do that, although I gather he is not willing—perhaps he will confirm this—to do anything to create a Barnett formula mark 2, which I have personally recommended to him. While he could not accept some of the figures explained so sensibly and at length by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, does he accept that national income per head is now higher in Scotland than in many parts of the UK, including the north of England? In those circumstances, as he will not change the Barnett formula to mark 2, does he accept—is it going to happen?—that in the public expenditure review as the base line is not concerned with the Barnett formula, the formula will be included?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Barnett formula mark 1 has been agreed as the basis for expenditure by the devolved Scottish and Welsh bodies. Although we continue to be interested in what my noble friend says about the Barnett formula mark 2, the mark 1 formula has many virtues—not that it is necessarily accurate in all respects—and used to avoid argument every year, but now it seems to attract argument every week. My noble friend is not correct about GDP per head in Scotland. That is 96.9 per cent. of the GB average, rather than the higher figure that he suggested.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether a north-east regional assembly could or would make things any better?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not at the moment proposing a north-east regional assembly. We are proposing regional development agencies which

493
will take over a large number of the functions of central government. Matters relating to regional assemblies are included in our manifesto but I think that they are some way further ahead.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend not puzzled by his reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton? Is it not the case that all public expenditure must take place somewhere? Is it not also the case that it must be accounted for? How does it happen in the age of the computer that the Government are still able to say that they cannot allocate these sums to the regions? That seems an impossible answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course all government expenditure must be accounted for at some stage, but decisions on where government expenditure takes place can be taken at a number of different levels in the administrative hierarchy. Some are taken very much at a local level; others are taken by regional hospital boards, for example, which do not correspond with other regions. Some decisions are taken centrally. If I was puzzled about this matter, it would concern our inability properly to calculate the subvention; in other words, the difference between public expenditure and what we receive from the regions in taxes.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard accept my congratulations, along with those of my noble friend Lord Peyton, on the way he handles all the various briefs that he is handed by the Government? Will he accept from me that it is a pretty pointless exercise to try to range Clydeside and Tyneside in competition with each other when both of them suffer from the same problems and require special help from the Government? Both of them received special help from the previous government and I certainly expect them to receive it from this Government. That way we get inward investment and growth in employment in those areas. In regard to the north of England, will the Minister tell the House what is the position in relation to the Samsung development? I understand that it has now been cancelled due to problems in the Far East.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord's first question should properly be addressed to his noble friend Lord Peyton, who, I suspect, was listening with his usual intensity. As to the noble Lord's second question, I do not know the answer; I shall have to write to him.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am not here to answer questions, but perhaps I might ask —
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am very sorry, but we have already spent nine minutes on this Question.

Former Yugoslavia: Cost of UK Involvement
2.40 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the estimated total cost of the United Kingdom's involvement in crisis management
494
in former Yugoslavia over the past five years, including the cost of the presence of British defence forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, the additional cost of the United Kingdom's involvement in crisis management in former Yugoslavia from 1st April 1992 to 31st March 1997 was £1,442 million.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, despite that cost, does the noble Lord share my satisfaction at the near certainty that the international stabilisation force is now likely to stay in former Yugoslavia after next June, preferably with American troops in it? Again harking back to that cost, is the Minister aware that the other day a German Minister gave the total cost to Germany of involvement in crisis management in former Yugoslavia as 17 billion deutschmarks—nearly £6 billion? Is that not a reminder to us all that, however expensive enlargement of the European Union will be, it is much better, and cheaper in the end, to have central and eastern European countries within the European Union rather than fighting each other outside it?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have absolutely no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord's last remarks. So far as concerns the presence in Bosnia of NATO forces, we hope that their stay will be limited. But it is certainly anticipated that we shall be there on the ground after next July.
As regards the comparison of figures, I have no idea on what basis the German Minister made his calculations. Ours are based on the additional cost, not the total cost, in which we are involved as a result of our presence in Bosnia.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, on the question of costs as regards former Yugoslavia, is my noble friend aware that over the past several years the crisis has also given rise to 400,000 refugees? Does my noble friend agree with me that that makes a very strong case for enlarging the European Union?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not sure that I would necessarily draw the connection that my noble friend draws. He is certainly right in saying that there have been a great many refugees. I am glad to say that it is one of the benefits of the investment we have made in our presence in Bosnia that quite a few of them have found it safe enough to return to their homes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in response to the criticisms made by Louise Arbour, the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal prosecutor, against France for harbouring war criminals in the French sector of the Serb enclave, the Quai d'Orsai said yesterday that the largest number of unarrested indictees were residing in the British sector? Does he agree that in view of the large sums of money being spent by the British

495
taxpayer, we should be able to expect that British NATO forces will arrest war criminals and bring them to justice?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, there is nothing in our record in that respect for which to apologise.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend said that he expected British troops to be in Bosnia after June next year. Can he say how much longer after June next year he estimates they will be there?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I only wish that I could, but unfortunately it is not given to me to look that far into the future.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that many of us would want to pay the strongest possible tribute to the contribution made by British forces in former Yugoslavia? Has my noble friend been able to study recent remarks by the Secretary-General of NATO, who said that peacekeeping is one issue, but peace-making is another? Does he believe that we have the necessary resources in place to pursue peace-making as distinct from peacekeeping? By the same token, has he been able to study the comparative costs of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia and the pre-emptive deployment by the UN in Macedonia, which, I suggest, at a much reduced cost, has managed to preserve peace and reduce expenditure by the international community?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, certainly there is every advantage in being able to be on the ground early so as to pre-empt the kind of situation that arose in Bosnia and has not so far arisen, I am glad to say, in Macedonia. I have no idea, speaking off the top of my head, what are the UN costs in Macedonia. Clearly my noble friend does. That is as far as I can go at the moment.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication as to how the future additional costs of our presence will be met? Will they be met entirely by Her Majesty's Government; or will additional resources come from the international community?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, again the noble Lord tempts me to predict matters which I have no competence to predict. As I am sure he will know, the costs of operations in Bosnia are, as it is, in part shared by the international community both through the EU and through sharing NATO infrastructure costs.

Wales: Student Grants
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the grants given to Welsh universities are £329 per student less than those given per student to English universities and £1,052 less per student than those given in Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the basis of the latest data for 1997-98, grant per full-time student
496
in Wales is about £100 less than in England, not £329 as quoted by the noble Lord. The difference from the English figure is due to three main factors. First, Wales has had a lower research base and therefore less funding has been available from the research councils. Secondly, the mix of courses taught in Wales is somewhat less expensive than those in England. Thirdly, the higher education sector in Wales has been successful in attracting a strictly more than proportionate share of students as compared with England, thereby reducing the institutions' fixed costs per student.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, while I am grateful for that reply, is it not correct that an Answer given on 19th November in the other place gave the discrepancy as £159? Does it not suggest that the Welsh Funding Council is under-funded? Three of the universities in Wales are in rural areas. They have to attract students from outside their own, as it were, catchment area. Is it not very difficult for them to do so when the expenditure per student is £159 less per head than in England; £200 less per head than in Northern Ireland—again I refer to the Answer given in another place; and £1,000 less per head than in Scotland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course there are differences between Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland; and that is to be expected. Even without devolution to Wales, the Welsh Office has discretion as to how it spends the grant that is available to it. Whether it spends that money on higher education as opposed to industrial development, for example, is a matter for the Welsh Office, which could well explain some of the differences.
Regarding the larger difference in Scotland to which the noble Lord refers, I can confirm that, very broadly, his figures are correct. But in Scotland there are far more four-year degrees than in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is also a far higher proportion of very expensive courses such as medicine and dentistry.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I hope to take tea with the chancellor of the University of Glamorgan later today—a university of which I am chancellor! Will I be able to warm the cockles of his heart and tell him that the discrepancy will be put right and that someone will speak to the Welsh Office?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend enjoys his tea. However, I do not think I can give him any assurance that the factors which underlie the differences in funding have changed and therefore that the funding itself will change.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 70 per cent. of the students who attend the University of Wales come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom—that is, from overseas and England? How is Wales meant to compete in international markets when the universities are funded at a lower level in Wales than in Scotland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right in saying that a high proportion of

497
students in Welsh universities come from outside Wales. But that does not mean that the funding per head, like for like, is any different. As I explained, Wales has a higher proportion of less expensive courses. Those are broadly arts courses as opposed to science and technology courses. Welsh universities and the University of Wales in particular have been successful in filling all the places on all their courses. That means that their fixed costs are more economical. I do not think it can be said that any individual student suffers as a result of the differences.

Unemployment Statistics: Collection and Presentation
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What change they expect to make in the collection and presentation of statistics on unemployment to reflect more accurately the numbers of those unemployed and actively seeking work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the summer the Office for National Statistics launched a wide-ranging public consultation about the future of labour market statistics. The results of the consultation were published in the October edition of the Office for National Statistics publication Labour Market Trends.
The director of the ONS is responsible for deciding the form, coverage and timing of release of ONS statistics. I expect him to make an announcement about ONS proposals for labour market statistics in the new year.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that Answer. I recall that he and other colleagues, when they were in opposition, said quite rightly that the employment figures given in this country could not be wholly relied upon. Given that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a promise at the Luxembourg employment summit that the United Kingdom would be advancing internationally comparable bases of employment in future, and acknowledging that actual internationally comparable statistics are probably 0.5 million higher than the official figures given by the so-called claimant benefit base, will the noble Lord say when we can rely upon new figures for unemployment which actually reflect the real position? Can he give the assurance that decisions on welfare-to-work will not be made on the basis of statistics that are not correct?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without anticipating in too great detail the announcement which the director of ONS will make, I can certainly confirm that it is the intention of ONS and therefore of the Government to include International Labour Organisation comparable statistics in the monthly first release figures.
498
However, as the noble Baroness knows, those are based on the labour force survey which is a survey rather than a census. Therefore, it is difficult to get them truly up to date, given any specific sample size and it is virtually impossible to get them for smaller regions or smaller local areas. Therefore, for that purpose it will be necessary to continue to show alongside the labour force survey figures the figures of claimant unemployment which will be called "claimant unemployment", in order not to confuse anyone. They are based on a census and therefore are available for each region. each local authority area and employment district.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister confirm for me from what he has just said that all the previous statistics will be published in their previous form alongside the new ones? He said that some would be so published, but how will it be possible to compare like with like if the whole format is changed? Is the change of format simply to confuse us and try to prevent us from comparing the figures?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the contrary. I can certainly confirm what the noble Baroness said, that all the existing figures will continue to be published. There is no difficulty about that and no intent to cause confusion. Indeed, we hope that the monthly publication will contain a moving quarterly total from the Labour Force Survey, the most recent monthly figures of claimant count, including separate figures for those on the jobseeker's allowance, which is quite important, and also figures from employer surveys on those matters which can only come from them—for example, working hours. So I think the noble Baroness will find that the new first release which will start in April next year will be far more helpful than anything we have had in the past.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to consider seeking the views of the trade union organisations and the employers' organisations on what he said on this important subject?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, very wide consultation took place on the publication of figures in Labour Market Trends in May this year. It was open to trade unions and employers' organisations to comment on those figures. My understanding is that they did so. The results of the consultation were published in Labour Market Trends in October 1997. Perhaps I may add to my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that the analysis of the relationship between claimant count and ILO count is made in a very interesting article in the November issue.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether, when the new arrangements are made, there will be a clear figure for the number of people who are between jobs? The present method of counting has excluded that figure. If we have new figures, it will be important that we know

499
the number of people who are merely looking for a job and will soon have one. At one time that figure was as high as 700,000.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think it is possible, in either a survey or a census, to predict whether anyone answering the questions will get a job in the next few weeks or months. However, the analysis of the Labour Force Survey includes details of the length of time people are unemployed. I believe that that gives the answer that the noble Baroness seeks. It is available from the Labour Force Survey. Whether or not it is included in the first release, there is no difficulty for the noble Baroness in obtaining it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may welcome the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard to the "three-out-of-four club" since he has answered three out of the four questions today. I wonder whether on this Question he can do better than his noble friend Lady Blackstone yesterday in failing to answer the question put to her by my noble friend Lady Blatch. What is the current level of youth unemployment on whatever statistics the noble Lord wishes to use? What was the level of youth unemployment two years ago?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord could do better than that. I should have thought it was inappropriate in this House for him to abuse my noble friend for something that happened yesterday or indeed to ask me a question which bears no relationship whatever to the original serious Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his full replies which reflect his commitment to employment statistics which can be relied on. When he comes further to consider the issue of unemployment statistics, will he consider further definition within them? Is the Minister aware, for example, of the extent to which invalidity benefit was used as an alternative to unemployment benefit in an effort by the previous government to reduce unemployment statistics? Can he assure us that that kind of redefinition of unemployment will be examined closely and carefully when the new basis of unemployment statistics is brought forward in the spring?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Baroness that assurance. One of the reasons we did not immediately leap into action when we had the results of the consultation in October this year was that Ministers were concerned to ensure that all such matters, not just invalidity benefit but the potential effect of welfare-to-work, the new deal and all government programmes, should be openly reflected in the statistics which we produce. Our last concern and our last wish is to cover up any of those matters, as perhaps the noble Baroness was suggesting they were covered up previously.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, will my noble friend learn from the exchanges this afternoon the
500
importance of having statistics which not only bear international comparison but also effectively bear comparison over time in order that we may see over a decade of Labour government, which seeks to create employment, the difference from the past 18 years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly why both before and after the election we have been keen to ensure that the International Labour Organisation definition as obtained from the Labour Force Survey is available, is used and is given greater prominence. I pay tribute to the previous Government for the fact that in 1992 they increased the sample size of the labour force survey from 60,000 a year to 60,000 a quarter, in order to improve the accuracy of the survey.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords. despite the ferocity of the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench, perhaps I may be allowed, quietly and with the utmost docility, to congratulate him on the skill he has shown this afternoon as the Government's goalkeeper.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Climate Change Summit in Kyoto. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Sewel who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Scottish Water Industry Review. I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The first part of this Motion tidies up Standing Order 62, which deals with sessional committees. The Procedure Committee proposed in its second report of this Session that the Broadcasting Committee should cease to exist and the House agreed to that report on 4th December. This Motion therefore deletes the reference to the Broadcasting Committee in the Standing Order. It also brings up to date the title of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which was altered at the start of Session 1996-97.
The second part of the Motion introduces the proposed new Standing Order on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, again on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. The new Standing Order sets out the committee's existing terms of reference. The reason for introducing it is that it will simplify the procedure for appointing the committee at the beginning of each Session.

501
It might be for the convenience of the House if I speak now to the second Motion, although I shall move it separately. I should explain that it supports the proposed new Standing Order. It would give the committee its present powers on a permanent basis, so removing the need for them to be granted at the start of every Session. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows—

Standing Orders (Public Business)

  Standing Order 62
  Line 7, leave out "Broadcasting Committee";
  Line 9, leave out "Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee" and insert "Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee";

  After Standing Order 70
  Insert the following new Standing Order:
  Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  70A. There shall be a Select Committee consisting of seven Lords, which shall join with a Committee of the House of Commons as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to consider:

  (1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

  (i) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument:

  (ii) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

  (iii) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

  (iv) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

  but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph I of Schedule 1 to the Northem Ireland Act 1974 and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994; and

  (2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures;

  with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should he drawn to it on any of the following grounds

  (a) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

  (b) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions
  502
  excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

  (c) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;

  (d) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

  (e) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection ( I ) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

  (f) that there appears to he a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

  (g) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

  (h) that its drafting appears to be defective; or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That for the purposes of Standing Order (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments) the following powers be granted to the Committee:
The quorum of the Committee shall be two;
The Committee shall have power to agree with any Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
The Committee shall have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Commons; and the power to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
The Committee shall, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, afford to any government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them, or any Sub-Committee of the Committee, such explanations as the department think fit;
The Committee shall have leave to report from time to time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supreme Court (Offices) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Consolidated Fund Bill
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.
Scottish Agricultural College Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer of public sector student loans to the private sector]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(3A) The amounts that may be paid by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) shall not exceed one quarter of the amount of the original loans assigned under subsection (I).").
The noble Lord said: I shall not delay the Committee for too long with this amendment. I do not propose to repeat a Second Reading speech, though many of the points I made there are particularly pertinent to this amendment.
It is a simple amendment, but an important one to which reference was made at Second Reading and I make no apology for returning to it now, as I said I would. The Bill as it stands allows the Secretary of State to pay any subsidy he likes in respect of the sale of a loan portfolio. My amendment seeks to limit the subsidy to one quarter of the loan.
I suspect that my amendment will be familiar to the Minister because it is similar to an amendment moved by Mr. Stephen Byers, when he was in Opposition, during the passage of the 1995 Education (Student Loans) Bill. I believe he sought similarly to limit the amount of subsidy to one quarter. In moving that amendment in 1995 in Standing Committee B he said,
"The Bill does not restrict the amount of subsidy that could be made available to private sector institutions. We should not give private sector bodies a blank cheque. The Bill should contain some restriction to limit the amount of taxpayers' money that will be given
504
to private sector institutions as an incentive—some might say bribe—to become part of the scheme".—[Official Report. Commons, Standing Committee B, 19/12/95; col. 93.]
I understand that the circumstances of this Bill are different from those of the 1995 Bill, but in my view the principle remains exactly the same. We should not allow a blank cheque. At our Second Reading debate on 2nd December the Minister said,
"we cannot reveal anything about the extent of the subsidy. After all, a commercial transaction is taking place and it would be quite wrong to reveal what the subsidy might be until those negotiations have been completed and the winner of the bidding process has been announced".—[Official Report, 2/12/97; col. 1277.]
I understand and accept that, and I am not seeking to press the Minister to say what the subsidy will be. We are seeking to put a limit on the amount of that subsidy so that it cannot be a blank cheque. If the scheme is running as successfully as we hope and are led to believe, then putting a limit of 25 per cent. on the amount of subsidy cannot be a problem. A subsidy of more than 25 per cent. will be a matter of real concern to Members of the Committee. That is something that we should know about.
That is the purpose of my simple amendment. It is not to restrict the hands of the Government or the Secretary of State in their negotiations; indeed, it could be said that it should strengthen their hands because bidders would know that there was a limit beyond which the Secretary of State was not permitted to go.
I hope, but with no great expectation, that the Minister will feel able to agree to the amendment. I look forward to hearing her comments and response. I stress that I am not expecting her to announce the extent of the subsidy, but merely to accept that it cannot be a blank cheque. There must be a limit on it; and that limit should be 25 per cent., as was proposed by her own party when in Opposition. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The mover of the amendment has already reflected the problem with regard to his case. He referred to a similar amendment having been moved in 1995 at the time of the Education (Student Loans) Bill's progress through the other place. The difference is quite clear. What was then being presented was a proposal with regard to the book on student loans against the background that privatising the loans would bring resources to the Government for higher education. The difference today is that we are working against a very tight schedule. What the Dearing Committee identified, and what vice-chancellors identified long before the Dearing Committee reported, was the parlous state of resources in higher education. Indeed, in the past six to eight weeks we have had a number of debates on higher education in which these matters have been brought sharply to the attention of the House.
The Government now need to make progress very rapidly. In fact, the noble Lord helpfully pointed out that the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, which is currently before the House, contains provisions to repeal the Education (Student Loans) Bill in its entirety by the end of this Session. That is how tight the timetable is. Against that background, the Government's hands

505
should not be tied in negotiating with the private interests involved. We are well aware of the fact that the extent of private interests is not overwhelming. The previous government's attempts and the proposals in their Bill foundered because there were no takers for the stated course. The position is now transformed as a result of the Government's longer term proposals with regard to student finance. The Government are now involved in negotiations which will release significant sums of money to higher education immediately. There is no other easy way in which resources can be released within the timescale education needs.
I therefore suggest that the Government should be given freedom to negotiate their position without constraint. What the Government want to do is to strike a bargain that is of most benefit to public finances and higher education. The resuscitation of an amendment, which was moved in the other place by a member of my party in different circumstances, ought not now to be included as a conditioning factor with regard to the process.
Baroness Blackstone: This is a wrecking amendment in that it would effectively pre-empt the competitive bidding process which will determine the subsidy structure. Such a cap would render the scheme unworkable and do nothing to foster the public-private partnerships that we are, as a new government, now seeking to develop.
We are committed to working within the spending plans of the previous government for the next two years. That includes achieving the same level of receipts as they planned from loan debt sales. To achieve those sales we will need to pay a level of subsidy which, of course, while as low as possible, has to prove sufficiently attractive to the private sector so that it becomes involved in the bidding process. These loans are not made on commercial terms and subsequently cannot as a result be sold on a normal commercial basis either. An arbitrary cap on the amount of subsidy payable tied to the face value of loans and without consideration of such factors as the length of time it will take to recover the debt and the administrative costs involved would cause great difficulties for the bidders and act as a disincentive to participation in the sale.
The very generous deferment terms offered mean that many loans will live for a very long time. They are not usually written off until 25 years have elapsed. In many cases a subsidy amounting to 25 per cent. of the face value of loans will be payable well before repayment is completed. That would leave a heavy and unacceptable burden on the debt purchaser who would have to continue to hold the loans on his books and administer them without any recompense. That is an unattractive scenario which would adversely affect the level of bids if they were forthcoming.
We are now entering a crucial stage of the debt sale. The shortlisted bidders have exactly a month to make their firm bids. As I explained, they have a number of factors to weigh up in assessing the level of subsidy to bid for. In those circumstances, it would clearly not be sensible for the Government to do business with our
506
hand already revealed. That would be the position if the subsidy position were put on the face of the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has suggested.
As the noble Lord recognised—I am grateful for it—we cannot say what the level of subsidy will be until the competition has finished. But perhaps I may reassure him. It is a strong competition and we will accept the very best bid we can possibly get. The noble Lord should understand that the existing scheme is heavily subsidised. There would still be a cost to the taxpayer even if we retained the loans. We are changing one subsidy scheme for another and also transferring significant risk to the private sector while doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the 1996 Act and to an amendment which the Labour Party put forward in both Houses while in opposition. The 1996 Act had nothing to do with the measures we are seeking to introduce in this Bill. The 1996 Act sought to introduce a twin-track approach to student loans—a system of private sector loans held by banks and like institutions running alongside the current public sector loan scheme administered by the Student Loans Company. That proved an unattractive proposition. The financial institutions showed little interest in it and the then government had to admit as much. We were concerned that they would, in pursuing this rather misconceived policy, attempt to buy interest in it by offering an excessively generous subsidy package. That was why we sought to restrict the subsidy arrangements on that occasion.
Following what my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham said, perhaps I may explain that we are putting in place a totally new system of financial support for students entering higher education from 1998-99. This requires new legislation; for example, to provide for income contingent loans collected through the Inland Revenue. The loans being sold have been made on a different basis under existing legislation, and the Education (Student Loans) Bill is needed to enable the debt sales to take place under that legislation.
The Teaching and Higher Education Bill allows for the repeal of the loans Bill, once enacted, along with the remainder of the existing loans legislation. Transitional provisions will be put in place to ensure that mortgage-style loans can continue to be issued to current students until their courses are complete. Repayment of loans taken out under the old legislation will continue to be collected in the same way as now. Both debt purchasers and the position of borrowers will therefore be protected. However, there will come a time when new loans are no longer being made under that legislation because all the students to whom it applied have left the system. It is a matter of good legislative practice that the relevant Acts should be totally repealed at that point. The current Bill provides for that to happen.
Loan agreements which were governed by the 1990 Act will of course continue to be binding on both parties once that Act is repealed. There will be provisions to ensure that the Secretary of State continues to have power to pay subsidies to the private sector in respect of the loans they have purchased. The purpose of the

507
Teaching and Higher Eduction Bill is to put in place a new system of income-contingent loans for entrance to higher education from 1998-99 onwards. Those students will not be affected by the provisions of the Bill being considered today because their loans will not be governed by the existing student loans legislation.
As I said, the two sets of legislation are quite separate and will run parallel until the last student eligible for the current mortgage-style loan has left the system. I hope that that has clarified matters for the Committee.
But, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham also rightly said, the circumstances of the legislation before us today are entirely different to the 1996 Act. We have short-listed four contenders for the debt sale. A total of seven major financial institutions are involved because in some cases a consortia is bidding. Several others were willing to bid but had to be excluded because they were not sufficiently competitive. There is no need for the sort of restriction set out in the amendment. The competitive tension we have created will, I believe, have produced the very best possible deal. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before she sits down and indeed before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will the noble Baroness clarify the matter yet again for me? I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the letter explaining the precise time when the legislation will be repealed and the reason for proceeding separately from the other Bill. I am not sure, however, that that is consistent with what the noble Baroness just said. If the Bill is to be repealed, as the noble Baroness said, with the coming into play of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, where precisely in legislation is the protection both for the way in which the lending body operates, and its obligations under the law, and the protection for the borrower—that is to say, the student—during both the interregnum and the period which will continue for some years beyond the life of this Bill when the borrower will have an obligation to repay the loan?
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her question. As I understand it, although the Bill before us will be repealed, certain elements in it remain in place until the very last student on a mortgage-style loan scheme of the kind that exists at present, has gone right through the system. Therefore, the protection will remain in place in the legislation for all those students under the existing scheme. That is also a protection for those who are bidding for this particular debt sale. I hope that that makes the matter clearer.
Baroness Blatch: It is probably more my fault than the fault of the noble Baroness. If the Act is to be repealed, then it can only be repealed in part if measures within it are to remain. Can the noble Baroness say which parts of the Act will remain on the statute book? The particular measure in the new Teaching and Higher Education Bill repeals the whole of the Act and not just part of it. Therefore, where in legislation will the protection lie?
Baroness Blackstone: I am very sorry, but I do not believe that I can give the noble Baroness a clearer
508
answer in terms of exactly which clauses will remain. I cannot tell the noble Baroness which of the clauses will continue to provide the protection. Perhaps I may write to her about it and clarify the situation. It is a somewhat technical piece of legislation and I want to be absolutely sure that I get it right rather than guess at it now. I believe that I know which part it is, but I do not want to cause confusion.
Baroness Blatch: I promise that this is the last time that I shall raise this particular point. The measure in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill is to repeal the whole of the Act. If some of it is to remain in place on the statute book, then there needs to be an amendment to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. otherwise I am missing something.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that that is the case. I believe that there is something called transitional arrangements. There is something which stays in place, which makes it absolutely clear to existing borrowers and any purchaser of the student loan debt that the legislation will be in place to protect them. I shall write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may raise another point. I believe I understood the noble Baroness to tell us that there are four bidders short-listed in this exercise. That, of course, is very good news. Can she assure the Committee that there will be proper competition in this deal? Should, say, three bidders fall out and only one remains, what will be the Government's intention? Have they in their own mind set a level above which they cannot subsidise? What have they in mind should there be only one bidder?
Baroness Blackstone: There have been a substantial number of bidders in this competition, far above the four that were short-listed. Some of them put in insufficiently competitive bids. Many of the bids were relatively close. We have short-listed four on the assumption that they will all stay in the competition. None has given any sign of intending to withdraw. I am very confident that they will stay in. I do not believe that we have any need to be concerned or to worry about a situation in which only one bidder is left in the competition. Were that to happen we would have to consider very carefully what steps we ought to take. I am, however, confident that we have four very serious potential bidders for the sale of the student loan debt.
Lord Tope: I believe that we have strayed a little from the purpose of the amendment. Nevertheless, it has been a useful debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for raising the point and to the Minister for sending me a copy of her letter to the noble Baroness, which I received shortly before coming into the Chamber. I have not yet had an opportunity to study it. But I remain as confused as—I hope she will forgive me—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hesitate to suggest that the Minister is in any way confused. I am sure that all will become clear and that she will again send me a copy of the letter of explanation. I recall

509
being perhaps the first to spot that the Teaching and Higher Education Bill repeals the whole of the current Bill that we are considering today. I am still a little confused as to what it all means.
I must return to the subject of the amendment that I have moved. Both the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and the Minister referred to the differing circumstances now and in 1995. I think that the most significant difference is one of opposition and of government. I suspect that what is causing the biggest difficulty with regard to the amendment is that in 1995 the Labour Party was in opposition but it is now the Government. I am told—I have yet to find out from personal experience—that things look different from the other side of the Chamber. That is probably the most significant different circumstance.
In moving the amendment, I said that I understood the differences between the previous Bill, now an Act, and this Bill. I must stress, however, that the principle is still the same. We should not be giving, to quote Mr. Byers in 1995, a "blank cheque" to the private sector. There should be some limit on the permitted subsidy. Whether that should be one-quarter, as I am suggesting, or some other figure which the Government might have wished to suggest, I do not know. But it should not be a "blank cheque".
I do not want to stray into another Second Reading debate, but I must take up one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. He rightly said that higher education urgently needs more funds. As we said at Second Reading, this measure will not release funds to higher education. It is already built into the department's expenditure targets. If the sum is not realised, there will be further cuts in higher education or somewhere else in the education budget. The Bill will not produce any more money for higher education—and it is not intended to do so. Whenever it is suggested that that is the case, I, for one, will knock it on the head. I have stressed the reason why, in principle, I do not think that we should give a "blank cheque" and why I believe there should be some restriction on the subsidy.
I had hoped to be a little reassured by the Minister during our discussion. I did not really expect her to accept the amendment, but I had hoped for some reassurance. She has told us—and I accept—that there is strong competition. Therefore, I still wonder why the Government feel that providing for a 25 per cent. limit would be a constraint which would tie their hands and that, as the Minister suggested, this is a wrecking amendment. I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment; it is certainly not intended to be. I fear that the Government are expecting the subsidy to be significantly greater than 25 per cent. If that were not the case, these provisions could not be seen as tying their hands.
I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. It would not be proper to do so now. This has been a useful discussion and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
510
Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Climate Change: Kyoto Conference
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement about the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change which I attended last week in Kyoto, Japan, along with my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment.
"Man-made climate change is the greatest environmental threat facing the world today. In the UK, we have been suffering record drought for the last two-and-a-half years. This year the world experienced the highest average temperatures ever recorded. Terrible floods have engulfed central Europe. Droughts and storms have followed from this year's El Nino. Forest fires have caused deadly pollution in South East Asia and Australia. Our polar ice caps are melting; and only this weekend Mexico was hit by freak snowstorms.
"Already our sea levels are rising as ocean temperatures increase and the waters expand. If this continues some island communities will disappear into the sea. A third of the world's population live within 40 miles of the coast. Whole swathes of Britain's east coast could fall victim to rising sea levels.
"Man risks playing havoc with the world's weather systems. Unless we act now, we will be condemning our children to a world of drought and crop failures, rising seas, mass migration and spreading disease. Nature is no respecter of boundaries. This is a global problem demanding a global solution, and the very justification for the Kyoto conference.
"The main purpose of the conference was for the developed countries to set legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions between the years 1990 and 2010. Success was by no means certain. Consensus had to be achieved among 160 different nations, and the conference started with the major players poles apart—the European Union proposed a 15 per cent. cut; Japan a 2.5 per cent. cut; and the United States zero.
"After long and gruelling negotiations, the protocol was agreed on Thursday morning, and will be open for signature in March. For the first time, developed countries, which account for over half the world's greenhouse gas emissions, will commit themselves to legally binding targets. This agreement will produce a cut of more than 5 per cent. in their emissions below 1990 levels by 2010.

511
"I said before negotiations began that political will would be needed to deliver a successful agreement. The outcome of hard negotiations was that: America moved from zero to a cut of 7 per cent.; Japan moved from a cut of 2.5 to 6 per cent.; and the European Union set the top standard with a cut of 8 per cent.—which was adopted by 26 countries in total. This demonstrated beyond doubt that genuine political will did exist in all these countries, and a political breakthrough was achieved. I have placed in the Library a full copy of the Kyoto Protocol, which lists the figures for each country.
"There will be a chance to review, and if possible improve, the targets in four to five years' time. The targets will cover the six main greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide. The protocol also provides a number of measures which will help countries to achieve their targets. These include the possibility of trading in permits for greenhouse gas emissions; limited allowance for the absorption of carbon dioxide by forests, which act as so-called "carbon sinks"; and provision for developed countries to gain credit for helping developing countries curb emissions.
"There were fears expressed that these provisions might amount to loopholes in the agreement. That is why we, the United Kingdom, proposed the concept of a "window of credibility" for countries to demonstrate their firm commitment to the agreement; and it is why the European Union insisted that clear rules for all these provisions must be developed over the next two years or so.
"The conference fully recognised that the developed world must take the lead in curbing global warming. It is now necessary to discuss how developing countries can become more involved in the commitment to this process. That is necessary for long-term success in tackling global warming.
"The United Kingdom played a major role in ensuring that Kyoto was successful. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right honourable Member for Suffolk Coastal, for the part he played in agreeing the Berlin mandate in 1995, which set the parameters for Kyoto; and indeed he was a member of the United Kingdom delegation.
"This Government have demonstrated their commitment to environmental issues at the highest levels. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister highlighted climate change at the G8 Summit in Denver, at the Earth Summit in New York, and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has put the environment at the heart of his foreign policy and worked for a successful conclusion at Kyoto. At the request of the Japanese hosts, I myself chaired the meeting of developed countries which took place in Tokyo last month; and in the run-up to Kyoto I met the leaders of a number of developed and developing countries.
"I would also like to praise the efforts of the Prime Minister himself, who was in telephone contact with other world leaders to secure the final deal. I would
512
also like to thank my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment who played a key role with our European partners. Finally, this agreement would not have been achieved without the sheer professionalism and commitment of our civil servants. This was a really strong British team effort within a powerful European contribution.
"We must now turn our minds to implementation. The United Kingdom will assume the European Union Presidency at a crucial stage. Over the next six months we need to agree how the European target of an 8 per cent. reduction will be shared out between member states; policies and measures at a European level to help achieve those targets; and the EU position on rules for the various issues that I have mentioned. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment is today discussing these very matters at the Environment Council in Brussels.
"Previously the European Union had agreed proposals to achieve an average 10 per cent. cut in emissions. There were differential contributions from different member states. For example, Germany agreed a minus 25 per cent. target. Portugal agreed a 40 per cent. increase. We now need to renegotiate these figures in the light of the outcome of Kyoto. We will not be certain of the legal target applying to the United Kingdom until that share-out has been determined.
"We will of course accept our legal obligation as a first priority, and still work to our aim of 20 per cent. We are already working on plans to achieve our targets taking into account the outcome from Kyoto. We will publish a consultation document next year. In setting out our programme we will consult widely, in particular with industry, local authorities and environmental groups who will all have key roles to play in delivering reductions. Let me reassure industry, as the Prime Minister did at our business summit, that we will not take unilateral measures which will unduly damage UK competitiveness.
"But tackling climate change is about opportunity and gain, not about pain. It goes hand in hand with building a better, more modern and affluent Britain. It is about improving transport systems in a way that will give us a better quality of life and cleaner cities; improving the housing stock, which will give us warmer, more comfortable homes and tackle fuel poverty, using less energy in a way that will make our industries more efficient; and ensuring that the UK is at the forefront of the world environmental technology market so that we create new jobs and business opportunities. That is good for the environment, good for the economy, good for people and good for jobs.
"In conclusion, I believe that Kyoto will be remembered in future as the place where the world, in a United Nations forum, faced a crucial decision and made the right choice. Failure, which many had predicted, would have condemned future generations to untold misery and disaster. We have taken the first, but only the first, crucial step to curbing climate

513
change. There is still much to be done but I am certainly proud of the role that the United Kingdom has played in this achievement.
"We do not own this world. We hold it in trust to hand on to our children's children. We owe it to them to build on the Kyoto agreement to safeguard their future".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. We on these Benches welcome the fact that there has been an agreement leading to the protocol. We offer our thanks to the right honourable Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues for the work that they put into the negotiations in Kyoto. We welcome the agreement and protocol, not least because for the first time it provides a basis for a legally binding agreement to which developed countries are a party. It is the first international agreement of its kind which emphasises that this is a problem of global proportions and one that can be solved only by international co-operation and agreement.
Having said that, although one welcomes the agreement and the efforts made to reach it, one should not be over-enthusiastic about the outcome. In many ways it falls short of the expectations not just of the United Kingdom but of the European Union as a whole. It raises a number of questions about implementing the protocol, and indeed about government policy itself. I understand that the protocol provides countries with flexibility to meet their commitments, but detailed rules have yet to be decided. The Statement indicated the efforts that had been made in the European Union to set targets for individual member states. But beyond a statement that the rules within the protocol must be developed over the next two years it is not clear when and how, and what mechanisms are envisaged, to finalise these crucial rules without which the protocol can hardly be implemented.
Does the Minister agree that the average reduction of 5.2 per cent. is a long way below the European Union's initial target of 15 per cent.? An international system of emissions trading is to be welcomed, but are there not significant loopholes and details to be addressed before the scheme can be welcomed unconditionally? Is it not the case that since 1990 (which is the base) the United States could, for example, buy credits from Russia and other eastern European states which those states would not be using in any event and the reduction of 5.2 per cent. would not be achieved? Where a country is not in 1997 already using its credits the position may be worsened.
What about the Government's own commitment? The Statement indicates that the Government stand by their aim of 20 per cent. based on 1990 figures by the year 2010. What will the Government do to achieve that target? As far as I am aware, no firm proposals have been put forward since 1st May. If it is to be achieved by green taxes, can the Minister give a commitment that
514
they will be matched by reductions in other taxes so that they are not another back-door tax rise? Further, do the Government agree that reducing travel distances, not just improving public transport, can play an important part in achieving their aims? Do they agree that that is yet another reason for ensuring suitable developments within town and city centres rather than further out on greenfield and green belt sites? Lastly, what are the implications of the Government's policy and targets to reduce emissions for their decision to defer the building of more gas-fired power stations and retain coal burners for the time being?
3.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I congratulate the Government on their role at the conference. It was quite clear at the start that the major countries were very far apart. The fact that as the result of the negotiations in which the United Kingdom obviously played an eminent role the target was substantially higher than the United States had originally proposed was quite an achievement. It may be that it is not near the European Union's figure of 15 per cent. Nevertheless, 5.5 per cent.—or 7 per cent. as it is for the United States—is very much better than nil.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, points out, there is much work to be done. The Statement indicated that the agreement would be ready for signature in March. First, can one take it that signature will be automatic and no government will have second thoughts and not sign? Secondly. like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I am worried about the possible loopholes that have been referred to in the Statement. For example, there is a possibility of the more affluent countries purchasing permits for greenhouse gas emissions from less affluent countries. The effect of that would be relatively little net saving. The rules to be worked out will be absolutely crucial. When will that process be completed?
The European Union figure of 8 per cent. is below what the EU had originally proposed. The details are to be worked out in the near future. It is very satisfactory that the United Kingdom Government stand by their 20 per cent. objective. When I heard about the outcome of Kyoto I was a little worried about it. Therefore, I am glad that we shall go ahead with what we plan to do, irrespective of the targets that may be set for others.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I shall refer to the measures recently taken to help the coal industry in its present difficulties. As the House will understand, I am thoroughly in favour of help being given to the coal industry. The measures agreed with the power stations, and the temporary moratorium on new gas-fired stations, are acceptable in present circumstances. There is however one aspect of the deferment about which I am concerned; that is, it includes a number of CHP plants, which, as the Minister will obviously be aware, are the most efficient available. They are twice as efficient as straightforward power plants.

515
A number of those plants will be deferred under these arrangements. They amount to 700 megawatt of capacity. Deferring them for too long would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Government's target of 5,000 megawatt of CHP plant to be in operation by 2000. I should like to end by asking the Government to think again about that aspect of the recent measures that they have taken.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they have given to what was achieved at Kyoto. Questions have rightly been asked about the detail. I shall try to deal with some of them in a moment. We should not underestimate the challenge that existed at that conference to reach agreement. That was both in terms of shifting the position of developed nations which were clearly below the challenging targets that this country and the EU were setting and achieving a consensus among all the participants. We are not talking about QMV or any sort of voting. The scale of the achievement was great.
In that context, the House must understand the work that has to take place over the coming months and years about the detail of the flexibilities. I understand the concerns, and, as the Statement made clear, this country is anxious that those flexibilities should not become loopholes. This is a sound agreement. The protocol offers countries a number of flexibilities which will usefully deliver their targets. The details of those schemes have not yet been agreed.
One of the challenges of our presidency of the EU will be to take forward the EU position on that. We shall have to work within that forum and with the US and others to develop the rules for emissions trading, joint implementation and calculation of sinks, and to ensure—this is the key—that they become useful ways of delivering reductions and not loopholes to prevent countries from delivering reductions. Those are the aims. How we achieve them is something that we shall have to take forward in the detailed negotiations that are to come.
It was made clear in the Statement that this was very much a first step. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, accused us of being over-enthusiastic. I do not think that we are being over-enthusiastic. We are marking the achievement of having legally binding targets for the first time, without suggesting in any way that all the solutions have been reached or that all the details of how we are to achieve those challenging targets have been arrived at.
We were asked why the EU accepted a reduction from its own 15 per cent. target. That was always a negotiating figure and conditional upon other developed countries making similar efforts. The tough negotiating line that the EU took was instrumental in forcing the US and Japan to raise their offers. We still agreed to take on a slightly higher target. At the end of the day the judgment was that the most important thing was to reach an agreement that can move us all forward in the fight against global warming.
516
I was asked about the Government sticking to their own 20 per cent. target. We shall do that because we believe that any action taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a move in the right direction. As I said earlier, far too much of the debate has centred upon the cost of reducing emissions. There will be real benefits to the UK from action to tackle climate change. It will give us a more efficient and less car-dependent transport system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that we need to improve public transport and to look at the interaction of land use planning with transport policies if we are to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the integrated transport policy for which we are looking. It gives us opportunities for energy savings for business and consumers and new jobs and market opportunities for more efficient technologies.
Our domestic target will ensure that we continue to lead by example in persuading others to take on the more ambitious targets needed in the longer term. Kyoto was a justification of us and the EU setting challenging targets.
I was asked about the coal industry. We are looking for a balanced climate change programme. We will not let one sector pick up all the costs of delivering our environmental objectives. There are many options for reducing emission levels: transport, energy efficiency, the greater use of renewables and CHP. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that it is important that we safeguard the achievement of that target within the recently announced review of Section 36 consents. They will have minimum impact on the current emissions projections. We need to await the outcome of the review before we can judge whether the final impact will be more significant.
There is an increasing anxiety about the growing and continuing reliance on gas, which has been raised by a number of people. We need to establish what part coal-fired generation should play in maintaining a secure electricity system. That review is driven by the Government's concern over security of supply, not by particular fuels. With regard to the detailed programme for the achievement of this country's targets, we have first to work out, within the EU, what this country's contribution will be within the overall EU target. We will then have to set ourselves a programme, upon which we shall be consulting early next year, as to how we will achieve our legally binding targets and start meeting our aim of a 20 per cent. reduction.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the all-party support which the Government have and deserve. Throughout the world one of the major causes of air pollution is the burning of oil and petrol in the ever-increasing number of motor vehicles. Will the Government bear in mind that there are other ways of propelling motor vehicles; for example, by electricity, non-polluting gases, and as one sees in the newspaper today, hydrogen and oxygen activated by two electrodes is a method being developed by the Ford Motor Company at a cost of £600 million? Will the

517
Government set an example to the world by encouraging the development of all those alternative methods of propelling motor vehicles?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government have already set something of an example through the Government Car Service and its use of alternative fuels and in the announcement recently made by the Prime Minister of the creation of a cleaner vehicles task force. That will set up a new partnership between government and industry to promote the production and sales of cleaner vehicles. Encouraging the uptake of more fuel-efficient and greener cars will be, as the noble Lord pointed out, an important contribution towards reducing CO, emissions from road transport, not just in this country but—I take his point—world-wide.
It is important that we take the lead in respect of the environment and so that we have the opportunity to exploit our own technology in this area and create business opportunities. We must examine the use of fuel cells. The Government are doing that in collaboration with industry, supporting research on fuel cell technology through the DTI's Advanced Fuel Cell Programme, and examining the alternative role which fuel gases might play.
Lord Moran: My Lords, were there any signs at Kyoto that China and India, whose roles in this area will be immensely important in the near future, will be prepared to restrict their emissions in due course?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the framework set in 1995 for Kyoto was about the contribution of the developed nations. Industrial nations have been the major cause of rising global temperatures during the past 100 years and must take the lead in tackling climate change.
However, the noble Lord is right because we need to look for an increasingly global solution to a global problem in respect of which the players will change over time. That is why during the next few years we will be working to involve developing countries more closely in international efforts to cut emissions. We will do so in a way which recognises a common, if differentiated, responsibility on all countries to act in this field. It was recognised at Kyoto that progress in the developing countries will be important in ensuring that the US ratifies the protocol.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while recognising that the agreement is bound to be greeted with doubt and pessimism, would it not be appropriate for this House to applaud both the reference to the role of trustee and also to pay tribute to the efforts of Her Majesty's Government in the vital role which they pursued in Kyoto?
Is it not regrettable that the previous Government ceased to encourage research in clean coal technology, which was making great strides? Could that be resumed? Will the Government accept that if Britain is to take a reasonable share of the new markets they might take some initiative to bring industry together in order to
518
ensure that, having given a lead and having set an example, we have a reasonable share in any forthcoming commercial advantages?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments about the UK's role, in particular to the role played by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who was a key figure in ensuring that the agreement was reached.
The Government attach considerable importance to the development of clean coal technology, particularly for application overseas where the main market for the technology in the next decade will be. We are currently undertaking a detailed review of the UK's clean coal technology requirements in consultation with industry. We are continuing to support the R & D programme aimed at developing clean coal technology. The DTI is actively encouraging industry and universities to work together to maintain UK expertise and know-how.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government believe that the decisions taken at Kyoto will prevent a further rise in sea levels, particularly in relation to the importance of that problem to the Maldives, where a six foot rise would see the end of that relatively new member of the Commonwealth?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to that threat to the island nations. Kyoto presented an opportunity for stabilisation where otherwise there would have been enormous increases in emissions with the consequent effect on sea levels which we have seen. It is difficult to predict exactly what will happen. That is why it is important to continue monitoring the effects of climate change while taking measures which will ensure that we do not have the unbridled increases in emissions of the past.
Lord Carver: My Lords, as chairman of the sub-committee of your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee which reported on the greenhouse effect some years ago, I support the Government's achievements at Kyoto. I do so despite all my reservations, which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.
As the principle of tradeable permits has been accepted—I have great reservations about America picking up credits from Russia—will the Government consider introducing them in respect of emissions in this country? I must admit that our committee's report did not support that proposal. Furthermore, as nuclear power is the most suitable method of producing electricity as regards the greenhouse effect, will the Government do more to encourage its development?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the programme and measures which we introduce in this country must be framed in the light of decisions taken within the EU in developing policies post-Kyoto and of our legally binding targets. However, I note the noble and gallant Lord's comments about the possibility of tradeability in emissions within this country rather than internationally.

519
In 1996, nuclear power generated about 30 per cent. of the UK's electricity. Increased capacity and improved productivity have helped the UK to limit its emissions of greenhouse gases. Provided that high standards of safety and environmental protection can be maintained, we believe that it should continue to do so.
However, the amount of nuclear power in the UK's energy mix is essentially a matter for the electricity generators. We believe that at present there is no case for government intervention in favour of the construction of new nuclear power stations.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, must the United States Government obtain the concurrence of the Senate before they can ratify the protocol? If so, is there a belief that that concurrence will be obtained?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the clear view which came out of Kyoto is that the US administration were fully committed to the deal which was agreed. The next two to three years will give us a window of credibility for ensuring the meaningful participation of developing countries and developing rules for the implementation of mechanisms allowed for in the agreement. Those two aspects will be crucial in ensuring that the US is in a position to ratify the protocol. That will be the key. If we can get those aspects right we are confident that the US administration will ratify the protocol.

Scottish Water Industry Review
4.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the outcome of the Government's review of the Scottish water and sewerage industry.
"As honourable Members will know, our manifesto contained a commitment to return the Scottish water industry to local democratic control. In my Answer of 5th June, I said that I had asked my officials to conduct a review of the water industry and to report to me by November, which they have done. The review team had extensive consultations with the three water authorities, CoSLA and the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. We also issued a public consultation paper, which produced 91 responses. I am very grateful to all who responded so constructively, and I shall place their responses in the library of St. Andrew's House. The review team also held discussions with a variety of other interests and commissioned research into water industry models across the world. We listened very carefully to what has been said before reaching our conclusions.
"In conducting the review we were guided by a number of important principles. Apart from the central theme of improving democratic
520
accountability, we also wanted to facilitate investment, promote efficiency, ensure continuity of public water supplies, protect public health and minimise disruption to the industry. The importance of these principles, and the importance the industry has for all of us in our day-to-day lives, has been demonstrated only too dramatically by events in recent days in the West of Scotland. These events are very serious, not least in terms of the severe dislocation caused to everyday life for some 60,000 people. I can announce today that Mr. Robert Fraser, a distinguished figure in the water industry and until recently Director of Water and Drainage for Borders Regional Council, will lead an exhaustive enquiry into the circumstances. I have asked Mr. Fraser to address the following points: first, to review the causes, nature and extent of the disruption to public water supplies in the area served by Burncrooks water treatment works, including the impact on the vulnerable sectors of the population, food industries and other water users; secondly, to review West of Scotland Water Authority's response to the incident; thirdly, to consider the lessons to be learned for the future from such an event. In particular, whether advice to the public needs to be given at an earlier stage, whether better arrangements need to be made for the provision of alternative supplies of drinking water, and whether improved arrangements are required for co-ordination within the public authorities, and with the media; and, fourthly, report and make recommendations.
"I fully understand the great public concern and the sense of irritation over this incident. I have spoken personally to both the Chief Executive and Chairman of West of Scotland Water today. Contamination levels are falling steadily, and I understand that 17,000 out of the 22,000 households originally affected now have clean water. I have been assured that lessons will be learnt, but I shall want to look hard at Mr. Fraser's report. Because of the urgency of getting the facts and learning the lessons, I am anxious to have a tight but realistic timetable, and have therefore asked for the report to be completed by the end of March. I shall not make judgments before I see the report, but if further action is required I shall not hesitate to take it.
"This episode does, nevertheless, serve to remind us that the water industry faces two immediate and major problems. First, there is the question of water purity, with the stark fact being that the purity of Scottish water is far down the UK league; indeed, the three authorities are in the bottom five when comparisons are made across the UK. The second is the chronic need for investment, especially in sewerage, to meet the requirements of European directives. The fact is that while the period of local authority control is looked back on as a period when the ownership of the industry was most generally acceptable, we have to accept that the infrastructure, often Victorian, was allowed to decay, and the consequences now mean that very great sums are required to bring the industry to a satisfactory level.

521
We have to consider how we can best assist the industry in the task it has to meet the real demands ahead.
"I turn now to the various options which emerged during the review. We looked carefully at a wide range of proposals for the industry. Splitting the three authorities up between the 32 separate unitary councils was quickly ruled out. It is clear that disturbing the three authority structure would have disproportionate costs.
"A leading option, however, was to seek to improve accountability by transferring responsibility for water and sewerage services to joint boards of local authorities. Joint boards can be an effective way of providing strategic services, and the water authorities undoubtedly provide a vital public service. However, the water authorities are also large businesses with massive investment requirements, and just three authorities cover Scotland's 32 local authorities. I have therefore had to reject this approach. The last local government reorganisation made these options virtually impossible.
"We also carefully considered the imaginative case advanced by some consultees to convert the public water authorities into private, non-profit distributing companies such as mutuals. Such bodies would be freed from the capital controls of the public sector. But at a cost. That cost would be freeing them from answerability to any democratic body. I do not believe that is what the Scottish people want. It would be entirely outside the public sector—effectively it would be privatised. A mutual would be nominally controlled by its membership, but how effective control over the boards would operate is much less clear. I am also not convinced that a mutual, monopoly water authority would be under sufficient pressure to be efficient, as all experience tells us that individual customers would not be motivated to protect their interests. Nor am I convinced that unwelcome pressures to demutualise could be avoided. In the short term it would be very disruptive for the industry. I have therefore also had to reject this way forward.
"Despite this, it is clear to me that, if the investment needs of the Scottish water industry are to be met at a cost the consumer can afford, we shall need to harness private capital and expertise, within a framework of continuing public accountability. Let me first deal with the crucial issue of accountability.
"Since we launched the review, the Scottish people have given a resounding endorsement to the parliament. Our White Paper on Scotland's parliament made clear our concerns about the number of public bodies in Scotland being run without clear democratic oversight. It said that we saw the new parliament as the means of bringing them under strengthened democratic accountability. Responsibility for the water and sewerage industry will pass to the Scottish parliament. In the longer term it may wish to look again at some of the arrangements for change, but these could not and should not be
522
options for today and tomorrow. In any event. I would expect that it will wish to allow the system to settle and perform before considering any further options.
"The Scottish parliament will be able to bring the water authorities under the proper level of scrutiny that a modern democracy demands through its oversight of the Scottish executive. This is the best way of delivering the will of the Scottish people for their water industry to remain unambiguously in public ownership and to be clearly democratically accountable.
"As well as becoming more accountable, I wish to see the water authorities become more responsive at a local level. As part of developing local responsiveness I shall ask the water authorities to build further on their links with the local authorities and community councils in their areas, which will be helped by the community planning system we are shortly to introduce. I also look to the water authorities to get closer to their customers and to other important local stakeholders including environmental interests. I shall very shortly issue a direction to the water authorities to review their systems for involving local interests, particularly local authorities, and to improve and strengthen these systems. I also propose to place a statutory duty on the water authorities to consult with the local authorities whose electors would be affected by major decisions. This should improve the water authorities' responsiveness to the concerns of local communities.
"Moreover, I can today announce new appointments to the water authority boards. Ian Preston and John Robertson. chairmen of the East and North Water Authorities respectively, will demit office at the end of March. I am very grateful to both of them for their good work and public service. In the east, Councillor Robert Cairns will take over, and in the north, Councillor Colin Rennie. John Jameson remains chairman of the west authority. In addition to the two new chairmen, I am appointing as new members in the east Councillor Jeanette Burness, Councillor Thomas Dair, David Bleiman, and John Broadfoot; new members in the west are Councillor Gerald Carroll, Councillor David Munn and Jane McKay; and in the north I am appointing Nigel Hawkins as a new member. I am also reappointing a total of seven current members to the boards. These appointments bring the number of local councillors on boards up to 16 out of the 33 members, excluding chief executives—i.e. roughly half the total. Of these 16, six are Labour councillors. I have made full details of the appointments available in the Library.
"One aspect of local responsiveness I wish to explore further is how best to help with the problems of water supply and sewerage faced in many of our remoter rural areas. I have therefore asked officials to review whether or not there is a case for reintroducing rural grants to help with such problems.
"As I have already said, the water industry review has again emphasised that the industry is in need of very substantial investment if the Scottish people are to have the quality of water industry that they deserve.

523
But that investment will have to be paid for. Put simply, this means that all of us who are water consumers will have to pay more in the years ahead. Let me be quite clear. This investment is needed to bring the quality of our water up to the standards south of the border, to protect our beaches, rivers and seas, and to renew the infrastructure gifted us by previous generations which more recent generations have neglected.
"The private finance initiative is paying off by helping us to acquire additional resources to meet EC environmental deadlines, and in identifying innovatory ways of making savings in the capital and operating cost of projects. The water authorities have substantial plans for PFI projects, amounting to some £600 million, to help meet their investment needs in the years ahead. This Government are committed to developing opportunities for public private partnerships. I encourage the water authorities to be innovative with such partnerships while working within the framework of strengthened democratic control I have outlined.
"The Scottish people will need safeguards to ensure that money raised is well spent. There was consensus amongst the major consultees that the current division between price regulation by the customers council and efficiency regulation by the Scottish Office has proved untenable. I propose to create a new position of a regulator responsible for all aspects of economic regulation and for promoting the customer interest.
"The water authorities will be under legitimate democratic oversight, but they are still monopolies, and the new regulator will have operational independence to ensure that the customer gets the best possible deal. The regulator will be accountable to the Scottish parliament through the Scottish executive. To safeguard the independence of the regulator's role, the position will be established in statute.
"The functions of the current customers council will be transferred to the new unified regulator, and the council in its current form wound up. However, it is essential that customers continue to have a strong independent voice. I therefore propose to develop the role of the three customers council area committees as the champion of the individual customer. These committees in their developed form will be accountable to the new regulator, and will provide a point of contact for the public.
"I have also listened carefully to representations made about the damaging uncertainty for the industry of the current one year time horizon for price and EFL decisions. I therefore propose that there should be a longer-term pricing framework, and we should aim to ensure as stable a borrowing framework as possible, despite changing circumstances in successive public spending plans.
"Finally, I have also listened carefully to the views expressed to us during the review about the contribution that people with business experience have made to the boards of the new public authorities, alongside councillors. As will be clear from the appointments I am announcing I judge it essential that
524
we continue to draw on the expertise that the private sector can offer to ensure well balanced and effective boards.
"In sum, my proposals represent real local responsiveness, and real democratic control. They show that we have listened very carefully and thoughtfully to what has been said during our extensive consultations. We are seizing the opportunities created by the Scottish parliament to have more democratic control of the industry, and to find the best way forward given the particular sensitivities of this industry. We shall not play politics with Scottish water.
"My proposals to change the system of regulation will require legislation, and the Government will look for an appropriate opportunity to legislate. I am also publishing today a factual document that I asked the review team to prepare setting out in more detail the outcome of the review. Copies will be available from the Printed Paper Office".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend Donald Dewar in the other place. I must say that the 16 minutes of Statement could perhaps be encapsulated in two words, "about turn", because that is exactly what this Statement is.
Before I turn to the "about turns" perhaps I may welcome the part of the Statement which is slightly aside from the framework for Scottish water; that is, the appointment of Mr. Robert Fraser to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the problem of the water supply in north-west Glasgow and the Bearsden area, and so on, where diesel was spilt into the supply system. That has meant that a number of people have discovered that water is an essential part of our everyday life. We have come to take it very much for granted. I am therefore extremely pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is setting up an inquiry because, without going over the issue at all and pre-judging it, there seems to have been something of a time lapse between the incident happening and consumers being warned that their water may well not be drinkable due to contamination by diesel.
The second small point with which I shall deal now is the question of the regulator. Towards the end of the Statement, the Minister announced the creation of the position of regulator. I presume that is rather similar to the Ofwat appointment that we made when we privatised water in England. To that extent, I welcome the Government's conversion to the importance of regulation. I believe that that indicates that they do not have a great deal of faith in democratic accountability by councillors, which is what they preached before the election. Indeed, it is the contrast between this Statement and what the Government were saying before the election which struck me most as I sat listening to the Minister.

525
I remind your Lordships of some of the things that were said before the election by the party opposite. In 1995 the Scottish Labour Party's manifesto for the Scottish unitary party elections stated:
"The next Labour government will return water to directly elected control. Labour will not nominate people to serve on these new water boards unless plans are changed so that they are run by elected councillors".
In a speech that year to the Scottish Labour Party Conference at Inverness, George Robertson, the then shadow Secretary of State—I suspect well out of the way, probably in a tank with the hatches battened down in an exercise in some far off land at this very moment—said:
"I make this clear pledge to the Scottish people. On my first day in St. Andrew's House I will end this undemocratic farce. All the Water Quango Appointees—whoever they are—will be told to clear their desks, and I won't take no for an answer. Labour will then replace them with locally-elected councillors, chosen by their locally elected councils. Scotland's water will be back where it always should be—in local democratic control".
Just to show that it is not just history, earlier this year the 1997 Labour Party manifesto stated:
"We will return Scotland's water services to local democratic control".
Of course, we all remember that in 1994 the party opposite, egged on and helped by its friends in the Strathclyde region, conducted a referendum, at great public expense to those of us who are council taxpayers in Strathclyde, on whether the people approved of the three water authorities then being set up by the Conservative Government. The poll was fairly overwhelmingly against the then government's plans-97.2 per cent. against and 2.8 per cent. in favour. Now that there has been this great turnabout and the structure is to be kept, I wonder whether the Government will fund another referendum in Strathclyde so that we can all have an opportunity to see what people think about the new structure. It really is amazing. It is not long since the position of the party opposite in Scotland was that frankly nothing was more for the best in the best of all possible worlds than local government control of water. Certainly in comparison to all the horrors of privatisation, Scotland was in an enviable position—or was it?
Is the Minister really able to read out the words in the Statement with a straight face? First, he said, on the question of water purity,
"with the stark fact being that the purity of Scottish water is far down the UK league; indeed the three authorities are in the bottom five when comparisons are made across the UK"
—and I thought that the privatised water authorities in England were the absolute pits so far as the Labour Party was concerned. It would appear that they are a great deal better and have been a great deal better than the local authority-driven water authorities in Scotland. A chronic need for investment was referred to, especially in regard to sewage. Anybody who walks along some Scottish beaches will know that is the case.
Then came what I thought was the gem: the Minister managed to say with a straight face:
526
"while the period of local authority control is looked back on as a period when the ownership of the industry was most generally acceptable, we have to accept that the infrastructure, often Victorian, was allowed to decay"—
and this under the control of the blessed local authorities! It is no wonder that we are doing an about-turn today and the Government are accepting that the water authority situation in Scotland set up by the previous government is the best way to deliver water services to the people of Scotland.
We go further. The Government are now saying that, thanks to the under-investment by local authorities in all the years they ran water, water consumers will to have to pay a great deal more in the years ahead. Let me be quite plain with the Minister: this investment is needed to bring the quality of our water up to the standards south of the Border. And south of the Border is where water is privatised, and it is supposed to be awful. So in fact the Government are accepting—and their English colleagues ought to be accepting also—that water privatisation has been a success. I wonder why they did not think about this in Scotland—after all, New Labour, new ideas.
Is the Minister now satisfied that, even returning it to semi-local authority control—or 16 out of 33, which seems to me a long way short of what they originally said they were going to do—this would actually precipitate the water authorities back into the position which he himself has said was totally unsatisfactory, with the infrastructure allowed to decay? I notice with interest that he has rejected any return to local authority control as such; and I think that is gratifying. However, will he now say that the Labour Party's position in 1994, when it instigated the referendum I mentioned earlier, was entirely wrong and that it was wrong to attack the proposals then being made by the previous government? That is in fact what this Statement is saying today. So they are either wrong now in keeping the three authorities or they were wrong then in opposing them. I must say that a number of my colleagues and ex-colleagues will be gratified today to have this ringing endorsement of the policy of having three water authorities.
Turning to the question of the appointments, I am interested to see that people with business experience have made a contribution to the boards. That was not what the party opposite said when the people of business experience were being appointed to the boards in 1994. But we will leave that to one side. Perhaps the Minister will tell me this. If people with business experience have a lot to contribute, why have two eminent Scottish businessmen like Ian Preston and John Robertson been removed from chairmanship of their two boards? Perhaps he will also tell us what are the business qualifications—I know they are councillors—of Mr. Robert Cairns and Mr. Colin Rennie that make them suitable to be chairman of these two very big industries on which all of us in Scotland depend. Perhaps he will explain that.
Coming lastly to the question of the Scottish parliament, I could not quite understand that. Is there just a suggestion here that the Scottish parliament may well take over control from the water authorities and in

527
fact run Scotland on an all water authority basis? That possibility exists. Does it not in fact keep the very uncertainty that the Minister later in the Statement said he wanted to avoid?
The Minister freely admits in the Statement again—surprise, surprise—that private finance will be needed to improve Scottish water and sewerage. That is another welcome conversion. He might point out to one or two of his colleagues in the ministerial team that they ought to stop their antagonism to the private finance that built the Skye Road Bridge if they are actually going to embrace private finance when it comes to the water industry.
The final piece—and I think the Minister deserves a prize today—was to listen to him reading out with a straight face the words:
"We shall not play politics with Scottish water".
What was the Labour Party doing in 1994 with its referendum in Strathclyde? What was it doing at the Labour Party Conference? What was it doing in the manifesto? I welcome the Labour Party to its new realisation that indeed you cannot play politics with Scottish water. It is the Labour Party which has been playing politics with Scottish water, and we welcome its conversion to having three water authorities and its at least partial conversion to the fact that businessmen have a significant role to play in the delivery of water services in Scotland.
4.36 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for repeating the Statement made in another place and I had better declare an interest in that I am not just an East of Scotland water customer. I also receive wayleave payments from that board.
The Scottish water industry may have been expecting a rather more vigorous shake-up than what is actually going to happen, but I suppose this has to be good for continuity. Ultimately the question must be about the ability to deliver services to the right quality, to the current standards and with appropriate efficiency and safeguards. The three authorities have a considerable duty to the 98 per cent. of Scots who receive water services and to the 95 per cent. who use the public sewers. The ability to invest in infrastructure is clearly critical. That opportunity to replace and develop infrastructure is limited by the ability to borrow. The Statement describes the limited borrowing opportunities which will be allowed. These seem to be less than the water charges paid by consumers would stand.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, outlined how local democratic control will be re-instituted. I am grateful for the assurance about continued public ownership. I welcome the opportunity for more elected local councillors to be on the three authorities, although they do remain quangos. I am glad that Labour councillors have now got over their squeamishness about sitting on quangos and I hope that the new members will be well acquainted with the needs of the water industry.
528
On these Benches we would have preferred the option of three joint boards drawn from all the councils covered by the joint board areas and constituted proportionately. That way accountability for water and sewerage would be at the ballot box. The creation of a Scottish water regulator will bring together the supervisory powers of the Scottish Office and the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customer Council.
Clearly, the three monopolies—and after all that is what they have to be—need to be regulated. I welcome the promised creation of the three area consumer councils which are to champion the interests of local consumers. The measures intended to deal with the ongoing west of Scotland diesel and water problem are welcomed, and I wish Mr. Ronald Fraser well with his inquiries. Water is such a fundamental commodity that this is a most regrettable event. Clearly, this will be an incident for a regulator to deal with. Penultimately, the attention which will be given to the remoter rural areas is welcomed, particularly the possibility of rural grant aid. I am glad that that has been included in the considerations. Finally, I am glad to hear that the Scottish parliament will supervise the Scottish water industry and possibly reshape it as required in the near future.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has had his bit of fun. I do not begrudge him that at all. However, we have done what we said we would do. We said in the manifesto clearly and absolutely without any reservation that we would return Scotland's water authorities to local democratic control, and that is what we have done. I am afraid that the noble Lord still does not understand the basis and the whole emphasis that the Scottish parliament will have in the public life of Scotland. It is through the Scottish parliament and through accountability to a Scottish parliament that we have addressed the democratic deficit that was established by the previous administration in setting up water authorities which were completely lacking in any form of democratic accountability within Scotland. We have put that right and we have done it through the Scottish parliament. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will finally recognise the constructive role that the Scottish parliament can play in bringing about and enhancing democratic accountability in the institutions of government in Scotland.
As I said, we considered bringing the water authorities back under joint boards. If we had been in the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, described prior to local government reorganisation, a strong case could have been made for that because we had a limited number of regional councils which had previously been water and sewerage authorities. The re-organisation of Scottish local government which created a plethora of smaller authorities made that option impossible because when you sat down and decided what the composition of those joint boards would be in order to recognise the population weight of the constituent authorities, you finished up with large and unmanageable boards. We did not think that that was a way forward in terms of

529
good and effective management. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, sang long and loud the claims of privatised water. Do I take it that it is now his policy to advocate the privatisation of the Scottish water industry? I think we deserve clarification.
I turn to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on the composition of the authorities. I wish to stress that all those who applied for membership of the authorities, and indeed those who indicated a wish to serve as chairmen of the authorities, were subject to the full rigour of the Nolan procedures. There can be no claim that those people who are now serving on the water authorities do not deserve to be there and do not measure up to the task; they do, and I am sure that they will do a good job.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, as the Minister responsible for the water section of a local government Bill, I remind the noble Lord that I spent hour after hour after hour in Committee listening to Members of his Front Bench—mainly George Robertson and Mr. McLeish—saying exactly what they were going to do the day after the election, and how they were going to return to the situation of 12 local authorities managing water. That is very different to the democratic method that the Minister is trying to promote in the proposals he has mentioned today. I congratulate the Minister on doing a complete U-turn with regard to what Members of his Front Bench said in the run-up to the election and during the Committee stage of the Bill.
Does he also agree that we were absolutely clear—I was clear about it throughout all stages of the Bill—that we were not privatising water in Scotland but we were providing the opportunity for investment in the water and sewerage industry which was absolutely essential? I am glad that what we proposed and what we carried out has proved to be so successful. I am glad that the present Government are following our lead.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord listened to what my colleagues in another place said about water at the time that the legislation was going through Parliament. However, more recently, I remember listening for many hours to Members of the Front Bench opposite speak on the evils of devolution. Things have changed on that side of the House too. The point we are trying to make is that the previous structure of the water industry in Scotland had a hole in it; there was a leak. That leak was the lack of democratic accountability within Scotland. We have addressed that matter. We looked at the options. We looked at the direct local government option of joint boards and we rejected that. It was unworkable because of the increase in the number of authorities brought about by re-organisation. It is absolutely clear that making the water authorities directly accountable to a Scottish parliament gives you that degree of democratic accountability and gives you an effective and real link of democratic accountability to a Scottish institution.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I welcome today's Statement, and I am sure that it will be
530
welcomed throughout Scotland. Whatever may be said about the Benches opposite, they cannot claim to represent Scotland in any way whatever. It is particularly welcome that we are to have an inquiry into what happened in north-west Glasgow in Milngavie and Bearsden. I represented Bearsden in another place in the early 1980s. What happened there is indicative of some serious flaw in the industry which may be related to the need for major capital investment. Can my noble friend tell the House what is the scale of capital investment that this industry requires in the short term to ensure that essential water supplies are maintained? What is the capital investment required in the long term? Is it not the case that whether the money is raised through taxation or from the private sector, at the end of the day the consumer will have to pay for that? The sooner the Government and the Opposition are prepared to say to the public that this will have to be paid for by them, the consumers, and there is no way round that, the sooner we will create the environment that will make water reorganisation far better understood.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish parliament will take responsibility in future for the structure and organisation of the water supply industry in Scotland. That has to be right. There can be no industry in the country which is more important to the public than the water supply industry. It is right that we should maximise democratic control over that industry while recognising, of course, that there is a clear place for private sector finance.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a characteristic and realistic assessment of the Statement. On a number of occasions I have made comments that have been reported in the Scottish press to the effect that we as water consumers face an increase in charges to ensure that our infrastructure is improved, not just maintained. I can give some indication of the scale of investment that is required. Up until the year 2000 it is envisaged that something like £1.5 billion of capital investment will be necessary to maintain the infrastructure and to meet the requirements of the EU directives. That gives some indication of the scale of the problem we face.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the fact that thousands of homes in the west of Scotland were deprived of a clean water supply was very serious and merits the appointment that the Minister has announced. Robert Fraser ran in the Borders a water authority for which we paid high charges but which was not allowed to decay as happened in some other areas. He is a very suitable person to conduct the inquiry.
Secondly, I wonder whether I might entice the Minister to say more about the prospect of the re-introduction of rural grants for water supplies. That would be very welcome were it to come into being.
As for the bulk of the Statement, I must say that the Secretary of State listed all the difficulties for every solution. When I look back to the rhetoric prior to the election on local democratic control—one point which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, managed to omit from his litany—it was Mr. George Robertson

531
who promised that following the election there would be a "bonfire of the quangos". Instead, we see the creation of a few warm nests into which a few Labour councillors will be inserted. The gap between rhetoric and action is there for all to see.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I do not know so much about the bonfire of the quangos, but I hesitate even to suggest the bonfire of the vanities. I thank the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the contribution and qualities of Mr. Fraser. I look forward, as I know my right honourable friend does, to the report. We will study it and act upon it, and act decisively if such a course is indicated.
I am afraid that I cannot say any more on the introduction of grants for rural areas. I shall want to see the outcome of advice and consultation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House simply and clearly why the addition of extra local government councillors is going to improve the management of this large industry, if important investment is thus kept to a minimum?
Lord Sewel: Yes, my Lords. The water industry is both an industry and a service. It must be responsive to the needs of the local population. One of the best ways of achieving that is through having the elected representatives of local communities on the water authorities themselves. We place very great emphasis on making sure that the authorities, as they are re-formed, are indeed responsive to their local communities.
Lord Monkswell:My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for repeating the Statement, perhaps I may chide him on the way in which he "let off" the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, after his contribution. We all recognise that some of the problems of the Scottish water industry, as he pointed out, are due to lack of capital investment. It was the Front Benches opposite who presided over that lack of investment over the past 18 years. Local authorities may have been responsible; but it was central government who set the capital expenditure limit. I chide my noble friend for letting the noble Lord off too lightly.
What will be the position of the Scottish parliament? My understanding is that the UK Parliament will set up the office of the regulator for the Scottish water industry. Will the Scottish parliament, once it is set up, be able to change the legislative framework under which the water industry will operate and be able to reorganise the delivery of water services at more local level?
Finally, the Minister pointed out that if water authorities intend making any significant changes, they will be under a duty to consult with the local authorities. Will it be possible, through administrative means, for the water authorities to report annually to their local authorities on what has been going on—not merely on significant changes but on the conduct of their
532
operations in the local area? That might bring about a closer connection between local democratically elected representatives and the operation of the water industry.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am nearly always happy to be chided by my noble friend. In this case I am utterly delighted. Perhaps I may make clear the point of the legislation. The role of the regulator will be established through legislation passing through this House and another place. However, once devolution is in place, water is a devolved area. It would be open to a Scottish parliament to pass whatever legislation it wished. We have indicated that we think it would be sensible for the parliament to stay its hand and see how what we are proposing settles down and how it works.
As to the relationships with local authorities, that is an area where we wish to encourage close participation and collaboration. I am happy to examine all means by which that can be furthered.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, the Minister made great play of democratic accountability and a Scottish parliament. However, there is one problem. The Scottish parliament will not be in existence until 2000; the site for it has not yet even been chosen. Therefore there is a problem as to how democratic accountability can exist between now and then. The situation involving quangos will undoubtedly continue.
There is one small point that I wish to put to the Minister. Is he considering selling off the vast tracts of land that the water boards own, together with their sporting rights, which would raise a considerable amount of money to help pay for all the things that should have been done and have not been done? The disgusting state of most beaches along the west coast of Scotland is clear for anyone to see.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is nice to hear a concern for democratic accountability expressed from the Benches opposite. All I can say is, yes, it will most likely be the year 2000, or 1999, before a Scottish parliament is in place. But we are going down that road. We are going to get there. It will be real. We shall then have the proper relationship in place.
In relation to selling off land, it is not for me to tell the water authorities what to do with their assets. The property vests in them.

Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
4.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Crime and disorder cause fear and misery to individuals, families and communities across the country. We came into government pledged to relieve their distress with tough action against crime and against its causes. This Crime and Disorder Bill starts to deliver that promise.

533
This is the second of two major Home Office Bills introduced in your Lordships' House in the current Session. Together with the Human Rights Bill, it will help to safeguard rights and reinforce responsibilities for all. I pay full tribute to the work done by Home Office officials and advisers and parliamentary counsel in the production of the legislation.
The Bill contains a substantial package of measures, taking forward 12 manifesto commitments. I shall set out its six main themes: first, nipping youth crime in the bud; secondly, combating anti-social behaviour and promoting local action against crime and disorder; thirdly, tackling racist crime; fourthly, expediting justice; fifthly, protecting the public from sexual, violent and drug-misusing offenders; and sixthly, providing greater consistency and clarity in sentencing.
To tackle youth crime, the Bill contains a number of measures from the White Paper, No More Excuses, which I presented to the House on 27th November. These include six manifesto commitments. Youth justice measures appear in each of the Bill's five parts; for your Lordships' convenience I shall take all the youth justice measures together.
Part I of the Bill includes a new parenting order under which parents of offending or disorderly children may be required to attend guidance sessions and to comply with requirements specified by the court.
Provisions in Part I will also protect children under 10 from turning to crime or anti-social behaviour. The child safety order will enable a court to make requirements to ensure a child's care and protection and prevent further disorderly or would-be criminal behaviour. Local authorities may apply to establish local child curfew schemes to prevent unsupervised young children being out late at night, putting themselves and others at risk.
Part II of the Bill abolishes the presumption that children aged at least 10 but under 14 are doli incapax. It was of course the judgment of the House of Lords which confirmed in March 1995 the doctrine's currency in English law but recommended that Parliament should review it since it could produce inconsistent results.
Part III of the Bill establishes in law for the first time that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people. It also requires local authorities to ensure that appropriate youth justice services are available in their area and to establish inter-agency youth offending teams. A new youth justice board for England and Wales will help Ministers to set standards and will monitor performance across the youth justice system.
Part III of the Bill also provides for mandatory time limits for juvenile criminal cases and includes other measures which will help us to halve the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders.
Part IV of the Bill abolishes cautioning for young offenders in favour of a new police reprimand and warning scheme. Youngsters given a final warning will normally participate in a community intervention programme to tackle the causes of their offending. New
534
community disposals—the reparation order and the action plan order—will encourage young offenders to face up to and make amends for the harm they have caused.
Part IV also establishes the detention and training order in place of the current sentences of detention in a young offender institution and the secure training order. The detention and training order will be served half in custody and half in the community with scope to shorten or extend the custodial element to encourage good progress. It will be available initially for 12 to 17 year-olds, with provision to extend it to 10 and 11 year-olds. Provisions in Part V of the Bill pave the way for implementing powers for courts to remand young people to local authority secure accommodation where this is necessary to protect the public.
The Bill's second theme takes forward manifesto commitments to protect communities from anti-social behaviour and to harness their efforts to tackle crime and disorder. As long ago as 1991 the Morgan Report recommended a key role for local authorities in crime prevention. The previous administration missed that opportunity—and every subsequent opportunity—to take advantage of the pivotal position of local authorities to bring together statutory and non-statutory agencies, and all local communities, to prevent and reduce crime.
To focus and enhance local efforts, Part I of the Bill places a joint responsibility on local authorities and the police to develop and implement local strategies to reduce crime and disorder. Strategies will be based on the results of local crime and disorder audits, conducted in consultation with local communities. Strategies will include objectives, and performance targets and will be published.
Local authorities will also, for the first time, be placed under a duty to consider the crime and disorder implications of all their policies. This will bring crime reduction considerations into the very heart of local decision-making.
Part I of the Bill also creates a new anti-social behaviour order which will prohibit behaviour which could cause harassment, alarm or distress. Breaching the terms of the order will be a criminal offence, with a maximum penalty for adults of up to five years' imprisonment. Anti-social behaviour orders will also be introduced in Scotland.
The third manifesto theme embodied in the Bill is protection against racist crime. These crimes are particularly odious, damaging, as they do, not just the victim but the very fabric of the multi-racial society in which we live. Part II of the Bill introduces new racially aggravated offences parallel to the main existing offences of violence and harassment under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. For each new offence, if the racial element is proved, significantly greater maximum penalties will be available. An offence will be held to be racially aggravated if either the offender demonstrates racial hostility towards the victim at or around the time of the offence, or the offence itself is motivated by racial hostility.

535
Clause 68 makes clear that, in general, racial aggravation in connection with an offence is an aggravating factor, meriting a stiffer sentence. This confirms in statute the 1995 judgment in the case of R. v. Ribbans, Duggan and Ridley.
For Scotland, the Bill will provide for a new offence of racially aggravated harassment and require that a proved racist element in any crime should be taken into account by the court when sentencing.
The Bill's fourth major theme is improving the speed and efficiency of the criminal justice system. Part III contains provisions springing from the Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System, the Narey Review, published by the previous government. These include measures to improve case management, to bring cases promptly to court, and to provide for cases which must be tried in the Crown Court to be sent there immediately.
To reinforce these improved arrangements, we will introduce time limits for the prosecution of all criminal cases under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The Bill will enable more exacting time limits to be set for cases involving juveniles than for those involving adults and for even tougher time limits for cases involving persistent juvenile offenders. It will also provide tighter criteria for granting extensions to prosecution time limits.
The Bill will also provide that where a person is charged with an offence and the prosecution time limit is exceeded, rather than this resulting in the defendant's acquittal, the proceedings will be stayed. Such prosecutions could be re-activated in exceptional circumstances on the authority of a very senior designated prosecutor.
To enhance the ability of courts to manage business efficiently and expeditiously, Clause 40 provides for a number of powers to be exercised by single justices. It further provides that the Lord Chancellor may, following local consultation, authorise clerks to the justices in a particular area to exercise these powers. It is the Government's intention that, initially, on a pilot basis clerks should be authorised in some areas to exercise these powers.
The Government will also be bringing forward amendments at Committee stage to allow the delegation of some functions to lay staff in the Crown Prosecution Service. These would enable members of the CPS who were not lawyers to present guilty plea cases at the magistrates' court.
Under provisions in Part III, the police and courts will be allowed to impose more demanding conditions on bailed defendants to reduce delays caused by defendants' failure to appear in court.
Other provisions in Part III will enable remand prisoners to take part in pre-trial hearings by means of a live television link. This will save the time and expense involved in escorting remand prisoners to court, and reduce the risk of prisoners absconding under escort.
The fifth aspect of the Bill is protection against sexual, violent and drug-misusing offenders. Almost nothing so alarms and incenses communities as the
536
threat posed by sex offenders, particularly those who would prey on children. Part I of the Bill provides for sex offender orders in England, Wales and Scotland. They will be extended to Northern Ireland under Clause 93. This order will forbid a known sex offender from specified conduct which poses a risk of serious harm. For example, a convicted paedophile might be barred from going near a school or playground. If an order is breached, a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment will be available. Orders will carry with them a requirement to be listed on the sex offenders register.
Part IV of the Bill provides for extended supervision after release for certain adult and juvenile violent and sex offenders. Under Clauses 46 and 47, convicted sex offenders will be liable to up to 10 years—and violent offenders up to five years—extended supervision after release. Released prisoners who break their licence conditions will be liable to recall by the Parole Board. Clauses 70 and 71 contain similar Scottish provisions for the extended supervision of sex and violent offenders.
A new drug treatment and testing order, as promised in the manifesto, will require the courts to take an active role in monitoring the progress of drug-misusing offenders who agree to undergo drug treatment as part of their sentence. The order will require regular drug testing. Failure to comply with the order's requirements will lead offenders back to court where they will face the possibility of imprisonment. Clauses 72 to 78 make similar provisions for Scotland.
The Bill's final theme is clarity and consistency in sentencing. Our current system benefits from judicial discretion to sentence in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case. The disadvantage of this approach is that sentencing can sometimes appear unpredictable and inconsistent. The Bill therefore places a duty on the Court of Appeal to consider producing sentencing guidelines for the main offences.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in his Police Foundation lecture earlier this year, acknowledged that providing guidance was an important function of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. He noted our manifesto commitment and helpfully suggested that the Court of Appeal Criminal Division should rise to the challenge.
Court of Appeal guidelines will take account of the need for consistency and the need to secure public confidence in the criminal justice system. They will be informed by data on sentencing practice and on the relative effectiveness of different sentences in preventing re-offending. They will help sentencers to determine seriousness and to decide the weight to be given to an offender's previous offending history and response to previous sentences.
A new sentencing advisory panel will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice. It will advise the Court of Appeal on sentencing, and may—at the request of the Home Secretary—suggest that the Court of Appeal produce guidelines for a given category of offence.

537
Our manifesto promised that courts should explain at the point of sentence what the sentence would mean in practice. After consultation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, it has been agreed that this will be best achieved through a practice direction to sentencers rather than by primary legislation.
Part V contains other miscellaneous provisions, most importantly new home detention curfews for short-term prisoners. These will be available for that group of prisoners serving sentences of more than three months and up to four years who at present are automatically released once they have served half their sentence. Under Clause 82, selected prisoners will be able to serve up to the last two months of the custodial part of their sentence at a specified address under a curfew enforced by electronic tagging rather than in prison. That should provide a safer, managed transition between custody and life in the community. Any breach of the curfew conditions could result in immediate recall to custody.
Part V also provides that offenders recalled to prison for breaching their licence conditions, or for offending before the end of their original sentence, will be subject to a further period of supervision following their second release.
This major Bill lays the foundations for the Government's long term assault on crime and its causes. It should equip the criminal justice system better to serve and to protect the public and should improve the quality of life for many people across the country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
5.13 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by offering thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for that clear and commendably brief introduction to a Bill that is 96 clauses in length. I imagine that we will require the noble Lord to speak at much greater length over the days in Committee, on Report and Third Reading as we seek explanations on those parts of the Bill into which we believe the Government should go in some detail. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that when, in due course, he sees the large number of amendments coming from these Benches, the Cross-Benches and—dare I say it?—from behind him.
From these Benches perhaps I can give what might be termed a qualified welcome to the Bill. That does not mean that we welcome all parts of it, nor that we believe that the Bill cannot be improved in many places. But we accept that it is building on our recent developments under the previous Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard. I refer particularly to the consultation paper that my right honourable friend published in March of this year, Preventing Children Offending, and the other report, Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System, that we published in February of this year. We welcome the new Home Secretary's acceptance of so much of his predecessor's work—an acceptance that can be seen through the great similarities between his White Paper,
538
No More Excuses—A New Approach To Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales and our Green Paper. I do not at this stage wish to indulge in textual matters. But if noble Lords look at those two documents, certainly at the passages on the causes of youth crime and the key factors relating to criminality, remarkable similarities will be found.
I know that governments do not always welcome the wholehearted support of the Opposition. We saw a degree of embarrassment in the party opposite when it saw the support for the Government on some social security issues only last week. But I can assure the noble Lord that on this occasion we shall be taking a constructive approach to the Bill. We shall want to examine it in considerable detail and there is much that needs careful scrutiny in what is a long Bill. But we shall certainly offer support to those parts of the Bill that build on what we achieved over earlier years. We shall try to build on those parts that go so far, but could go further towards reducing crime, particularly youth crime.
We welcome the stress on youth crime. We believe that, despite the hype behind the launch of this Bill, the White Paper and the Statements in July and November, much more can be done. One thing that we can say about the Bill is: "Is that all?". It does not take us as far as the manifesto implied or, for that matter, what was implied again with the great deal of hype that I mentioned by the launch of the White Paper and the Bill itself. I suspect that we all want to see something more.
I wish to make one other opening remark and that is to offer my thanks not to the noble Lord, but to the business managers for securing a start in this House for such an important Bill. We know in all parts of the House that we shall experience enormous problems next year in getting through the vast legislative programme that has been set before us by this Government. The problems in this House next summer will be particularly severe when both devolution Bills finally emerge from another place—if they ever get there. We have now seen the Welsh Bill and we are waiting to see its counterpart for Scotland. I trust that the Government are not having any problems in the drafting of that Bill.
I say that in all seriousness as this Bill again has a considerable number of purely Scottish clauses. From these Benches my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon may well have a word to say about those. Whether they will be affected by the Scottish Bill can only at present be a matter for conjecture. It is something that we would certainly wish to have resolved before the Bill goes to another place, just as we wish to see the Scottish devolution Bill before we make any further progress on the Human Rights Bill, which the Minister mentioned in his introduction.
I turn next to the Bill itself. We have a number of anxieties, most of which we wish to raise in detail at Committee stage and later. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that. This afternoon I should like to concentrate on one or two specific points raised by the Bill.
I start by saying a little about the role of local authorities and their position in the fight against crime and disorder as dealt with by Part I of the Bill, Clauses

539
1 to 17. Obviously I speak in relation to England and Wales and I dare say that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay may have something to say about the Scottish clauses in this regard later on.
Under Clause 1 we see that the districts, or in London the boroughs, will have new powers to make anti-social behaviour orders. We want to know why the districts have been chosen and what their specific expertise is as opposed, for example, to the counties which have both a social services and educational background. I speak now of the two-tier rather than the single-tier authorities. In the case of most districts, I dare say they will have very little relevant experience, other than the experience that comes from being a housing authority, but even that experience is one increasingly diluted as many of them divest themselves of their housing role and contract out their housing concerns.
I suggest that the counties might have been more appropriate for this role because of their educational and social services background. Obviously, I accept that there are arguments to the contrary. For example, one could argue that the districts are nearer the ground; they have, as I said, that housing background. However, I would certainly be very interested to hear the reasoning behind that particular choice.
Under Clause 1 the districts are given that role. When we move to Clause 5, we see that the counties are to be involved in the crime and disorder strategies. In Clause 5 they are to act in co-operation with the police authorities, the health authorities, the probation committees and anyone else prescribed by the Secretary of State. Again, one has to ask who it is that the Secretary of State might prescribe as appropriate to act with the counties.
Clause 6, if I have it right, then brings the districts back in, formulating strategies and implementing them. It may be that I have simply misunderstood what is going on. It might be much simpler than I believe, but there appears to be a recipe here for confusion and bureaucratic muddle, with unnecessary duplication involving both the counties and the districts in producing these strategies. I would certainly welcome the guidance and elucidation of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General on this matter, as well as a more general justification for involving the local authorities in what is undoubtedly a very new role, for which many might he insufficiently prepared.
There is one further point I should like to address in relation to the anti-social behaviour orders. We see at Clause 1(1)(a) a definition of what is anti-social behaviour. As I understand it, that is something possibly already covered by the Public Order Act as amended. Again, I would welcome the views of the noble and learned Lord. There have been some concerns expressed about that particular definition of anti-social behaviour. The noble and learned Lord will have seen a letter from the Howard League for Penal Reform in The Times today. We have to be very clear that such an order cannot be used simply to penalise the eccentric and should be limited to very real anti-social behaviour. Having said that, I welcome the concept of such an
540
order, despite having some reservations concerning who seeks it—the local authority—as well as concerns about the definition.
In relation to the new duties being imposed on the local authorities, I must also ask something about cost. This will be dealt with in greater detail later on by my noble friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, but it appears at the moment that the proposals are to be cost free. I find this somewhat remarkable. The Government are proposing an immense bureaucratic structure crossing a range of agency boundaries and it seems strange that the Home Office believes that this can be done for nothing. That is certainly what the consultation paper said. There is also the danger that the Government are being over-prescriptive and that many local authorities which at present run perfectly successful local crime initiatives might find that they are forced to adopt things when they do not particularly wish to do so by the more mandatory approach being set out by the Government.
Moving on through parenting orders, which we promised in our own manifesto, and provisions which we broadly welcome, although they will require very careful scrutiny and might need tightening, I come to racially motivated offences and the provisions in the Bill from Clauses 22 to 26. I believe that we are all agreed in all parts of the House that this is an issue about which everyone is quite rightly concerned. Our position in this party is quite clear. Racism and incitement to racial hatred are wrong. We certainly legislated, as I believe the noble Lord made clear in his opening remarks, to deal with the problems of incitement to racial hatred. That was in the Public Order Act 1986. We made the publication of racially inflammatory material an arrestable offence in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act also created a new offence of intentional harassment, which allowed the courts and the police to deal adequately for the first time with that sort of behaviour.
This Bill proposes a new offence of racial harassment and a new crime of racially motivated violence. I accept that those are perfectly laudable aims. No one would dispute that. What I question is whether they are necessary in the Bill itself. I put it to the noble and learned Lord who will be winding up for the Government, am I not right in thinking that the courts already have sufficient power? Do we need to clutter up the statute book with extra and unnecessary words? The noble and learned Lord will be aware of the remarks of the former Lord Chief Justice, the late Lord Taylor of Gosforth. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to them, but it may help if I quote exactly what he said:
"It cannot be too strongly emphasised by this court that where there is a racial element in an offence of violence, that is a gravely aggravating feature…it is perfectly possible for the court to deal with any offence of violence which has a proven racial element in it. in a way which makes clear that that aspect invests the offence with added gravity and therefore must be regarded as an aggravating feature". (Regina v. Ribbans, Duggan and Ridley, Court of Appeal, 15th November 1994).
That important point was confirmed by the current Attorney-General, the right honourable John Morris QC MP, when he stated that:

541
"the Home Secretary has made proposals to introduce new offences of racial violence. In my professional experience, the Court of Appeal has long said that such matters should be taken into account by sentencing judges".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/97 col. 390.]
That is an acceptance by the Attorney-General that this is not necessary. I do not want to accuse the Government of gesturism, particularly as we in no way wish to send out the wrong messages from Parliament by seeking to strike out this particular clause, but I ask whether it was necessary to put these matters in the Bill, and I believe it is right to ask what precisely they add to the current position.
I move on from that to one admirably brief part of the Bill, the abolition of doll incapax. That is a mere two lines in Clause 27. Would that all clauses could be as brief as that. I have only one very small question. I quite agree that the time has come for this rule to go, and this is probably a suitable time for it to go. However, is it one that has been affecting many people over the years? Has it been used much in defence? Has it been cluttering up the courts unnecessarily by allowing that particular line to be pursued? I believe it would be worth receiving an answer on that particular point.
Turning to Part III of the Bill, dealing with the criminal justice system and the provisions setting out the principal aim of the youth justice system, I do not believe that now would be the time to explore in detail Clauses 28 to 45 or Part IV that comes after that, dealing with the offenders in Clauses 46 to 69. We will have time enough for all that detail in the New Year.
Although there is material here to be welcomed, there are also a number of concerns. There are new burdens on the local authorities and there are the omissions. For example, we still have no commitment to introduce a mandatory minimum sentence for third-time burglars, although I understand that the Home Secretary said in July of last year that this will be considered in the light of the resources and the prison service's capacity. I would certainly welcome any further thoughts that the noble and learned Lord might have on this when he comes to wind up, but I suspect we will have a further indication that the Government do not believe that taking tough action against house burglary is a top priority. Could they not now agree to implement our proposals, as they did as regards the other parts of the Crime (Sentences) Act?
Perhaps I may add a word or two here about electronic tagging. We welcome the conversion of the Government to the merits, on occasion, of using this facility. The noble Lord will remember how strongly the Opposition opposed its introduction on civil liberties grounds with the Criminal Justice Bill in 1990. But we are concerned that the Government's welcome conversion is motivated merely by a desire to reduce prison numbers. We believe that prisoners should serve their sentences and that tagging should be available as an extra sentencing option for the courts and not merely as a means of securing early release.
542
We also have concerns about secure accommodation orders for young offenders. Again, I seem to remember the party opposite opposing such measures when we put them forward as merely leading to the creation of an academy of crime. Now I take it that the Government endorse them—certainly, in Clauses 80 and 81, that seems to be the case—and actually want to increase the risk of creating an academy of crime by increasing the age band of young offenders who would go in. I hope that I have misunderstood that. I would welcome an explanation from the noble Lord.
We have a number of concerns relating to the financial aspects of the Bill. I think that the Government have not properly set out just what the costs will be on the Government, on the police, on the probation service and on local authorities. My noble friend Lady Anelay will be dealing with that matter later on but I hope that the Government can reassure us as to just exactly what the costs will be. The Bill is necessarily rather vague.
There is much in the Bill that we welcome but it is clear that there is much that is merely presentational. There is much meat which we will invite the Committee to consider inserting to strengthen the Bill. As I said in my opening remarks about the Bill, "Is that all?" Just exactly what do Her Majesty's Government hope to achieve with this Bill? How will they hope to measure its success? What exactly are they promising will be the result of the Bill? Those are the big questions.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the Bill before us today for Second Reading is what the Home Secretary has called his flagship Bill. We were told about it during the debate on the gracious Speech and on numerous occasions until its publication a fortnight ago. We on these Benches are pleased to see it in your Lordships' House, though, like the noble Lord, Lord Henley, we recognise that it may occupy a good deal of time. There is a good deal that we welcome in the Bill and those parts will have the support of these Benches. But there is much else that deserves the most careful scrutiny. We shall play our part in that.
Before turning to the Bill itself, and perhaps as an overture to my further remarks, I wish to draw attention to a fascinating story in the Guardian newspaper last Thursday and ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to comment on it during the course of his closing remarks. The story in the Guardian refers to an aspect of the Bill. I quote:
"The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, and the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, are engaged in an increasingly acrimonious and personal battle over barristers' near-monopoly of the criminal courts. The tone has deteriorated to the point that the Home Secretary sent an angry letter to the Lord Chancellor pointing out that Mr Straw represented the elected government, a reminder that Lord Irvine owes his place in cabinet to Tony Blair's patronage. The feud has become so intense the Prime Minister has been called in to adjudicate".
Then, further on in what is really a long, rather enjoyable and entertaining story, the article says:
"Earlier this week, Mr Straw appeared to have come out on top but the Lord Chancellor has mounted a rearguard action and the issue remains deadlocked. Mr Straw had been hoping to announce the change next week, when the Crime and Disorder Bill is in the Commons"—

543
the article has that wrong—
"for its second reading, but that has been put on hold. 'The ducks are not yet lined up', a government source sympathetic to Mr Straw said".
To coin and readapt a phrase. "some duck", if it is referring to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think all Members of this House will be deeply concerned if another member of the Government is attacking someone who is dear to us all. However, on the point of substance, I hope the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will tell us who is now on top. Will he give us a report from the front on how the war is getting on? If we were led to believe that there would be an announcement today, we have not had it yet, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is not going to give it to us either.
As for the Bill, what it will certainly not do is solve all the country's problems of crime and disorder. At most, it will make a modest impact on them. I would gently advise the Minister—and through him, the Home Secretary, perhaps less gently—not to claim too much in advance. In four or five years' time the Bill will not be judged by its good intentions but on the results which have flowed from it.
The Home Secretary—this needs to be said—is not in the mould of his predecessor, whose prime concern always seemed to be to impress his party conference and the tabloid press. But his real knowledge of—I refer now to Mr. Straw—and genuine concern about lawlessness as it affects ordinary people on housing estates in his own constituency may lead him into well-meaning remedies that simply will not work. Aspects of the Bill in relation to parenting orders and child curfews may come into that category.
Perhaps I may say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that I hope the time will come when Ministers do not refer, as he did, to a Bill in terms of 12 manifesto commitments. It is a job of a government to introduce legislation which is justified on its merits. We all know or should recognise that many manifesto commitments are more foolish than wise. I am not suggesting that the Bill does not have merits—on the contrary—but to refer to it by reference to manifesto commitments is to get off on the wrong foot.
In the debate on the Address on 19th May I drew attention to the number of men and women then in prison. I said that 60,431 was an outrageous figure and that the Home Secretary should aim to get it below 50,000 by the end of this Parliament. But the prison population last Friday was 63,856 and, according to figures given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, it is expected to rise to 71,800 by September 1999, with the average during 2001-2002 projected as 74,800. The alternative scenarios, as the Minister frankly admits, could put that figure very much higher. So instead of a prison population falling to 50,000 through the Government's first term, which might always be the last—who knows?—it is set to rise by at least 15,000.
This is a serious prognosis and many of the welcome provisions in the Bill seem trifling beside it. Prison takes men and women off the streets and to that extent, during
544
that period, reduces the level of offending. But it does so at a high cost to the taxpayer and diverts money away from crime prevention. Above all, as prisons become more and more overcrowded and education and rehabilitation are neglected, prison turns first-time inmates into hardened criminals.
The position of women in prison is particularly disturbing at the present time. Numbers have doubled in the past four years. Many have a drugs or alcohol problem, but only 7 per cent. receive any help while in prison. There are no programmes to break the cycle of deprivation that brings them there. So far as I am aware, there is no constructive thinking on the Government's part to deal with this problem. I hope that the Minister will recognise that we are bound to judge the Bill in the wider context of penal policy as a whole.
The Minister did not do so, so perhaps we should remind ourselves of the injunction first heard from the lips of the Prime Minister, then the Shadow Home Secretary, almost five years ago. He said, in a resonant phrase, that we should, "be tough on crime and the causes of crime". In illustration he referred to poor education, bad housing, lack of employment and broken families living in sub-standard conditions. He spoke of the social fabric being ripped apart and deplored the growth of inequality. There was much in that speech, and in similar speeches, with which I agree. They struck a sympathetic note. But I wish that I was more confident now that the causes of crime still loom large in the Government's programme. No doubt the Prime Minister would say that welfare-to-work is about reducing unemployment, which is about reducing crime, but I doubt whether even he would dare to claim that cutting benefits means cutting crime.
We now have a Social Exclusion Unit in the Cabinet Office, which is fine as far as it goes. But yet another Whitehall think-tank is no substitute for properly funded policies to meet the huge shortfall in social housing, to redeem dilapidated sink estates and to transform our inner cities. If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer through the next five years, there will be more crime on our streets and more disorder, despite the provisions of this Bill. If we are not prepared to pay to end poverty and mend the fabric of society, we shall do nothing to reduce the causes of crime.
In the debate on the Address, to which I have already referred, I also said that there was one expression in the gracious Speech which gave me pause, which was, "measures against anti-social behaviour". I found "anti-social behaviour" a dangerous catch-all description and not one that I readily associated with the spirit and language of a free society, and I am not reassured by the text of the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned, Clause 1 deals with anti-social behaviour orders and seeks, in the following terms, to define what it calls, "an anti-social manner". That is,
"a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to two or more persons not of the same household as himself".

545
As the Bill shows, behaviour of that kind can lead to an order made by a magistrate, on the application of a local authority or a chief police officer, prohibiting the defendant,
"from doing anything described in that order".
Then, if the defendant continues to misbehave he can be imprisoned for up to six months on summary conviction and up to five years on indictment.
Let there be no doubt about it. We all know of the distress and misery caused to neighbours and others by thuggish behaviour, constant abuse, including racial abuse, and, for example, all-night parties, with the most vulnerable becoming victims. If local authorities and the police need more powers to deal with such cases and to deal with them quickly, the provisions of the Bill are very welcome.
But where are the limits? The behaviour of minorities, especially immigrants, is often claimed to be anti-social when it is in an hostile environment. Older people can find the high spirits and irreverence of the young intimidating. Working-class children straying into a nice neighbourhood can upset some householders by their presence and language. I would not trust every policeman fairly to invoke the provisions of Clause 1 if a manner "likely to cause harassment" is initially his to judge.
We must be careful that we are not introducing into statute wide powers which can be used against anyone who does not conform to a standard pattern of respectable behaviour or a lifestyle which is acceptable. I hope that it is not a device to take beggars and squeegee merchants off the streets, if that is still the Home Secretary's intention. Until the Bill is debated in Committee, I shall remain concerned about the disturbingly authoritarian overtones of "anti-social behaviour". We on these Benches shall certainly want to explore the safeguards against any interpretation that goes beyond the carefully considered circumstances that I am sure Ministers have in mind.
Having referred at some length to Clause 1, the House will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I am grateful to the Minister for so carefully taking us through it.
I wish to refer quickly to one or two other clauses in passing. I have already mentioned Clause 8 about parenting orders and Clauses 14 to 15 about child curfews. I would only add that we are doubtful about how effective compulsory court orders will be in respect of the former and believe that there are problems of enforcement as regards the latter—that is to say, child curfew.
We shall certainly need to be persuaded about Clause 27 and 10 year-olds being held to be as fully criminally responsible as adults. There are also serious objections to Clauses 80 and 81, which appear to turn their backs on the widely held view that sending juvenile defendants to penal establishments should end. As noble Lords will know, so often that is a step towards turning them into
546
adult criminals or making them the victims of bullying and intimidation, with suicide seen to be the only way out.
Throughout our scrutiny of these clauses and others, we shall cast doubt on the wisdom of all those provisions that threaten to send more people to prison when there are acceptable alternatives available. I hope that that will be the approach of Ministers, given the figures I referred to earlier. We shall also ask where the resources are to be found for many of the proposals that we support; for example, the crime and disorder strategies described in Clause 5 and subsequent clauses.
In so far as this Bill seeks to get to grips with real problems, sometimes in an innovative way, we shall support it from these Benches, but where it proves to be ill-thought through and cosmetic, we shall be among its sharpest critics.
5.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, I believe that many people in the Church of England will generally welcome this Bill, and, perhaps more than most people, we are affected by it. As noble Lords are well aware, it is a tradition of the Church of England, through its parochial system, to maintain a presence in all parts of our land. For that reason, unlike other professional people, our clergy live where they work. With their families and congregations they share the life of their parishioners. We have, then, first-hand knowledge of life—yes, in the comfortable areas such as the suburbs, commuting villages and the country towns—but also we are very well aware of the pressures on those who live in the uncomfortable areas such as the deep, rural villages, the inner cities and the outer housing estates. It is on those outer housing estates that life can be made an utter misery through the activities of thoughtless, heartless or criminally-minded people and their children.
I was interested to see that a recent issue of Which? magazine devoted several pages to how to deal with problem neighbours. It took its middle-class readers through the problems of noise, building extensions, stray dogs, wayward children, troublesome trees, boundary disputes, unsightly gardens, parking difficulties and privacy. All of these can be, of course, a great nuisance. I, and other readers of the magazine, are now much better equipped to deal with them.
But the problems faced by many people on housing estates are of a quite different order. They can turn perfectly ordinary and respectable people into nervous wrecks as they encounter threats and violence from belligerent adults. It is often the youngsters, sometimes out of the control of their parents and bringing themselves up on the streets in peer groups, who cause the most intimidation. So, I for one am pleased that the Bill gives such close attention to the issue of youth crime and vandalism. Of course, we must take care not to over-react to problems that are caused simply by over-exuberant and naughty children. Nobody wants to subdue the energy and creativity of youth which can sometimes get them into trouble. The cut-backs in recent years in youth service funding and other family-oriented

547
projects have not helped. However, the Bill tackles the hard core of nastiness and crime, which is of a quite different order altogether.
I am fortunate to live in a city, one-quarter of the inhabitants of which are of Asian origin. They believe in the old-fashioned virtues of family life, hard work, and law and order, but even in our city we have pockets where life can be made very hard by anti-social people, young and old alike.
This is an enormous Bill and I should like to focus on just two clauses, Clauses 1 and 5. My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford will refer to other clauses later. Clause 1 focuses on dealing with anti-social behaviour through the use of court orders. I should like us to start one stage further back, however. In our experience, the most productive way to bring social harmony is to work with the people themselves.
Just because they live there, clergy in several cities around the country have involved themselves in lessening social conflict by helping to set up mediation and conciliation services. Local residents, after a period of training, act as mediators. They sit down with willing neighbours and help them to solve their disputes or the disputes caused by their children. Of course, neighbours are not always willing to involve themselves in mediation but, where it is possible, it is far cheaper in time, money and aggravation than involving the police or the housing authorities. Such a service, set up on one estate in Leicester, has been such a success that it is now on offer throughout the city. I believe that we should not totally lose sight of the co-operation principle demonstrated in such mediation services even when social disputes or disorder have gone past the point where they can he solved by friendly neighbours.
That principle of mutual co-operation shows up in embryo in Clause 5, which is at the heart of the Bill, where a duty is put upon local authorities and the police to formulate (in partnership with multi-agency teams) local strategies to tackle crime and disorder. That is vital because no one agency has all the resources necessary.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. One estate in Leicester is more run down than most. It is the kind of estate that is unlikely to benefit from City Challenge or an SRB bid because it is difficult to get commercial partners interested. It was first brought to my attention by a young community worker who was simply at his wits' end. He came to see me, accompanied by his local vicar. He did not say a word. He simply started to put photographs down on my study table. They showed one road with one-third of its houses boarded up. I asked why, when there was such a shortage of housing. "People simply can't survive here", he said, "It's too tough". So, I began to visit the estate. In the past year I have visited its schools, churches, housing department, advice centre and the police. I have heard hard stories on each visit and I have been impressed by the determination and the dedication of the staff.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a flavour of that. The head teacher of one of the primary schools told me that 18 months ago there was a little money left in the school budget at the end of the year and she spent it, to
548
the pleasure of the children, on creating a garden—a green oasis in a dreary landscape. Every morning now on coming to school, she and some of her pupils replant the rose bushes which have been dug up and thrown around overnight by the local hooligans. "They will tire before we do", she said—and I hope that they do. People with that spirit will be those most helped by the provisions of this Bill.
Another visit that I made on that estate was to a family consisting of a young mum with two children and a Rastafarian husband. They told me in stark terms what life can be like if you stand up to some of the people in the neighbourhood. The man said, "I do it because I have two brothers who live just around the corner and we will have no nonsense but, mostly, people are too frightened".
However, changes are taking place there. The school, the police, the church, the housing department and a few of the residents, like our Rastafarian friends, are getting together. The police have agreed to establish a permanent presence. The housing department has set aside a house so that they can do so. The school, which has the trust and the confidence of the parents, is encouraging the parents to co-operate with the police in forming what would be called a "neighbourhood watch" in smarter areas of town. The clergy, as always. through their networks of care, are spreading the news that something better is being created.
That is a small example of the multi-agency teams which could emerge through the working of Clause 5, although I should like to see the necessity of involving voluntary agencies being given a clearer place in that clause or in the accompanying code of practice. Frankly, I do not think that it matters overmuch whether the police or the local authority is the lead player in such teams. What does matter is that the partners involve the statutory services, but they must also involve the voluntary agencies because they often have the confidence of the local people. It is absolutely vital that local residents are involved in any crime or disorder strategy for, without the involvement of the people themselves, such strategies are doomed to failure.
There is much to commend in the Bill. We look forward to engaging with its details in Committee. We in the Church would wish to be involved, as good partners, with others in helping to bring more peace and tranquillity to some of the most difficult parts of our land.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, although almost a month has passed since I was introduced into your Lordships' House, I still feel that something of the surreal persists whenever I enter this Chamber. It is quite unlike the other place: altogether more solemn, richer in both history and characters and containing, I need hardly say, a breadth and depth of experience—indeed, expertise, as is shown by the speakers' list for this debate—with which the other place simply cannot compete.
It was a memorable experience when I was introduced, as Hansard quaintly described it,

549
"between the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill and the Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale".—[Official Report, 19/11/97; col. 5630.]
—and what a secure and comforting place it was to be, a place to which I would happily return at any time.
In passing, perhaps I may record my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, on her recent appointment as a Government Whip. I am relieved that not even her association with me could prevent her foot gaining a grip on the first rung of the governmental ladder. I look forward to working under her firm but fair direction in the months ahead.
It is customary at such times to pay tribute to the support which new Peers receive from your Lordships' House in its broadest sense. In doing so, I trust it will not be thought that I am merely observing tradition. I am genuinely grateful for the warm welcome which I have received and for the friendly faces which always appear, as if from nowhere, whenever I stop in a corridor wondering, often quite literally, which way to turn. There is no difficulty in finding an answer to the question of the moment; the trick, as ever, is knowing which questions to ask!
The debate in which I make my first contribution in this Chamber is one of considerable importance. A society should be judged by the extent to which its citizens are able to live peacefully, pursuing their own interests without interference from others. This country has its fair share of social problems, which has led to it having an unfair share of prisoners. Indeed, we have the unenviable record of having the highest prison population per capita in the European Union.
The numbers have reached a level that places an intolerable strain on the system. New prisons are to be built, but without complementary measures the problem will return in a few years. Emphasis needs to be placed on prevention rather than cure. That means grasping the nettle of youth crime firmly and decisively. Statistics show not just that crime committed by young people has increased dramatically in the past decade but, more worryingly, that seven out of 10 young offenders re-offend after their release from prison. That suggests that prison is not serving its intended purpose, and if future generations are to have a reasonable expectation of life in an ordered and orderly society, young people must become the main focus of law and order legislation.
For that reason I welcome the legislation introduced today by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. The Bill is understandably wide-ranging and in the time available to me I shall concentrate on three main areas.
In eight years as the Member of Parliament for Glasgow Central I came face to face with the many serious social ills associated with inner-city living. Crime was endemic. It is, I believe, well established that the poor are the first victims of crime. There were certainly many poor people among my constituents. The most graphic example of that concerned drug abuse and the drug culture. These days such problems are not, sadly, restricted to our cities but it is there that the most serious effects are felt.
550
In 1995 there were 69 drug-related deaths in Glasgow. That figure fell to 55 in 1996, and I am relieved to learn that the present figure this year is 25a dramatic reduction. I hope that that trend can be sustained. I give credit to those people and agencies who put great effort and resources into fighting the scourge of drugs among young people.
Much of that reduction in fatalities has been due to the controversial methadone substitute programme which has been more successful than in other British cities. The range of services provided in Glasgow is among the most comprehensive anywhere in the world and is due to funding provided largely by the Scottish Office. That has had as its main benefit a 50 per cent. reduction in injecting drug users. I say in passing that there are 4,000 in the city, which is still a very large number. The police estimate that each injecting drug user commits the frightening number of 26 crimes each month to feed his or her habit. The consequent effect of crime in the city of Glasgow or anywhere else can be well illustrated by those figures.
It is for that reason that I regard the clauses relating to offenders dependent on drugs as being particularly welcome. However, I point out that drug treatment and testing will succeed only if accompanied by adequate resources to provide medical assistance and addiction counselling. I believe that the example of Glasgow underlines the need to underpin legislation with appropriate back-up services.
The Bill also deals with an evil that is now encountered with increasing regularity in this country: racism and racial attacks. Too often we in Britain take refuge in the apparently secure knowledge that racism is not a problem here. It is sad to say that that is simply not the case. I can speak of personal experiences in Glasgow, yet that city has a much smaller ethnic minority community than major cities in England, which consequently have greater problems. Earlier this year the New York-based group, Human Rights Watch, published a report which showed that Britain has one of the highest rates of racially motivated crime in Europe. As a result of that and other studies, there is absolutely no room for complacency.
I greatly welcome the inclusion in the Bill of clauses to allow judges to increase sentences to take account of a racist motive and I believe that it is long overdue. The new racially aggravated offences will in future attract higher sentences. In turn, that should have the effect of providing an incentive to police and prosecutors to search for a racial motive behind crimes in a manner that hitherto has been rare. I believe that racism is primarily the product of attitude, and attitudes take time to change. I am convinced that this measure will prove to be an important step in that process.
Finally, I should like to say something about anti-social behaviour. Of course, this can take many different forms, although the Bill defines it quite effectively. I disagree with the noble Lord. Lord Rodgers, who was dissatisfied with the definition. I believe that those who suffer anti-social behaviour do not need to have it defined; they know what it is and experience it daily. Legislation must be introduced

551
which tackles it effectively to reduce its incidence. Times without number I was faced with constituents who suffered the abject misery of neighbours who not only gave little thought to the effect of their antics on others but went much further, actually intimidating or threatening, often gratuitously.
Housing authorities in Scotland I particularly single out the cities of Dundee and Glasgow—have made determined efforts to evict the culprits rather than rehouse the victims. The Law Society of Scotland—a body that I know and for which I have considerable respect—has questioned whether the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders under this Bill is necessary. I believe that it is. Existing legislation proved inadequate to deal with many of the cases brought to me, with evictions taking an inordinate amount of time to achieve. Often the threat of a breach of the peace charge proved to be little disincentive to people who possibly already had a string of such convictions to their name.
I believe that local authorities need additional means to remove offending families, with the interests of the law-abiding community being given prime consideration at all times. In conjunction with the crime reduction strategies which the Bill requires councils to prepare with police forces, I believe that there is a genuine chance to bring about a dramatic improvement in the quality of life for people unfortunate enough to be subjected to anti-social behaviour.
This Bill forms a major plank in the Government's first term programme, and rightly so. I am pleased that it has been prioritised in such a way. There are many areas in which the law is in need of overhaul, but I believe that none will have greater impact on the day-to-day lives of our citizens. Such is the scope of the Bill that few, if any, will remain untouched by its provisions, because we all benefit from measures that reduce crime and its effects.
I thank your Lordships for the courtesy shown me this afternoon and look forward to participating fully in the work of this House.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is not only a privilege but a pleasure to rise immediately to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on an admirable speech. It was vigorous, constructive and beautifully timed. The noble Lord brings to this House a wealth of experience in another place. He was a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration between 1990 and 1995 and then a Member of the Public Accounts Committee. He demonstrates the breadth of his interests by being the author of a book entitled Rags to Riches. That is not an autobiography but the official history of Dundee United Football Club. We all know that it is very dear to his heart that a Scottish parliament should be established and succeed.
Clearly, a great deal of thought, research and imagination has gone into the preparation of this Bill. The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on emphasising preventive activity to reduce the incidence of crime and provide more options to deal with
552
offenders, or potential offenders, within the community. My main concern is whether the resources will be available to make reality of an important crime prevention Bill. I give the example to which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred: drug treatment. Research in the United States shows that every dollar spent on drug treatment programmes saves the taxpayer seven dollars during the programme and a year afterwards. Most of the savings result from a reduction in crime, while the remainder is due largely to the reduced demand on hospital services. The sharp reductions in offending during treatment mean that treatment programmes can pay for themselves in immediate savings to the criminal justice system.
However, the availability of drug treatment and rehabilitation services varies across this country. Much of the funding for such services is insecure and this has discouraged the development of residential services and put some day programmes at risk of closure. Where drug misusers can gain access to treatment and rehabilitation services, there are often long waiting lists. If this provision is to work it must be tackled with adequate resources.
I agree with the criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, made in relation to the existing disastrous prison situation, but I feel some degree of sympathy for the Home Secretary. For the past three or four years the public have been misled into thinking that prison really works. They must be re-educated. That is not easy. I do not expect that the press are keen on so doing because it will not sell more papers, it will sell fewer. I have suggested that there should be a Royal Commission or the resuscitation of the Council on Penal Policy to look in depth at why we send more people to prison than any other country in Europe and at what is the sensible way of dealing with punishment. That suggestion has yet to be accepted.
If the public can be persuaded that what is proposed in the Bill will succeed the present harsh climate in regard to sentencing may be softened and funds can perhaps be redirected from the costly and counter-productive excessive use of imprisonment, resulting in this current acute overcrowding.
There are two matters to which I wish to pay particular attention. The first relates to Clause 27, which deals with doli incapax. In England and Wales the age of criminal responsibility is set at 10 years. In Scotland, it is as low as eight. That means that below the age of 10 a child may not be arrested or prosecuted for a suspected criminal offence. The presumption of doli incapax then applies up to the age of 14. That presumption obliges the prosecution to prove not only that a child under 14 committed the criminal act, but also that he knew that the act was seriously wrong as opposed to being merely a naughty or mischievous activity. To prove that, the prosecution must put before the court evidence beyond the facts of the offence itself. The maxim recently quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this House, res ipsa loquitur, has no application. Such evidence could include an admission in an interview with the police that the child knew what he was doing was

553
seriously wrong, or the testimony of a teacher or other adult concerning the child's mental capacity and appreciation.
Recently, we had a case in the Appellate Committee of which I was a member in which the point of the appeal was precisely the issue with which your Lordships are concerned. It was:
"Whether there continues to be a presumption that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 is doli incapax and, if so, whether that presumption can only be rebutted by clear positive evidence that he knew that his act was seriously wrong, such evidence not consisting merely in the evidence of the acts amounting to the offence itself".
The facts were very simple. At about 3 p.m. on 8th June 1992 two policemen on mobile patrol saw a motor cycle parked in a private driveway of a house in Liverpool. Two boys were tampering with the motor cycle. The appellant was holding the handlebars while the other boy tried with a crowbar to force open the chain and padlock securing the motor cycle. The police approached on foot and both boys ran off. One policeman chased the appellant who then climbed over a wall at the rear of the property and was arrested by another policeman. The damage to the motor cycle included the detaching of the leads to the coil and the battery and the dislodging of the mounting. There was no evidence of any admission or statement by the appellant.
At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the appellant's solicitor called no evidence, but submitted that the prosecution had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant, who was born on 29th June 1979 and was therefore just under 13 years-old at the time of the alleged offence, had guilty knowledge and knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong as opposed to being merely naughty or mischievous.
The magistrates found the case proved, relying essentially on the fact that the boy had run away and also on the boy's age. The Divisional Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Laws and Lord Justice Mann, took an entirely different approach. Mr. Justice Laws said:
"Whatever may have been the position in an earlier age, when there was no system of universal compulsory education and when, perhaps, children did not grow up as quickly as they do nowadays, this presumption at the present time is a serious disservice to our law. It means that a child over 10 who commits an act of obvious dishonesty, or even grave violence, is to be acquitted unless the prosecution specifically prove by discrete evidence that he understands the obliquity of what he is doing. It is unreal and contrary to common sense; and it is no surprise to find that modem judges"—
that is, Mr. Justice Forbes in a case in 1981 and Lord Justice Bingham, as he then was, in a case in 1992—
"have looked upon the rule with increasing unease and perhaps rank disapproval".
The judge went on to say that he would hold that the presumption relied on by the defendant is no longer part of the law of England and he therefore dismissed the appeal.
Members of the Appellate Court, when the case come to us, were taken through a whole mass of history and authorities. There were reports by committees and White Papers from 1927 to 1990. In the last paper in 1990, Parliament decided that it did not wish to make
554
any change. However much we sympathised with Mr. Justice Laws, we therefore concluded that it would be usurping your Lordships' legislative function for us to have supported the decision made by the Divisional Court. We therefore allowed the appeal, answered the question affirmatively in both its aspects, but hoped that this House would look at the matter again, as it is now doing.
The only other matter to which I wish to draw attention is that of sentencing guidelines. When I came across the clause, it brought back a certain degree of nostalgia. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, may recall that in May 1990 he initiated a debate on sentencing levels. It was designed to attack the judges for handing out excessive sentences. The noble Earl was intent that he should not be robbed of the increased fun that occurs if you have a live judge present to be the subject matter of the criticism. So he sent a copy of his intended speech to the Lord Chancellor; the Lord Chancellor. as he hoped, sent it to the senior presiding judge of the Law Lords. It appears that matters involving volunteers are decided strictly on an alphabetical basis, and I was accordingly sent here.
In the course of my speech in relation to the proposal that there should be sentencing councils which would lay down guidelines to be followed by the courts, I said this:
"Over the years the Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines encompassing imprisonment in general-1 have already quoted one case—and offences in particular; namely, causing death by reckless driving, riot, violence at football matches, robbery, kidnapping, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, buggery, gross indecency, living on the earnings of prostitutes, theft in breach of trust, benefits frauds, offences involving drugs and offences involving obscene publications. Very recently, in exercising the new powers … to increase inadequate sentences guidelines were … provided in the very difficult subject of incest".—[Official Report, 23/6/90; col. 990.]
I pointed out that those guidelines were all published, they were contained in the Judicial Studies Board Handbook, and in fact I caused a copy to be put in your Lordships' Library.
I went on to say:
"I have never heard any public criticism by criminologists, by police officers or by welfare authorities of those guidelines",—
and I observed that until there was any criticism of such guidelines I did not understand why they were not considered adequate.
It is not appreciated frequently enough that judges welcome and depend upon other people's views. When this debate took place I was then involved in the Appellate Committee with a case which had the distinction of being presided over by seven Law Lords instead of the usual five. We had the advantage of authorities from New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United States, and learned articles from professors at home and abroad. I virtually ended my address by saying what I still say now: by all means let the judges have further and better assistance but do not interfere with their discretion.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I will confine my brief

555
remarks to Clauses 22 to 25. I welcome the intention which is manifest in those clauses as three years ago I tried to do the same thing.
The most important thing is that we manage to achieve the end result for which these clauses are designed. That is the point that we shall have to test in Committee to ensure that we come to the right conclusion and stop this kind of behaviour, and make people realise that it is not acceptable to behave in this way in a civilised society.
It does no credit to this nation which prides itself on its fairness and its tolerance towards newcomers. Indeed, we are no longer newcomers—there are second and third generations—but, because we look different, we are still being treated as if we have another form to which we shall return. It is absolutely essential that public policy should reflect the displeasure with which society views that kind of behaviour. I congratulate the Home Secretary on attempting to put in this Bill the clear intent that this behaviour is not acceptable.
Three years ago, on a criminal justice Bill, I brought forward a much simpler amendment—and I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, looking at me because, in the end, he supported me on that amendment. It was in two parts. One part simply provided that when racial motivation was proved in any crime before a court, then it should form an aggravating factor increasing the penalty automatically. The point was that instead of isolating different types of crimes for this particular purpose, we should have a blanket rule that any crime where racial motivation was proved in court would carry a higher penalty than other crimes.
The other part of that amendment, which was equally if not even more important, imposed a duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose to the court any racial element—not motivation—that was contained in that particular crime. It has been experienced—and I hesitate to be precise because my information is anecdotal—that when there is plea bargaining and when a defendant pleads to a lesser charge, it is not necessarily the case that any hint of a racial element is put before the court. It is fudged over. I have had conversations with members of the Crown Prosecution Service and have been asked a very precise question: "Would you rather that the defendant got away or would you rather that that defendant was found guilty of a lesser offence?"
I have no hesitation in answering that question. It is for the court to decide whether or not a defendant is guilty. It is not for the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision on its own. If it keeps fudging the racial element in various crimes, the courts will never become familiar—nor will the public—with the incidence of racial elements in different crimes, particularly in certain areas.
It is extremely important that the duty should be laid on the Crown Prosecution Service in all cases, whether or not there is a plea to a lesser offence, to put before the court any racial element in that crime so that that can be taken into account even when the defendant is pleading guilty. That has to be the way forward.
556
I am concerned that there will be certain types of situations which these clauses will not cover. Indeed, the Commission for Racial Equality is concerned about certain things which it feels will not be covered, particularly the offence of racial criminal damage. We have not had this Bill very long; we have not had an opportunity of getting together as a group, as we usually do, to look at these clauses in detail and to get proper advice to see if there are any elements in these clauses which need to be strengthened or changed.
Therefore, at this stage I flag up the point that I hope that at the end of the day, what we get is what we deserve.
We have waited long enough for this. Sadly, I was not helped by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in my attempts to get the amendment through because he was pursuing the path of a special offence of racial violence which did not meet with much support from noble Lords. This is an essential area of concern. One cannot say that a racial crime is worse than an old lady being bashed up or a child being beaten up and so on. I do not wish your Lordships' House to start making moral judgments about whether one crime is worse than another. But a civilised society must necessarily look very seriously at those issues. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for putting those clauses in the Bill so that they can be examined properly and all agencies which have had the opportunity to think about those issues can get together and produce the right answers.
Perhaps I may just touch on a few other issues. In the other clauses there are some very heavy points made about guidance, counselling, explanations and complicated issues which will have to be put across to families and to children. I make a plea on behalf of people from ethnic minority groups who may have linguistic difficulties and so on. Quite often the proper financial resources are not provided for those needs to be met. If such complex matters are to come into force, it is clearly essential that the needs of all must be looked at on an equal basis. Some people should not be left out because they have certain other difficulties.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, on his maiden speech. He really did echo my feelings in relation to the question of living free from fear. There are citizens in our society who do not live free from fear. I know that that is not confined to members of ethnic minorities but a number of such people do live in constant fear of attack. I thank the noble Lord for making that point.
On a slightly different point, I should say that the United Kingdom need not wear a hair shirt as regards the number of racial attacks and the way things are going in this country. For three-and-a-half years I have been your Lordships' representative on the Advisory Commission on Racism and Xenophobia in the European Union. The only reason that we are put forward as an example of bad things is that we are the only country in the European Union which dares to keep any records. Therefore, we know how many racial attacks have taken place because they have been logged;

557
no other country does so. Therefore, we are not here to wear a hair shirt in that regard. We are here to make things better.
6.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, first, I add my own thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on his maiden speech. It was extremely wise and helpful and drew eloquently on his constituency experience.
Like other noble Lords, I should like to express a general welcome to many aspects of the Bill. No one can be unaware of the devastating effect of crime on families and communities and not least on young people. Serious and persistent anti-social behaviour can be almost as damaging, as many previous speakers have shown us already. I warmly support the intention of the Bill to make the prevention of crime a central pillar of the youth justice system. I should like to return to that issue in a few moments.
I turn now to those provisions of the Bill which seem most helpful and encouraging and I shall then draw your Lordships' attention to some areas of concern for the churches and voluntary organisations most closely involved in crime prevention and the welfare of young people.
We welcome and applaud the principle set out in Clause 5 of setting up multi-agency teams to tackle crime and disorder. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has spoken of that from his own first-hand experience. We welcome also Clauses 22 to 26 which deal with racially-aggravated, sexual, violent and drug-dependent offences.
Similarly, we are extremely grateful for the provisions in Clauses 52 to 55 in relation to reparation orders which fall in line with the principles of restorative justice, which is a refreshingly positive, creative and relatively new element of the criminal justice system. And so also the action plan order in Clause 56 is greatly to be welcomed.
I believe that the provisions of Clauses 82 to 84 to allow early release from custody by means of electronic monitoring, now that the technology is reasonably satisfactory and reliable, is a thoroughly sensible way to reduce what has been referred to already—our desperately excessive prison population.
Those are substantial areas of support and affirmation of what this Bill seeks to achieve. If I spend a little longer on concerns and caveats, that is only because I believe that this Bill could be so much better than it is and could do even more to draw on the expertise and enthusiasm of many people who have much valuable experience in the field of crime prevention.
I very much wonder whether there is not a considerable risk of abuse of the anti-social behaviour orders for anyone over the age of 10, not least the possibility, in the last resort, of imprisonment. I share the doubts expressed by NACRO over the proposed criminal penalty of up to five years imprisonment which seems excessive and perhaps also doubtful in principle in view of the likely difficulty of obtaining proof to the
558
standard expected in a criminal case. If anti-social behaviour were to remain a civil offence, it could still lead to imprisonment of up to two years, and I believe it to be true that gaining a conviction would pose fewer difficulties.
I believe also that parenting orders are a doubtful method of coping with the problems which we face. By definition, they will come into effect, if they work at all, too late in the day to prevent young people being caught up in bad company and acquiring bad habits. They seem to be contrary to the spirit of partnership, which is at the heart of the Children Act. The threat of financial penalties on parents who are often already poor, inadequate and sometimes in despair is unlikely to achieve very much that is positive. Many of the parents involved will probably be single mothers. How will parenting orders be applied to absent fathers?
Clause 14 providing for a local curfew for children under the age of 10 adds nothing to the powers which are already available under the Children Act but are seldom used.
We have concerns about Clause 60, with its extension of the powers of courts to make detention and training orders for 12 year-olds and potentially for children even younger than that. As previous speakers have mentioned, there are very alarming provisions in Clauses 80 and 81—further sanctioning the locking up of children and withdrawing, by implication, the long-standing commitment to the removal of 15 and 16 year-olds from prison custody.
Those are detailed and specific reservations about what is proposed. But there is a fundamental underlying weakness of all this legislation: in practice it will be about containing the problem rather than preventing it, although the claim is made that the Bill is about prevention. It seems to ignore much excellent work which was done from 1983 onwards under the intermediate treatment programme through the voluntary sector. Sadly, that programme was granted only short-term funding and although it was remarkably successful and had an excellent track record, the tragedy is that countless good projects with families and young people run by, for example, the Children's Society, the NCH Action for Children, Save the Children and similar organisations have been curtailed or cancelled through lack of funds. Perhaps it is true that the inter-agency work and the action plans spelt out in this Bill will enable the work to be retrieved and expanded. I hope that is so, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, could give us assurances about that.
But behind these schemes, admirable though they are, and similar ones which I hope we shall see developing, remains the question: what actually works in terms of crime prevention? I am not sure that this Bill addresses that question. Fear of detection works, certainly; community policing works up to a point; zero tolerance perhaps with minor misdemeanours works, although that has seemed to run into trouble lately. Surveillance cameras work, although they tend simply to move the problem on somewhere else. But these measures, like the anti-social behaviour orders, serve only to contain the problem. They do not solve it or prevent it.

559
I believe the provisions in the Bill overestimate the rationality of criminals and delinquents and the almost complete removal of inhibition by alcohol or drugs. What we need to emphasise above all are good parenting, which goes back to early childhood, strong, non-criminal role models of responsible behaviour and, even more important than anything else, a network of community relationships which provide powerful informal sanctions against crime and anti-social behaviour. These have to be in place even before the excellent mediation work referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester can be effective.
The enormous variations in the incidence of crime between, say, two housing estates, outwardly similar in character, with similar degrees of unemployment, poverty and other measurable social indicators, are also clear proof that what governs the amount of crime is mainly the nature of the community. This is true of communities in our own country now. It explains the fact that much greater degrees of poverty and deprivation in, for example, the 1930s produced much less crime, and that in infinitely poorer countries than ours there is often hardly any criminal or anti-social activity, simply because the community networks are strong and healthy. So if we are in the business of crime prevention we must be in the business of community building. This is something which the Church Urban Fund has been doing with great success for more than 10 years. It is of course infinitely more cost-effective than resort to the criminal justice system, even if the proposals in the Bill succeed in the long run in reducing slightly the enormous cost of that system.
Next, I emphasise the crucial role of women in crime prevention. Mothers have the first and, sadly, often the only responsibility for bringing up young children. In some of our least favoured areas—Meadowell on Tyneside or Grimethorpe in South Yorkshire, for example—women have taken an impressive lead in organising support and providing excellent opportunities for young people. They themselves need encouragement and some modest professional support, such as that offered by the brilliantly successful but desperately underfunded Home Start organisation. These women probably do not need parenting orders and punitive fines when things do not work out well. I believe such measures may simply drive them further into social exclusion.
The Bill offers much that is encouraging, with some new and imaginative and creative thinking, but I believe it could have built more strongly on established good practice, which cries out for more adequate funding and more active encouragement.
I end by painting two pictures which are vividly in my mind. About 10 years ago I had from time to time to visit a youth offenders institution at Portland. It was one of the saddest and bleakest things I have ever done in my ministry. There were young people from broken homes with broken lives, and despite the best efforts of some of the staff, the chaplains and the social workers, the prospects for those young people were grim. It was
560
eloquent testimony to the desperately destructive effect of incarcerating young people. Do we really want more of that?
The second picture came about last Saturday, when I went to a community day in one of the areas of the city of Hereford which is, to put it mildly, not among the more affluent. It was a brilliant day, and the event was held in one of the junior schools. The schoolchildren had made an enormous scale model of their part of the city, with streets, model buildings and everything else set out. All sorts of organisations were there: the schools, the local authority, the churches, the volunteer bureaux and the disability organisations. There was lots going on. There was plenty of fun. The police were there, one police officer dressed as Father Christmas, and another policeman was saying "There are some pretty hot spots in this place". That exercise in community building did more, I believe, and will continue to do more to prevent crime than perhaps anything in this Bill, good though it may he.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords. I should like to join previous speakers in offering congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, on his most interesting speech. I should also like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his lucid and comprehensive introduction of the six main themes of the Bill. I think these are themes which address acute contemporary concerns, to which the Bill offers imaginative and well designed solutions. The fair operation of these procedures will, I think, call for very great judgment and restraint on the part of those seeking, making and enforcing some of these orders, and also considerable precision in drafting the orders if they are to be enforceable. I am sure that all those who are concerned in administering justice will wish to see the broad objectives of these proposals achieved and will do all they can to promote their achievement.
May I say a word about two specific components of the Bill? The first concerns the sentencing clauses, Clauses 66 and 67. I am particularly grateful to the Home Secretary for consulting me in some detail on these clauses. As he knows, the final drafting is not 100 per cent. to my taste. I have reservations about the reference to cost in Clause 66(3)(c), not because cost is unimportant or irrelevant but because the courts must strive to find the right penalty even if it is expensive, rather than opting for the wrong penalty even though it is cheap.
I am, however, broadly content with these provisions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has pointed out, the setting of sentencing guidelines is not a novel function to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) which over many years has been providing guidance to the lower courts. The only fault in the list given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, of offences governed by guidelines is that it was a quotation from his speech in 1990, and many more offences are now the subject of such guidelines. Within the last few months burglary and manslaughter

561
involving the use of knives have been the subject of such decisions, and firearms offences as recently as this morning.
Guidelines of course have on occasion been reconsidered and revised in the light of changing conditions and new maximum penalties enacted by Parliament. But these provisions will, I think, enable the Court of Appeal to perform its task with the benefit of expert advice from the sentencing advisory panel and, I very much hope, reliable independent research. With that assistance the proposals will, I hope, enable us to build on existing practice and give guidance with greater confidence and authority.
Secondly, I wish to say a few words about the proposal in Clause 40 of the Bill to allow certain powers of a magistrates' court to be exercised by a single justice of the peace or, subject to the making of rules, by a justices' clerk. I preface my observations by saying three things. First, I am an almost unqualified admirer of the magistracy, and particularly because of their numbers and their enormous contribution to our system of justice, the lay magistracy.
Secondly, I am a close friend and strong supporter of justices' clerks, the maintenance of whose role is, in my judgment, essential to the survival of the lay magistracy. Thirdly, I have no objection to the powers of magistrates' courts being exercised by a single lay justice. Indeed, when I say I have no objection I am being somewhat grudging. I fully realise the need for greater expedition in magistrates' courts. I am vividly aware of the adjournment culture which seems to have afflicted those courts in particular. I recognise the high desirability of a Bench, once assembled, being able to get on and try the case. I see good sense in allowing a single justice to exercise the powers of the court. But I regard it as vital that a clear and categorical distinction be preserved between the role of the justice as judicial decision maker and the role of the justices' clerk as objective, professional, legal adviser and, on occasion, administrator.
There are some powers listed in Clause 40(1) which can quite unobjectionably be exercised by a justices' clerk, for example,

"(b) to mark an information as withdrawn;

"(c) to dismiss an information…where no evidence is offered by the prosecution"

and, probably,

"(j) to extend, with the consent of the accused, a custody time limit".

These are formal, administrative acts; they are not judicial acts. But some powers listed in the clause are quite different, for example in (f) to require,
"a medical report and, for that purpose, to remand the accused in custody or on bail".
To send a defendant to prison is a judicial act; it is not an order which anyone not exercising judicial authority should make, and it is certainly not a matter of administration. There should be no power to make rules which would enable a justices' clerk to make such an order. The same, I suggest, is true of (e), to require,
562
"a pre-sentence report following a plea of guilty and, for that purpose, to give the probation service an indication of the seriousness of the offence".
That is, if power were delegated and rules were made, the justices' clerk could tell the Probation Service whether custody or community service or probation was the likely outcome. That is not an appropriate function for anyone but the judicial decision maker and could be gravely embarrassing to the court. I take as my last example,
"(o) to give, vary or revoke orders for separate or joint trials in the case of two or more accused or two or more informations".
Those are significant discretionary decisions as to whether two or more offenders or two or more offences can be tried together. The making of such decisions is a regular ground of appeal in the higher courts, the complaint being that unjust decisions have been made. It is, again, not a decision for anyone not exercising judicial power. The terms of the subsection permit an order previously made, perhaps by a justice or justices, to be varied or revoked, if rules were made and this power were delegated, by the justices' clerk. That, I suggest is not acceptable.
I shall not weary your Lordships by examining all these provisions. I make it clear that I have no objection to the exercise of these powers by a single justice. But I object to the possibility that some of these powers might by rule be exercised by the justices' clerk because such a rule would erode the fundamental distinction between the justices and the justices' legal adviser and in the longer term—as I fear—signal the demise of the lay magistracy which would be an irreparable loss.
If the justices' clerk were to be entrusted with these important decisions and judgments, judicial in character, the time would inevitably come when people would reasonably ask whether he or she should not be left to get on and try the whole case. That is a result which might be welcome to some; I would not be among that number. Most of your Lordships would not, I think, be among that number either, and nor would most of those with knowledge of how justice is administered at a local level up and down the country. I am sorry that I appear to devote my time to a criticism of the Bill which in general I welcome but I feel concern about this power. I hope that the Government, valuing the magistracy as of course I am sure they do, will think again about this provision and remove what I believe to be a potential blemish.
6.57 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, on his excellent maiden speech. We shared a radio programme on the day of his introduction at the unparliamentary hour of 7.45 a.m. for the benefit of "Radio Scotland" listeners. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, reminded the House that the Bill applies in Scotland and, I would add, despite being given the title of an English and Welsh Bill. I shall say more about that anon.
The Bill sets out to clarify many areas of the law in Scotland by introducing specific names for existing offences, both civil and criminal. Although the

563
clarification is good presentation and raises public awareness, I wonder whether it introduces many new substantive points of law.
In Clause 18 the anti-social behaviour orders are clearly designed to deal with neighbours from Hell and, I hope, among others, off-road motor cyclists driving on legally asserted public footpaths. At present, if they dare, people can report such activities to the police, or to the procurator fiscal, as a breach of the peace at least, unless there has been a more specific offence committed. Perhaps what is new is that the anti-social behaviour order is more forward looking than the common law charge of a breach of the peace. As a civil law matter it attempts to control the future behaviour of the individual, whereas the prosecution of a breach of the peace looks back only and leaves the offender to draw his own conclusions if he wishes.
It is, of course, already possible to control future behaviour by seeking an interdict from the sheriff court. I see some merit in promoting this in a repackaged form. If it becomes popular—and by that I mean that people will come forward with sufficient evidence—the local authorities will have to set up a new section to deal with these orders. It falls to the local authorities alone in Scotland to promote these orders in the sheriff court, presumably having filtered them to reduce the volume and promote only the most serious.
It seems to me that there will be a need for local authorities to set up conciliation services to deal with less serious complaints and frustrations. These already exist in Scotland in the limited form of "diversion from prosecution" projects. SACRO. for example, runs two community mediation projects which act to resolve disputes between neighbours in conflict—I believe that is the polite term for neighbours from Hell—and three mediation and reparation schemes which accept referrals from the procurator fiscal. They act to achieve a mediated settlement between victims and accused, some of whom are neighbours in conflict. For those who must sort out the complaints, the distinction between a clash of lifestyles or personalities, and serious anti-social behaviour, will need to be clearly drawn.
I am not against these orders, but I do wonder whether local authorities are yet facing up to a task which is not a current responsibility and for which there are unknown costs, particularly in gathering evidence to the appropriate civil standard. In practice, distressed neighbours may still find it quicker to report their difficult neighbours to the police for a breach of the peace. The response time may be shorter than that of the local authority.
I turn to the proposed sex offender orders in Clause 19, which were, until very recently, trailed as community protection orders. Like the anti-social behaviour order, the sex offender order is a civil remedy, and is similarly forward-looking. It clarifies that it is possible to ban sex offenders from, for example, hanging around near children's playgrounds, schools or anywhere they may appear to pose a threat to potential victims. It will be applied for, following complaints, by the local authority and/or the police in the sheriff court in order to prevent specific activities by
564
sex offenders, convicted or cautioned. Of course, that can already be done by application for an interdict: but that is a rather theoretical matter for most citizens. The local authority or the police will be able to act on receipt of sufficient evidence of the appropriate standard and promote the order. It is already possible to curtail specific behaviour within the conditions of a probation order.
There are two spin-offs which may not have been intended and which may not be permissible or even constitutional. The first is the appearance of the police in the civil court, promoting the order and using civil standards of proof. I wonder whether the procurator fiscal may have a role here. The second spin-off is the appearance of the procurator fiscal in the civil court for the prosecution of a breach of a sex offender order. While the order is a civil matter, the breach is a criminal matter. My final comments on these two orders have to be that they are both unsupervised orders: and it is not clear whether the subjects have to give their consent before the order is made.
Turning to Clause 72, the drug treatment and testing orders are a sharpening up of an existing remedy. The usual approach has been to place the offender on probation and make an additional condition of the order requiring him or her to undertake treatment at a named treatment centre. The proposed order improves on that remedy in the respect that the subject of the order is under far greater scrutiny, both by being tested on a regular basis and by having to appear in the dock in open court for monthly reviews. Those two additions will certainly test the sincerity of the offender in his desire to overcome the drug-taking habit. I am pleased to see that, when the offender is progressing well, the monthly review can be undertaken by the sheriff in chambers without the offender having to he present.
There will be a clear need for sufficient resources to be made available to fulfil the orders—in social work, health and housing provision. I am concerned that the level of supervision offered by the local authority will be minimal, and will be restricted by statute to the needs of reporting for monthly reviews, reporting any failure of compliance, and the need for variation or revocation of the order. Presumably the supervisor will be allowed to discuss other relevant issues but cannot insist on doing so.
Clause 70, dealing with the extension of post-release supervision of violent and sex offenders, is to be welcomed. The provision will of course be a further burden on Scottish local authorities, but then they are already tied into the post-conviction lives, certainly of sex offenders. The response of those offenders to the imposition of extended supervision will be important. There will be breach proceedings, and some will return to prison. It is important that they have post-release supervision in order seriously to resettle them into the community. Will their extended supervision extend beyond the period after they have been returned to prison?
I now turn to the proposed tackling of racial crime under the provisions in Clauses 26 and 79. To someone trying to talk up Scotland as a tolerant, multi-cultural

565
society, these clauses present a challenge. I am pleased that the approach taken is that of adding a racial harassment or motivation dimension to a substantive charge. This "add on" approach is preferable to a racially specific charge. The court will decide the extent of the racial aggravation, on top of the evidence of the basic offence.
The Bill recognises as an offence—to make a slightly more light-hearted remark, but one apposite to the development of our constitution—calling someone, for example, "an English whatsit". It is quite right that that should be regarded as an offence. However, I note that the Bill does not recognise as an offence calling someone an "upper-class twit". Why is it that class discrimination always left out in these contexts?
Finally—and now I wish to "get quite heavy"—after reviewing a Bill which I seem to approve, I must come to the matters of which I disapprove. The Bill is, on the face of it, an English and Welsh criminal justice Bill. But it contains substantial alterations to the law of Scotland. Those changes have not been given much publicity in Scotland. There was a brief consultation period, but the legislation cannot be said to have been well trailed in Scotland. Why was this Bill not promoted as a criminal justice (Scotland) Bill? Should not the lesson of 11th September have been heeded? The principal beneficiary of devolution/home rule is the Scots law. Should not a moratorium on altering the law of Scotland have been implemented until the decisively chosen Scottish parliament is in place? In lighter vein, I ask: should that be seen as an aggravation? In even lighter vein: should the Government be made the subject of a "bad government order". Perhaps the remedy would be an "action plan order", requiring that a Scottish Select Committee of this House take evidence in Scotland. (That is a serious point.) That action would alert the people of Scotland to what was happening to the law of Scotland.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have almost damned the Bill by faint praise. My praise is almost unqualified. It is a matter on which this Government should be congratulated. They inherited serious problems. In many parts of the country dime, disorder and lawlessness had reached such proportions that the urgency with which this Government have approached the matter was certainly needed.
Crime has risen enormously, but the increase in unrecorded crime in parts of the country where crime has risen most sharply is astonishing. I was reminded of it only this morning because my wife told me that my gardener's shed had been broken into during the night. Fortunately, I was aware that gardeners' sheds in areas like mine have long been the target of burglars so there was nothing in it for the thief to take.
Twenty years ago in an area like mine I would unhesitatingly have gone to the police station to report the astonishing crime and it would have been taken seriously. Now the police are swamped and I would not
566
dream of informing them of the offence. Many parts of the country are like this. The nature of our society has been disfigured.
I have to look no further than my local newspapers. Two weekly newspapers serve my area. Over the past few years the editorial content of those newspapers has been dominated by reports of crime. In last Friday's edition, an 85 year-old widow was burgled. She encountered the burglar, suffered an attack and had to he rushed into intensive care, where she died. An 81 year-old widow was burgled. She had £150 and it went. The police did not catch the burglar, but they had a whip-round in the police station so that the old lady did not lose the money.
A landlady was drenched in beer and five joyriders were arrested. It was found that they had committed a large number of crimes. Two young men were mugged. Vehicles were stolen, drugs were found in houses in an area which 25 years ago would never have encountered the drug problem. It exists now in large measure.
The scale of offences, lawlessness and horror is acute and has risen dramatically. On Sunday a friend of mine told me about her parents who live in a pleasant bungalow with a warden scheme. A gang of youths is desperately terrorising them night after night. When one of her neighbours was gravely ill in his bedroom a thief was in the living room taking the television set. That kind of thing is now common in areas like mine and I am glad that the Government have decided to tackle the matter.
I am also pleased that the Government have begun to recognise rather more profoundly than the previous government did that local authorities have a major role to play. The combination of joint work with local authorities and the police can be helpful. I entirely accept the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that voluntary organisations should be brought into the mechanisms. I wish to make one suggestion: once the bodies are set up, they ought to be monitored and the results published. It would perhaps establish a competitive situation, because local authorities and police forces would not wish to be at the bottom of the league. They would seek to be successful.
We must have more resources for the youth service. A number of noble Lords made the point that public youth services have been operating on a shoestring for a long time. I referred to my area and no doubt I shall do so again in your Lordships' House. When I entered the House of Commons in 1970 there was no unemployment problem, certainly not for young men. There is now.
Reference was made to the Children's Society. One of the saddest experiences I had in my last years in the House of Commons was when the Children's Society brought to London some 14 and 15 year-old children from a difficult estate in my constituency. I had them in Westminster for a little while and it was a distressing experience. They were 14 and 15 year-old boys and girls, the kind whom the noble Lord, Lord Henley, might have met during his numerous visits to my area. They attended a good school; they were not particularly academic although they were not stupid. I made the

567
point in an earlier debate that they were the kind of boys who would have worked in the colliery, the steelworks, the glassworks and the engineering works. Unfortunately, however, the glassworks have closed, the engineering works have closed, the collieries have closed. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will recall, the steelworks are about the most successful in Europe but they employ only about 10 to 15 per cent. of the people who were employed 30 or 40 years ago. Idle hands make mischief. What we need to do above all is to make sure that those hands are not idle.
The difficulty for those boys and girls whom I met is that they saw no economic prospects. They saw little in the way of challenge; they had little in the way of resources. So when they got fed up with watching television at home—which is not difficult—all they could do was to gather on street corners. The moment two or three young people gather together on a street corner, everyone over the age of 40—perhaps with increasing reason nowadays—starts wondering how to get them moved on because the group is perceived as a threat. The youth clubs should be opened.
More than that, we need to encourage people to give service to youth organisations. In my area we have a long-established Scout and Guide movement which helps hundreds of young people. What about the hundreds and hundreds more who are not involved at all, whose parents perhaps do not want them to be involved, do not care whether they are involved, or are fearful that if they are involved it might lead to costs which they can ill afford? We do not esteem the youth organisations adequately.
I hope that the former Minister will not take this as a personal criticism because it is directed at the Minister who preceded him in his role as a monitoring Minister for my area under the city grant scheme. We saw moved into the former vicarage in my parish in Wath-upon-Dearne the national headquarters of the Church "Lads" and Church Girls Brigade. I am sorry that the two right reverend Prelates are not present, because we saw that not necessarily large but important national organisation move to my area. The headquarters is one-and-a-quarter miles from the Dearne Valley Partnership headquarters which the noble Lord frequently visited.
I suggested to the Dearne Valley Partnership that it was wonderful to have brought a virtuous, meaningful and worthwhile organisation into our area but their people would not cross the road to visit it. I saw the noble Lord's predecessor and asked him to visit it, hoping that it would be a mark of approval of the establishment of the new headquarters. He visited it but he had it taken out of his official programme and the time he spent there was marked as a private visit, so it was not terribly useful. Fortunately, Her Majesty the Queen and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have visited it since then.
I make the point to stress that we do not sufficiently esteem and encourage voluntary organisations. The public purse will not at this time allow the resources that are needed to fund the youth service and we should therefore seek more positively to encourage the voluntary sector.
568
It is not an easy problem, but the Government must sent out signals that there must be an improvement in the standards of conduct virtually everywhere in Britain and certainly in the distressed and affected areas. They must say to people that conduct of the kind to which we have become accustomed over the past two decades is not tolerable.
All kinds of fiddly points will be made, and perhaps serious ones, in the further stages of the Bill, hut one hopes that this House will allow the Bill to go to the other place in such a condition as to make a contribution to establishing the degree of law and order that the country needs. It is no good people saying that we must not let our prisons become even fuller. The reason we have many people in prison in this country is that we have a lot of crime. Much of it is not even measured because people no longer feel confidence in the organisations which have a responsibility.
As a Government we must now see that the country is told clearly that irresponsible behaviour, terrorising behaviour and violent behaviour will merit the kind of response which might make a contribution to deterring its continuance.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, like other speakers I welcome the emphasis in the Bill on youth justice. Some of the proposals have attracted criticism and there are certainly a number of matters which will call for close scrutiny in Committee. Nevertheless, the broad thrust of this part of the Bill is timely. It was carefully worked out, both before the election and after the present Government came to power. Moreover, many of the key elements have been the subject of intensive, albeit hurried, consultation.
Since the 1980s, as a result of steeply rising crime rates and the consequent pressures on legislators to respond, we have experienced in this country a series of increasingly frequent enactments aimed at dealing with some part of the overall crime problem. In addressing those issues inside as well as outside Parliament, there has been a clear divisiveness between those who put their faith in more effective law enforcement and punishment and those who urge that the priority should be to strike at the roots of poverty and social deprivation which are so often associated with offending. Let us hope that this Bill represents a departure from the stereotypes of the past and marks the start of a new era.
If there can be any doubt now about the scale and destructiveness of offending by young people, let alone anti-social behaviour, it will be dispelled by the most cursory look at the statistics. What I am about to say will perhaps complement the vivid anecdotal experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy.
Home Office research estimates that 26 per cent. of known offenders are under the age of 18 and that 3 per cent. of offenders—a very small proportion—commit 26 per cent. of youth crime. Most telling of all is the finding of the Audit Commission in a survey published last year that young people commit around 7 million offences each year. If that were not bad enough, national population projections indicate that

569
unless effective action is taken, the worst is yet to come. Both for males and females in age groups 10 to 14 and 15 to 19 the numbers are on the increase and are forecast to reach a peak between the years 2001 and 2006. If the forecasters are correct, that will be followed by a sharp decline in youth population from the year 2006 with numbers stabilising by the 2020s. The unavoidable conclusion must be that the next two or three years are absolutely crucial.
If attitudes can be changed, with the police, the courts and the prisons working closely with the schools, social services, probation and other services to contain and, if possible, to reduce the scale of deviant behaviour, then there will be some hope for the future. But if the effort is not made and reliance is placed disproportionately on punishment, imprisonment and deterrence, there is a near certainty that things will get worse.
There is therefore a need, recognised in the White Paper and translated into the Bill, for a sense of urgency at local level to turn young people away from crime. I find Part III of the Bill encouraging reading. It adds an important component to the system of criminal justice. The purpose is plainly stated in Clause 28 which reads:
"It shall be the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons".
In future, all persons or bodies carrying out functions in relation to youth justice will have a statutory duty,
"to have regard to that aim".
As far as I can tell, creation of a general duty is an innovation not to be found in other parts of the system of criminal justice. While it sounds desirable enough in principle, there may be difficulties in reconciling it with international treaty obligations on the rights of the child and there will be an awkward question to be faced as to whether or not it should extend to defence counsel in criminal proceedings. But they are good intentions and good intentions often have practical consequences which must then be faced and resolved in some way that is regarded as satisfactory to the legislature.
The crux of the proposals in Part III is that the new initiatives, as often stated in today's debate, will be local in character. Under Clause 31 each local authority—which, in Part III of the Bill and subject to correction, I take to mean in general county councils—will have a responsibility to draw up and implement an annual youth justice plan. It must also establish for its area one or more multi-agency youth offending teams. They will draw on the expertise of the police and the probation service, together with the education, health and social services.
At national level there is to be a non-departmental public body known as the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Its remit will be to monitor the working of the youth justice system and the provision of services, to advise the Secretary of State on the operation of the system and to help with the setting of national standards for youth justice, including the accommodation in which children and young persons are held in custody. The latter is likely to prove particularly important.
570
The accountability of this non-departmental public body, it is suggested by some, should not be to the Home Office, as proposed in the Bill, but to the Department of Health which has a responsibility for child welfare services. I do not agree. The Home Office has many restrictive functions and, over time, the performance of those restrictive functions may influence the cast of mind of the officials. It is most important for the departmental culture of the Home Office that it has responsibility for some areas of more constructive, more positive policy to act as a humanising force over the department as a whole.
The vulnerability of Part III of the Bill lies not in the structural design, but in the lack of ring-fenced funding for the youth offending teams in carrying out the local plans. That point has been made in several speeches today. The necessary money, it seems, is expected to be found from the financial resources which are available year on year to the police, to the probation service, to the health authority and to the local authority for education and social services. As a consequence, youth justice will have to compete with many other claims on hard pressed existing public services. It is a familiar picture and, apart from its relatively weak negotiating position as a hybrid newcomer, the compartmentalisation of spending in the criminal justice system means that if effective savings are made in one area, for example, lower court or prosecution costs because of diversion programmes, they are not transferred.
Similarly, savings achieved in the hugely costly prison service as a result of dealing with offenders in ways that do not involve sending them to prison will not be transferred to the operational agencies. Coopers & Lybrand calculated in a recent study that each youth crime costs £2,300 and that, if prevented, half of that cost would be recovered. Therefore, there is a benefit coming in from more effective prevention and it would be desirable to see if there were some way of linking that to the increased expenditure rather than leaving these new services subject to the already capped public services in each county authority.
I wish to say a brief word about the importance of voluntary organisations in supplementing the work of the new statutory youth crime service. Organisations such as NACRO will be able to play an invaluable part in making the provisions of the Bill successful in practice. NACRO has had long experience in bringing agencies together at local level in order to plan and carry out strategies to implement legislation. The combination of paid staff and willing volunteers can enthuse overloaded and sometimes reluctant members of the criminal justice professions to see the potential opportunities offered by new policies and can provide the commitment to make them work.
Without pre-empting a later speaker who has closer connections than I with NACRO, I conclude by saying that it would be a tragedy if the present sharply reduced core funding for NACRO prevented it from making the contribution it could so well make towards the successful implementation of this Bill.
7.33 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to speak on this important piece of legislation. I believe I am correct in saying that it is the first Bill which will be shepherded through this House by the Minister. I wish him well in his herculean task. I am confident that we can count on his courteous and sympathetic ear throughout all the stages of the Bill, especially since some of us may be voicing the fears and aspirations which he so ably presented when on the other side of the Chamber not so long ago. Ah, the warp and woof of politics.
This is an important Bill and, in contrast to some of its predecessors, it covers new and productive ground. It is big. I believe there are as many as seven new orders contained in it. That is more, one is tempted to observe, than on the chest of a musical comedy general. Each is designed to address specific problems. In any case, the continued increase in the crime industry, whatever statistics may say, is too serious a subject for flippancy and, dare one say, for party politics, too.
The Bill covers far too great an area for me to raise more than a limited number of points and, in any event, there have been far more persuasive and authoritative voices than mine to pinpoint the major issues. I intend to concentrate on three concerns.
The underlying theme of shortening the time between the commission of an offence and the sentence, particularly where juveniles are concerned, is to be warmly welcomed. The Bill contains many practical ways of achieving this desirable result. I should declare an interest as a magistrate only recently seconded to the supplementary list.
I applaud the proposal that single magistrates should be able to act on a whole range of court tasks, although I suspect there may be more reservations about granting this power also to magistrates' clerks. I have realised since writing this speech that there could not be a more distinguished reservation than the one already heard this evening. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for so tellingly pinpointing the difference between the administrative tasks of justices' clerks and the legal implications involved. Clearly, care will have to be taken about the choice of magistrates who are to sit alone. They should probably be drawn from a specially prepared list of a Bench's chairmanship committee. As to justices' clerks officiating, if it comes to that, certainly great care should be taken as to the seniority and experience of any so chosen. Although the Bill does not say so, I assume that only justices' clerks themselves and not clerk assistants would be eligible. That point should be addressed when the appropriate order comes to be made.
I welcome very much the partnership envisaged between local authorities and the various appropriate agencies. Once again this is of particular importance where juveniles and their parents are concerned. If I may be permitted one passing thought on the subject of breaching a parenting order—the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, also touched on this point—it would be this. I believe that we would accept the justice of imposing a financial penalty on those parents—
572
regrettably, there are many of them—who have no intention whatever of taking their responsibilities seriously. But what of the single parent mother with, say, three sons, possibly by three different and absent fathers, where the subject of the order is literally out of control and physically intimidating? It is not enough to categorise mothers in this predicament as being inadequate. That is almost certainly so. Equally, they will almost certainly be in fear of their sons, making compliance impossible. Almost certainly, too, they will be unable to pay any fine imposed as a result of their inability to control them.
In another part of the Bill I can see a possible conflict of interest arising where a bail condition might be that the accused makes contact with a legal adviser. As one who has suffered endless delays in court because legal help has not been sought in time, I welcome the thought behind the provision. However, advice of a breach of such provision can surely only be provided by the accused's legal adviser himself—hardly a propitious beginning to their relationship, one would think.
I now come to the reservations which I mentioned earlier. My first concern relates to the detention of young offenders. Clause 62(1) the Bill states:
"An offender shall serve the period of detention and training under a detention and training order in such secure accommodation as may be determined by the Secretary of State or by such other person as may be authorised by him for that purpose"
What exactly does "such other person" mean? Is it the appropriate court? Is it someone in the prison service acting on behalf of the Secretary of State? Is it a holding device so that at some unspecified time, perhaps when various administrative arrangements have been made, the Secretary of State can authorise the appropriate authority to pick from these options? I have to say that leaving questions like these hanging in the air indicates that the drafting of the Bill in some cases does not always equate with the wholly admirable and oft-repeated assertion in it of using—I quote at random—"ordinary language".
In subsection (7), we are told what "secure accommodation" may be. From the menu, I pick two choices; first, a secure training centre. Way back in 1994 it was announced that five such institutions would be built. I remember the noble Lord the Minister—I hope he will not object if I quote him—saying on this subject:
"The proposal … will not work"—[Official Report, 25/10/94; col. 459.]
He also, quite rightly in my view, pointed out that there would be no STC in Wales. So not only would parents have to make the long journey to eastern England, where most are due to be situated, but local probation contacts would be similarly inconvenienced. That was three years ago. And where are we now?
I believe that the first—Cookham Wood—is being taken into the service next April. But what of the others? Have any yet received planning permission, where such permission is necessary? Is it intended that girls should be included in the net, with all the attendant problems that that brings, a point with which I know my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who regrettably cannot be here tonight, is much concerned? I am not trying to embarrass the Minister by these remarks, but even

573
allowing for the interminable delays of bureaucracy and a change of government, I feel that some of these urgent matters could have been addressed and resolved in three years.
The second selection from the menu relates to secure local accommodation, one of the options available for committal for detention and also, under Clause 80, available as somewhere to which juveniles of 12 and over can be remanded. Most of us will applaud this long-overdue provision. But what is available? Is it sufficient? Can we be satisfied that, in a service which is in the hands of local authorities, a sufficiently high national standard is maintained? Have the Government plans for a national inspectorate, for example? After all, if such inspections are deemed appropriate for magistrates' courts and the prison service, why on earth not for local secure accommodation?
On the question of availability of places, we have been told that the final 10 of 170 additional places will become operational in August next year. But should we not be laying plans now for many more? After all, the provision in the Bill will enable courts to remand juveniles of 12 and over direct to such accommodation, together with vulnerable 15 and 16 year-olds. In practice, I suspect that places will be at a premium and that, as a result, 15 and 16 year-olds deemed to be "non-vulnerable", in this curious phrase, will continue to be remanded in custody; that is, prison. That is surely no longer acceptable in this day and age. Further, from a detention point of view, having visited both youth detention centres and secure local accommodation over the years, I am quite sure which of them makes the more positive contribution in weaning youngsters off crime. Will the Minister undertake to get his colleagues to look sympathetically and urgently at the need to make a substantial increase in the stock of appropriate secure local accommodation over the next few years and put in train plans to have a national standard of efficiency inside them?
Finally, I come to the question of resources. The implications in the Bill for local authority participation must imply the need for further funding, sooner rather than later, since it seems unlikely at a time of major reorganisation for local government that the finance for what in some instances will inevitably create the need for additional posts will be forthcoming under existing limits. In addition, the Bill specifically identifies a need for a further 600 places within the probation service. Where will such personnel come from? Will the depleted Armed Forces be raided, as the previous administration threatened to do? What qualifications will be required of them? The Minister may recall that some of us were less than enchanted by the previous government's attempt to dumb down the professional qualifications of the service, an attempt which, in fairness to them, they seemed to modify as the months passed. Can the Minister now tell us how matters stand in this respect?
I hope the Minister does not feel that I have been grudging in my admiration of the Bill merely because I have voiced certain reservations over parts of it. My defence is that they are very important parts to some
574
of us. In many respects—very many respects—it is an exciting and innovative piece of legislation which ought in general to demand the respect and support of the House and the country. I wish it well on its journey through the upper House.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount on social matters, as regards which he speaks with so much first-hand knowledge. I had one memorable encounter with his grandfather, the famous Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was. I had written a book on the Irish treaty, of which he was the prime British architect. I was taken to see him by a beautiful woman. He was always happy to meet beautiful women. He put up for a time with me asking him questions about Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins. He listened with visible impatience and then he saw a way out. There was a bell on the wall. He got hold of the bell and tugged it and then a whole lot of dogs rushed in and overwhelmed us. That ended the interview. I realise that he was a man of genius but I prefer the social record of the noble Viscount who has just addressed us.
I was honoured and almost excited by the recollection of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, about a debate I initiated in 1990. I had been initiating debates in this House for 35 years before that. The noble and learned Lord brought a special quality to those debates and he has done the same ever since.
I realise that the most important things I intended to say have already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Nevertheless, I shall briefly say them again. About 40 years ago, with a lot of expert help, I wrote a book on the causes of crime which I believe is still in the library. If noble Lords are interested in my views on the causes of crime and have a few minutes to spare they can look them up there. So I shall not go into the fundamental causes of crime. One must put the Bill into perspective as an attempt to curb the terrible fact of the increase in crime. It is doubtful whether it is increasing at the moment, but certainly since the war it has increased ten-fold. So it is obviously an important issue and an international issue.
What are we to make of the present attempt? In my few remarks I am scratching the surface of the subject and, if I may say to the Minister with enormous respect, so are the Government. The Bill is full of good intentions. Certainly, if I am called on to vote on the Second Reading of the Bill, which of course will not happen, even apart from party loyalty, I would have no difficulty in supporting it. However, it is a limited measure when one thinks of the problem of increasing crime.
What has happened in this country—it was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—is that in the past four years the prison population has increased by 50 per cent. It is going up and up. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, it was 60,000 a few months ago and now it is nearly 64,000.

575
Can anyone tell me why that is so? What is the explanation? It does not lie in the mouth of any official spokesman to say that it is due to an increase in crime, because official spokesmen of all parties say that crime has diminished. We were given rather thought-provoking figures by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. In passing, I cannot help but say yet again that his memorable books on penal treatment, written since the war, stand alone.
The figures are for crimes of all kinds. But if one considers indictable crimes, according to the figures given to me, the number has declined. It has declined from over 5 million to under 5 million. On the face of it, therefore, crime has decreased in the past four years yet the number in prison has increased by 50 per cent. That is the kind of fact which the brilliant government representative will no doubt manage to pass over quickly in his reply. But those are the facts. For no obvious reason the number of people in prison has increased enormously and with what result?
In practice it makes rehabilitation impossible. There is an enormous increase in expenditure. We have been told that 30 prisons are to be built in the next few years. People say that we cannot afford it and therefore the probation service is being cut. What about the education service? That is also being cut. Because of the insane policy of sending far more people to prison than we need to, we are lowering the standard of treatment in prison. Therefore, it is now impossible to give adequate, rehabilitative treatment to prisoners. What is more likely to create crime in future than sending a great many people to prison, lowering the standard of their treatment, and making sure that they are not treated properly?
Up to a point, for some months we have been able to blame the previous government, but not the long-term representative, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the other ex-Home Secretaries who are now in this House. Through their labours the prison population had been reduced to just over 40,000. But, suddenly, there was a sea change and for no obvious reason the prison population has gone up and up and it is doing that now.
Until the Government do something about that they are toying with the problem. I have written an article somewhere or other as though I were Jack Straw. I never had the chance of being Jack Straw. When a Labour Cabinet was formed in 1964 I became the Leader of the House. Evelyn Waugh wrote to a friend and said that he was glad that I was not going to be Home Secretary otherwise we would have all been murdered in our beds. So I am not going to say, "If only I had been Home Secretary I would have known how to deal with the problems".
The Home Secretary has a very difficult task. The question is what will happen when he comes before St. Peter? He will not arrive as soon as I do, but, nevertheless, the time will come when he will arrive there. I know that the Home Secretary is a good Christian. St. Peter will say to him, "What did you do down there? We have some brief up here about your prison population going up and up when you were Home Secretary. Did you do anything about it?" The
576
Home Secretary will say, "I'm sorry, but I was very busy at the time". So I believe that St. Peter will relegate him to the same part of purgatory as I shall occupy. The Home Secretary has to face the moral problem of doing something about the situation or not.
What can he do about it? I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed us in the right direction. There was an atmosphere, which was not created by the judges. In the old days the judges were regarded as "the baddies" and the elected politicians would, somehow or other, improve matters. Now the judges are relatively "the goodies" compared with their political leaders. So it is not the top judges, but the people who pass the sentences. They are dishing out very heavy sentences not because of increasing crime but because of the atmosphere created by, I am sorry to say, the previous Home Secretary in a tragic phase of the Conservative Government. That is the situation.
I have said it before, but I cannot help saying it again. Is the present Home Secretary and the Cabinet ready to take on the responsibility of trying to re-educate the public about penal matters?
7.55 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, no one can be in any doubt at all that tackling youth crime is a priority for the Government. Public perception, backed by the media, is that the problem is out of control. There is a continuous demand for tough action; more powers for the police and the courts; more punishment for parents and more teenagers behind bars.
The Government have responded with a variety of proposals, from boot camps to tagging; from naming and shaming to curfews. The Bill contains some positive measures, including early help for children and intensive community supervision schemes for those who repeatedly offend. Equally, there are many aspects of the Bill which appear to look tough rather than seriously address the problems.
I do not intend to be critical, but there are bound to be occasions when one has to be. But I hope that my kindness will be noted by the Minister because I have a request to make at the end of my contribution. I certainly welcome many of the measures outlined in the Bill. But let me declare an interest at this stage. I am vice-chairman of NACRO and in that capacity it is pleasing to note that that organisation has contributed in a positive way to some of the measures that we are seeing in relation to youth justice. In fact the Home Secretary's Task Force on Youth Justice is a body of which one of NACRO's senior staff is a member.
Perhaps I may declare another interest. I am also a member of the Police Complaints Authority. That organisation yesterday produced a report about the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. The report was published by the Home Secretary yesterday. I therefore particularly welcome the provisions of the Bill which deal with racially motivated offences. They are contained in Clauses 22 to 25 and also in Clause 68. They rightly reflect the fact that racial motivation is an aggravating factor which it is proper to reflect in sentencing decisions and also in terms of maximum penalties.

577
However, I have serious concerns about the ability of the criminal justice agencies to identify that particular motivation. In September of this year the Crown Prosecution Service produced a report on its Racial Incident Monitoring Scheme. It has succeeded in bringing admissible evidence of racial motivation to the courts' attention in about 84 per cent. of cases. But it comments that there still remains over 15 per cent. of cases where that is either not being done or the information is not being recorded. It comments also that when passing sentence the court has not necessarily reflected that by increasing the sentence or has been unwilling to state that it has done so.
What is even more worrying is the fact that the police identified only 37 per cent. of the cases submitted to the CPS, the remainder being identified by the CPS. What it shows is that the multi-agency strategy on which the previous and the present Government are placing considerable emphasis is not necessarily working well.
We need to examine not only the provisions in the Bill but the very definition of "racial attack". We must also accept that there is adversarial contact between police and the black community and ethnic minorities. Therefore, if this provision is to be effective, it is essential to back it up with proper training for police officers to enable them to recognise and properly record racial incidents; for the CPS to recognise racial motivation and to reflect that in its selection of charges and presentation of cases; and for sentencers to ensure that they consider racial motivation as an aggravating factor when deciding on sentence.
I say that because the British Crime Survey and a number of other research papers have identified the fact that racial incidents in this country vary in number from about 130,000 to as many as 250,000 a year. That is an unacceptable figure in any civilised society. Furthermore, a racial attack is not simply a phenomenon that occurs between two individuals. The psychological impact of what happens to the community is great, and that point has to be taken into account. Now that we have the opportunity as we assume the presidency of the European Union, we need to ensure that such incidents are highlighted when they occur in Germany and France. I hope that the Government will do that when they perform that particular role.
I welcome another feature of the Bill, Clause 5, which places requirements on local authorities and the police to draw up crime and disorder strategies in consultation with other agencies. In many ways this is the most crucial clause in the Bill because agencies working together to prevent crime can do more to protect the public than any number of changes in sentencing and penal policies.
Many of the Bill's provisions on youth justice should greatly improve the prospect of steering young people away from criminal activity. I welcome the establishment of a national youth justice board to set national standards for youth justice services; the setting up in every area of inter-agency youth offending teams to run diversion programmes, bail support schemes and community sentences for young offenders; a statutory
578
duty on local authorities to provide a range of youth justice services; and measures to speed up the youth justice process. I am sure that all those working in the criminal justice system will welcome these measures which should greatly improve the consistency and effectiveness of the way in which young offenders are dealt with. I believe that NACRO has played a very important role in identifying the need for such measures.
I hope that the new reparation order will give the courts a useful low tariff penalty when dealing with young offenders. Experience with cautioned young offenders shows that apology and making reparation to their victims can have a salutary effect and that many victims appreciate it. The new action plan order of a short but intensive programme of work to tackle the causes of offending is also welcome. All those who have worked on supervision schemes will confirm that constructive supervision programmes offer the best hope of steering many young offenders away from crime.
There has been considerable publicity about those who reoffend when on bail. The provisions in Part HI of the Bill will help to speed up the youth justice system, thus reducing the risk that young people will dig themselves deeper and deeper into trouble by reoffending on bail. I hope that we shall not think that speedier justice means harsher justice. The sooner sentencing takes place, the sooner the constructive programmes of court-ordered supervision can start.
I believe that the new treatment and testing order for drug-dependent offenders can make a significant contribution to reducing both crime and imprisonment. Drug use now provides the motivation for an enormous amount of crime. Its use in penal institutions is even more worrying. The government-funded National Treatment Outcome Research Study recently found that a sample of 1,100 drug misusers entering treatment programmes had committed 70,000 crimes between them in the three months before starting treatment. That is a horrifying statistic. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out the research in America which has shown that every dollar spent on treatment programmes saves the taxpayer seven US dollars by reducing the cost of crime and the demands on the health service. That is a progressive way to tackle this matter.
Electronic tagging has aroused considerable controversy. With the prison population at an all-time high, Clauses 82 and 83 provide for the early release of selected prisoners under electronic tagging. This will provide much-needed relief for an overstretched prison system. How refreshing it would be (if we are to look seriously for a solution) to remove mentally ill prisoners from prison establishments and also reduce the use of remands in custody. I have served as a member of a board of visitors of a prison for over 15 years. There is a danger that lack of action on this front would cause control and discipline problems. The tighter pre-trial time limits will help to cut remand time. Let us hope that this measure will help to reduce the large prison population. I also welcome the statutory duty which Clauses 66 and 67 place on the Court of Appeal to issue sentencing guidelines with the advice of a Sentencing Advisory Panel. This is an important move towards

579
fairer and more consistent sentencing which should help to reduce the excessive use which some courts make of prison for less serious offenders who would be better punished in the community.
NACRO has consistently pressed for extended periods of compulsory post-release supervision for sex offenders and violent offenders. I therefore welcome Clauses 46 and 47. Home Office research has shown that supervision on release markedly reduces the risk of re-offending. Supervision can include conditions (for example. requiring the offender to live in a specified place or to take part in a treatment programme) and failure to co-operate can result in recall to prison. Extended supervision periods will both increase public protection and may improve the prospects of the successful resettlement of serious offenders.
I have concerns about a minority of the Bill's provisions. Clauses 80 and 81 will further postpone ending the practice of holding 15 and 16 year-olds in the prison system. As recently as last month the Chief Inspector of Prisons published a hard-hitting report which argued for the removal of all young people under 18 from the "corrupting influence" of prison service custody. The previous government instituted a programme to build 170 more secure places for juveniles in order to end the need to remand them to the prison system, yet the Bill will change the law in order to use the places to lock up 12 to 14 year-olds instead. Earlier this year, during the passage of the previous government's Crime (Sentences) Act, Labour criticised the delay in ending remands of 15 and 16 year-olds to prison service custody. These clauses would extend the delay which the Government rightly criticised when in opposition.
Perhaps I may identify another area of concern. At any given time about 16 per cent. of the male prison population is black. The proportion is even higher in female establishments—at about 26 per cent., or one in four female prisoners, against a proportion of no more than 5 per cent. in the community as a whole. Why they are there is less important; what we need to find out is how the criminal justice system produced such a discrepancy. I have argued for a proper system of monitoring for the past 20 years. I accept that monitoring is the end product of a system where differential treatment has already taken place, but it is important to ensure that any measure that we promote has a proper monitoring system so that we can analyse the outcomes and ensure that the system treats everyone fairly.
I hope that NACRO will be able to play a full part in making the majority of the Bill's provisions a success. I welcome and applaud what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. The previous government cut NACRO's core grant from £1 million to £400,000. Unless those swingeing cuts can be reversed, NACRO will have to make extensive reductions in those core staff who are so crucial to developing services and strategies to prevent crime, resettle offenders and promote constructive changes to the criminal justice system. I hope and expect that the Government will look favourably on NACRO's application for the level of core funding that it needs. Raising money to work with
580
offenders has never been an easy task. The Government's commitment to preserve the role of voluntary organisations in this crucial area of work requires financial help. NACRO is important to the Government. If it is not there the Government will have to invent it. The cutback in its resources will damage not only the organisation but the prospect of combating crime and disorder which this Bill embodies.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have been beaten by the two Statements and I apologise to the House for the fact that I must leave before the end of the summing up. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has forgiven me, and I hope that the House will also forgive me.
I intend to speak only briefly on one particular issue. First. I congratulate the Government on this innovative and thoughtful Bill. I hope that its provisions work, and I shall do everything that I can to that end.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said that the provisions of the Bill would not work unless they addressed the fundamental causes of crime at a much earlier age. He referred to the family. parenting and support for parents, which many noble Lords will know is a matter very close to my heart. The right reverend Prelate also referred to communities. I agree entirely with what he said in that context. He also referred to role models, and it is on that subject that I should like to speak for a few moments this afternoon. I speak about role models in the context of boys. Boys and men are responsible for the vast majority of crime. Girls are catching up a little but they are still way behind. I believe that it is useful to look at this issue in the context of boys.
It may well be that we underestimate the importance of role models. I refer the House to a very interesting and elegant piece of research carried out in Washington DC. I acknowledge that one swallow does not make a summer and that a piece of research done in one particular community in one country is not necessarily applicable elsewhere. However, one hopes that that can be replicated in this country in different communities. If it shows, as it clearly has in the United States, that for boys a role model is absolutely fundamental to their behaviour, to their acceptance of education and their being able to get on in school, then we have a lot of thinking to do. There is a great deal that we can do.
It was found in certain areas of Washington DC that African-American boys emerged from school almost totally uneducated having rejected education, while African-American girls did as well as any other racial group. When the matter was looked at more closely it was discovered that up to the age of six or seven boys and girls progressed pari passu. At about the age of seven boys peeled off and appeared to reject the teaching that they were being given by female teachers. It was hypothesised that the reason might be that those boys had come from single-parent families where they had no males in their lives and that they were being taught by women and were rejecting the guidance and education with which they were being provided. A

581
group of African-American males—good guys—volunteered to go into a school for an hour or two each day. It was the same man in the same class each day. When little Johnny said, "I'm not effing doing that"—or whatever the equivalent is in America—the man would say, "Johnny, come here. You do what Mrs. Peacock tells you to do. I shall be here tomorrow and I shall want you to show me what you've done". It was as simple as that. Fascinatingly, those boys, now aged 15 and 16, are doing just as well as the girls.
I do not say that that can necessarily be replicated in another group in this country, but I ask the Minister to draw the attention of his right honourable friend to this work and the possibility of replicating it. It may be something that the Social Exclusion Unit can take on board. If the simple input of a male role model can be so important—it is not because women cannot teach boys but because boys look to men to see what it is like to be men, which is what they will do whether we like it or not—the implications may be enormous. We have to think much more about the role of men in families and the roles of grandfathers, uncles and aunts in the community. We must also think about the ratio of male to female teachers in schools and the youth service that has been almost destroyed over the past 20 years. We must also give consideration to sport and to training men to lead in these areas where they can be heroes and role models for boys. I believe that we must install a proper vetting system to ensure that the men we put into those positions do not damage the boys and, equally, that those men are not terrified of doing the job for fear of being accused of abusing the children.
I leave that thought with the House. This is perhaps one of the underlying causes of crime that we should address if we want the provisions of the Bill to succeed.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I should like to begin my few remarks by joining in the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, on his eloquent maiden speech. I hope that the causes that he supports in your Lordships' House bring him greater rewards than his support of Dundee United football team in recent years. He comes from a constituency in Glasgow which has a lot of the problems with which this Bill is concerned. I am quite sure that at Committee stage he will speak with considerable authority on the issues to be debated then.
At this time of the evening I confine my remarks to a few observations on the provisions of the Bill as they relate to Scotland. I deal first with certain clauses which I welcome with a considerable degree of enthusiasm. I refer to the clauses that deal with drug treatment and testing orders. These clauses find a great welcome in Scotland from both SACRO and other quarters. This is a new and extremely worthwhile idea worth pursuing particularly as it is to be tested in a pilot scheme before full implementation occurs. Those of us who have been involved in the criminal justice system over the years know that drug dealing and drug use bedevil all levels of criminal conduct from the most serious to the relatively petty. The statistic given by the noble Lord,
582
Lord Watson, that 26 crimes are committed per month per drug user indicates that in many instances it is the frequency of the offending rather than the gravity of the individual offence that gives rise to the greatest cause for public concern.
For many less serious offenders the last place to which they should be sent is some form of detention or imprisonment. Therefore, the greater range of alternatives to custody that is available the better. That is why this new idea is certainly worth trying out in the way that the Government suggest. The issue of resources is clearly relevant to its success. I hope that at Committee stage the Minister will explain to the House how this new idea will be funded both north and south of the Border.
I have greater difficulty in giving unqualified support to the proposals for anti-social behaviour orders and sex offender orders. I am aware that in recent months in Scotland the activities of bad neighbours and the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders in housing schemes have given rise to considerable public concern, but I have reservations about whether the right course is to give power to a local authority to initiate action in this field.
That will draw the local authority into disputes. If it is the landlord of both neighbours it may have to depart from the neutral position which one would normally expect and begin to take sides. Furthermore, individual councillors may be put under pressure to act. They in turn will encourage officials to do so. The decisions as to whether the applications are to be initiated may become motivated by political considerations and not a proper pursuit of public interest. There is also a problem with resources and of having a common policy throughout the country. It would be wrong for one local authority to have an aggressive policy and for a neighbouring authority with similar problems to have a different policy.
My greatest difficulty with the idea is how the local authority will be seized with all the relevant information to decide whether to take action. No doubt it will receive a complaint from the neighbours who are concerned about the anti-social conduct, but it will not have access to information which the police have and it certainly will not have access to the information which the Procurator Fiscal has. If there is disagreement between the chief constable and the local authority, and the local authority decides to proceed, that, too, could be a cause for concern. While not completely ruling out the idea, the issue must be looked at in great detail in Committee.
Another aspect of the proposals which causes me great concern applies to Clauses 18 and 19. I refer to the scope of the power which would be available to the civil court to regulate the behaviour or conduct of the individual concerned. As I construe the provisions, they would entitle a court to exclude an individual from the house which he tenanted and even the house which he owned. That raises certain issues under the European Convention. I would welcome an indication from the noble and learned Lord that in his view all the provisions of the Bill comply with that convention and with the provisions of the Human Rights Bill which is going through your Lordships' House.

583
I turn briefly to the provisions relating to extended sentences. Again, some European Convention points may arise and I should welcome guidance on that. More importantly, I should be interested to hear the views of the Scottish judiciary on whether they welcome the proposal. I understand that the power would be available to sheriffs dealing with sexual offence cases and therefore it is important that their views, as well as those of High Court judges, are known before your Lordships enter detailed consideration of the clauses.
Finally, I turn to the provisions relating to racially aggravated harassment, taking into account racial aggravation, in sentencing. As your Lordships who have studied the Bill in detail will know, the provisions for Scotland are more limited in scope than those which are to apply to England. That acknowledges the fact that the Scottish criminal law is more flexible in dealing with such behaviour than may be possible in England.
Notwithstanding the fact that the provisions are more limited in scope, there is a considerable body of concern as to whether the Government are following the right lines. In the consultation responses which were submitted to the Government, a large number of bodies expressed opposition to the proposals and a large number expressed considerable reservations. Many welcomed the sending of a signal that racial violence and racially aggravated conduct should be seriously addressed, but when the detail of the proposals was considered a great deal of anxiety was expressed. The Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Bar, has indicated that it requires to be persuaded of the advisability of making new statutory provisions. The Sheriffs' Association believes that the provision of new statutory offences would be unnecessary. It anticipates considerable problems in demonstrating and proving racial motivation.
Perhaps surprisingly, the proposals have met opposition from local authorities' social work departments. The East Lothian Council expressed the view:
"We are concerned that the creation of new offences, while sending out a clear statement of government views, may serve only to enable individuals to escape successful prosecution and punishment for their behaviour, and accordingly we do not support this course of action".
The body representing senior police officers in Scotland, ACPOS, believe that the proposal may be counter-productive. That view is shared by the sheriff principals, who consider the proposal to be contrary to principle and unworkable.
Those strong criticisms come from a wide range of consultees. I hope that when we discuss the provisions in Committee the Government will be prepared to answer them. As was said by the Lord Justice General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, in his response:
"So far as I am aware there is no aspect of racially motivated criminal conduct which cannot be properly tackled under the existing law if the racial element is brought to the attention of the police and prosecution and can be substantiated".
He remains to be persuaded by the arguments for the introduction of a new offence.
584
The concern must be that if in the face of those objections the Government press ahead with the proposals for Scotland they will give two false messages. First, they will give the impression that this will achieve something for ethnic minorities in Scotland which cannot be achieved under the present law. Secondly, as was said by the Lord Justice General, the Government might send out the wrong signal to other sections of society. He stated that in Scotland:
"there are crimes inspired by religious hatred and hatred of homosexuals. If Parliament were to single out racial motivation, that might be perceived as suggesting that it was downgrading the seriousness of these other motivations… I am not sure what signal any enactment would send to society or to the courts about these kinds of behaviour".
Those are serious observations and I hope that when we discuss their detail in Committee each and every one can be addressed.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is an extremely wide-ranging Bill and I welcome the Minister's clear exposition of it. A significant part of it concerns youth justice and I was pleased to see the move to a more restorative approach to the problems of youth crime. I also welcome the recognition within the Bill that tackling crime requires effective local and national partnerships. I particularly support the objective of nurturing the existing partnership process and establishing a legislative framework to ensure that the crime and disorder agenda is taken up and maintained locally to reflect local needs and priorities.
Other speakers in the debate have commented on some of the specific proposals relating to youth crime and anti-social behaviour. I wish to pay particular attention to Clauses 22 to 25, which deal with racially aggravated offences. For many years, I have campaigned for racial equality. As part of that campaign I have argued for the creation of a specific offence of racial harassment and racial violence. I have seen the impact of repeated acts of victimisation and violence on individuals and families and I have seen the build-up of anger, fear and resentment within ethnic minority communities.
In 1995–96, over 12,000 racial incidents were recorded by police in England and Wales. There is evidence to suggest that this is an underestimate. In May last year a survey was carried out for BBC Radio 5 on racism in the UK. There was a widespread view from participants in that survey that racism is a increasing problem in comparison with five years ago. Among African Caribbean and African participants in the survey, 60 per cent. felt that they had suffered some form of racial harassment. The figure for Asian participants was 40 per cent.
This is only a single survey—and I acknowledge that it dealt with perception—but data from the British Crime Survey also suggest that police statistics understate the extent of the problem. I therefore agree with my noble friend, Lord Watson, that there is no room for complacency.
We need to instil in our communities confidence that crimes of racial violence and racial harassment will be dealt with seriously. That is why I welcome the

585
Government's commitment to tackling racial violence and harassment and their determination that the criminal law should be adequate to protect victims of crime which is motivated by intentions amounting to racial hatred.
I also welcome the related developments within criminal legislation, particularly the applicability of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to incidents of racial harassment, and within other legislation the positive opportunities arising from community safety orders and local community safety planning. It is a major step forward and offers some reassurance to ethnic minority communities about the Government's stated intention to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime.
I do, however, have some anxiety relating to implementation of the Bill and to an omission from it. There are a number of areas where the impact of the legislation should be strengthened and the Government's expectations of key agencies made clearer. I have been involved in a series of joint discussions on the practical implications of the proposals. These discussions have included the police, local authority representatives, community organisations and lawyers. There was concern at those meetings that, despite previous guidance and public consultation on using the powers in existing legislation, we have not seen a consistent application of those powers, or indeed adherence to existing guidance, across the main agencies.
The success of this legislation will rest on the consistency and priority afforded it by key agencies—particularly the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and local authorities. We shall need to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to enable us to judge how well those agencies are doing. This is particularly the case in the light of the findings of the Police Complaints Authority investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence, which were published yesterday and which have already been referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia.
The results of the investigation show how under-performance and a low priority can lead to the mishandling of cases, and it shows how such failures undermine public confidence—particularly the confidence of ethnic minority communities—in the justice system.
I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure effective implementation of the Bill. There are three ways in which this can be achieved. Firstly, we need a review of existing guidance to all agencies on racial violence and harassment and the development of new, simplified guidance to all agencies. This would include information and some training. Secondly, a specific duty should be placed on all local authorities to tackle racial violence and harassment. This could be linked to the community safety partnership proposals elsewhere in the Bill. Thirdly, it is important that we put in place a mechanism to ensure independent scrutiny of the performance of agencies which are involved in dealing with cases of racially motivated crime. It could also be a requirement of policing plans and community safety
586
plans that they include a section on dealing with racial violence and harassment. We need to be able to assess what progress we are making in creating a more equal and inclusive society.
Before finishing, I shall touch on one area of omission. It relates to criminal damage and particularly to racist graffiti—something which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. Racist graffiti in particular can contribute to and underpin a culture of racial violence and harassment in some areas. The omission of criminal damage means that a substantial number of incidents will be outside the scope of the legislation. This will leave a confusing gap which will not be understood by local communities.
Although I have focused on my areas of concern. I repeat that I welcome the proposals on racially motivated crime. This is a good step forward but its effectiveness will have to be proved in practice.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is something of a curate's egg of a Bill. Parts of it are excellent—indeed much of it is excellent—but some other parts need amendment or should be approached with scepticism, and one or two need outright rejection.
We have listened to many valuable speeches tonight, notably the distinguished maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I propose to be a little more detailed in my speech than most speakers in order to illustrate why the Bill will need great attention in Committee.
Let me start by looking at Clause 1, the anti-social behaviour order. We do not oppose it in principle; we accept the need for a stronger, more effective remedy against the so-called neighbours from hell. But its powers look, certainly at first glance, a good deal too wide. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford.
There are also many problems with the text. Let us look at them briefly. The order is triggered by acts which cause alarm and distress, but what if the neighbours to whom the alarm is caused are unduly sensitive? Should there not be a requirement that the behaviour must be such as would cause alarm and distress to reasonable people? What is the proof of anti-social behaviour which is required before the order can be made? Is it the civil standard, the criminal standard or something in between? What happens if the subject of the order moves to another local authority district? It would obviously then be pointless to retain the order in force in the original district, but there is no procedure under the Bill for the transfer of the order so as to make it effective in the place where the subject of the order now lives.
I turn to Clause 2, the sex offender order. There is a serious human rights problem here. A sexual offender order will almost certainly contravene Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights if it is made where the offence has been committed before the Bill comes into force. The Bill certainly appears to permit this. Article 7 states that no heavier penalty should be
587
imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. I draw attention to the decision in the European Court of Human Rights in the Welch case, where a confiscation order in a drug trafficking case was held to be in breach of Article 7 because the offence was committed before the confiscation order was introduced by legislation. Indeed, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, whether this Bill has been tested against the European Convention on Human Rights. Even if it is not necessary to do so until the Human Rights Bill is enacted, it is surely good practice to start doing so now.
Again, one might ask why, under Clause 2, there is no power to discharge a sex offender order within five years without the consent of the police. Clearly the police have a right to express a view on whether or not an order should be discharged, but it is a bad principle that the police should have a right of veto on whether or not to discharge an order made by a court.
I have serious reservations about the value of Clause 8 and parenting orders. Such orders require parents to attend counselling sessions. It is well known that counselling is useless unless the client is willing to accept it. Compulsory counselling is likely to be a waste of time and money and very difficult for the counsellor. Surely what is needed is a greater availability of family psychologists to help families that need help and are willing to accept it or can be persuaded, not compelled, to accept it.
Indeed, in many cases a parenting order would obviously be inappropriate. For example, what about a single mother with a violent 16 year-old son? She may risk being beaten up if she tries to control him and if an order is made, she is liable to a fine if she fails to control him or does not try to do so. Clearly in such a case, no order could be made.
I note and welcome the Government's proposal to run a pilot scheme but a modification is needed before the pilot scheme is introduced and I must say that I am sceptical as to whether parenting orders will work at all.
We welcome in principle Clauses 11 to 13 which deal with child safety orders. I have some problems with the drafting of Clause 11 and it should be noted that the standard child safety order appears to be made for too short a period. In the absence of special circumstances, the maximum period for which an order can be made is only three months. Surely an order needs to be longer if it is to be useful.
Clause 14 covers the local child curfew scheme. In that regard also there are serious problems. We certainly accept that children should not be out unsupervised late at night. But as drafted, Clause 14 produces some rather odd consequences. Where the order applies, it will be a breach for a nine year-old to be out kicking a football at five past nine on a bright June evening. It will be a breach for a nine year-old who has spent the evening with his grandparents to be brought home at five past nine by a 17 year-old brother or sister. Most extraordinary of all, it will be a breach for a 17 year-old mother to be out of doors with her baby. Technically, in each case it will be the duty of a police constable who discovers those breaches to report them. No doubt in
588
practice, any constable would be too sensible to do so. But laws which rely on the police turning a blind eye bring the law itself into disrepute.
How will the order be publicised? If the order covers an estate, the notice will no doubt be put through all the tenants' doors. But will everyone read it and what about children who come to the estate from outside? As we all know, there is a very serious problem with gangs of children on some estates, but not all children on estates are unruly and the order should surely be targeted on misbehaving children and not on the area as a whole.
I turn to Part II. Unlike some noble Lords, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, I have doubts about Clauses 22 to 25 dealing with racially aggravated offences. In my view, those clauses are well meaning but could be counter-productive. The problem is that there may well be pressure on the CPS not to prosecute for aggravated offences because of the extra time and cost involved and the evidential problems in proving racial motivation. As a consequence, where an accused is not charged with an aggravated offence or has been charged with an aggravated offence but is convicted only of the simple offence, the judge cannot properly take racial motivation into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing, however clear in practice it may be.
Clause 68, which we wholly support on these Benches, requires judges to treat racism as an aggravating factor. May it not be better simply to extend Clause 68 across the board and if existing maximum sentences are inadequate to cope with racially aggravated offences, extend those maximum sentences?
As regards Clause 27—doli incapax—I certainly agree that the presumption of incapacity is often contrary to common sense. But are the government right to abolish the rule altogether rather than to reverse the presumption so that there is a rebuttable presumption that the accused has capacity? Ten year-olds are not always responsible for their actions in the same way as adults and should it not remain open to the courts to investigate the criminal capacity of the child where there are grounds for believing that the child may lack capacity.
I am happy to say that we can give strong support to Part III. We certainly support the youth offender teams and the youth justice boards. Youth offender teams will of course cost money and we must ask how much central government are prepared to provide to local authorities to pay for them. Are the Government prepared to commit resources to youth offender teams and the other additional burdens falling on local authorities or will they expect the whole burden to fall on increased council tax payments which would cause impossible burdens for most local authorities?
I should say that we express strong support for the fast track approach to the trial of young persons under Clause 35. Trial of all cases should be quick, but that is particularly important for the young.
To Part IV we can give an almost wholly positive response. We support extended sentences and drug treatment and testing orders. We certainly support the principle of the new system of reprimands and warnings, although some aspects of it are too rigid and we have

589
reservations about some of the details; for example, a restriction on the powers of the court to order conditional discharges. We support reparation orders, action plan orders, the strengthening of supervision orders and detention and training orders, although, as has been mentioned, there are some concerns about the reduction in age down to 12. We strongly support the clauses dealing with sentencing guidelines and the sentencing advisory panel.
Part V causes more difficulties. There is some concern with Clause 80 and in particular with Clause 81. Indeed, it can be said that Clause 81 contains what is perhaps the only wholly objectionable provision in the Bill. We do not accept that 15 and 16 year-olds should ever be remanded to prison or remand centres where they will come into contact with adult prisoners. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a party, requires accused juveniles to be separated from adults. The United Kingdom entered a reservation to that article, but only where there is a lack of suitable prison facilities or where the mixing of adults and juveniles is deemed to be mutually beneficial. Neither of those grounds appears to be applicable to the proposals in Clause 81. We believe that it is absolutely wrong to mix 15 and 16 year-olds with adult prisoners.
Clause 83 deals with electronic tagging for released short-sentence prisoners. We do not oppose it, but in our view it does not amount to a long-term solution and needs careful monitoring.
At this stage we can give the Bill a general and, in many respects, warm welcome. But it is obvious that many of its clauses will need very careful attention in Committee. That is certainly something that we on these Benches intend to give it.
8.49 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, on his maiden speech. We have had an excellent foretaste of the expertise that he will bring to our debates, particularly because it is experience of life in the inner cities.
We on these Benches support the Bill's objective of reducing crime, especially youth crime. Tonight we heard details from my noble friend Lord Windlesham about the high levels of juvenile crime. I recognise that action is needed to tackle the causes of youth crime and to make young offenders accountable for the actions that they commit. We proved our commitment to this objective while we were in government, and in opposition we will continue to do so. Crime prevention is, and has been, at the heart of Conservative Party strategy in fighting crime.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, I too have been a magistrate, and when day after day you have looked into the faces and thereby into the lives of those who pass through our courts, you find yourself committed to finding ways of reducing crime. If legislation comes before this House which effectively seeks to reduce crime it will certainly find me supporting it to the hilt.
590
However, I appreciate that, whoever is in government, there are always problems which have to be overcome in implementing major changes to the criminal justice system, so the comments I make today in winding up the debate for the Opposition are not intended to undermine the main objectives of the Bill but to raise questions about how best they may be implemented.
The Bill seeks to introduce a wide range of measures to tackle crime and, as often happens when governments seek to make a great number of changes in one fell swoop, it can look as though some details have not been thought through thoroughly. One example sprang to mind when reading Clauses 22 to 26 referring to racially aggravated offences. My noble friend Lord Henley pointed out earlier that the Conservative Party's position on this is clear: racism is wrong. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Flather pointed out that it is essential that public policy should reflect the displeasure felt by society against those who commit racist acts. Indeed, at the moment there are powers within the courts when sentencing to take racism into account when it is part and parcel of the reason why an offence has been committed.
When I sat as a magistrate the guidelines issued by the Magistrates' Association pointed out that racism in committing an act was an aggravating feature which had to be taken into account when assessing the seriousness of the offence itself. This Bill introduces racially aggravated offences. I question whether the court will have to specify how much of the sentence it imposes for such offences is for the racially aggravated part of the offence. If the extra penalty is not stated, how would the Court of Appeal deal with the matter later on appeal, and how would it know how to adjust the sentence if it were to be later determined that whoever had committed the offence had not done so in a racially aggravated manner?
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon put several questions on the matter of racially aggravated offences and the clauses with regard to Scotland. I never dare to stray into legal matters as they affect Scotland because I know I shall get it wrong; but I am sure that the noble Lord who is to wind up will be able to answer my noble friend's questions.
The provisions of the Bill significantly increase local government bureaucracy and create structures that will cross agency boundaries. There will be a youth justice board for England and Wales; there will be youth offending teams; and the local authorities and the police are required to formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder in their area. Before formulating that strategy the responsible authority must follow all the directions contained within Clause 6(2), which I shall not read out at this late stage in the evening. But what occurs to me is that when they are publishing these results and keeping under review all these laudable actions that they have to take they will need proper resourcing.
As the Local Government Association points out in its briefing note, the key outstanding issue remains that of finance. Conducting a crime and disorder audit will

591
be a new activity for all authorities, for they assume that any previous audits will not count and all authorities will be starting from scratch. All authorities will need to have earmarked staff in place to administer this strategy. Ultimately, the system will have to be arbitrated in the negotiations for the 1999-2000 local government finance settlement.
The Association of Police Authorities argues in its briefing note to us that it is unrealistic to expect that community safety strategies will be immediately self-financing for the savings achieved. It is essential to have investment to pump-prime developments. Have the Government plans to provide this, and can they give us information tonight about them?
What about the implications for other statutory and non-statutory bodies? Clause 5(2) requires a local authority to co-operate with other specified agencies in drawing up strategies and also refers to other organisations prescribed by order of the Secretary of State. Those could include churches, citizens advice bureaux, charities and a whole range of non government organisations. I certainly hope that they would be involved at that stage. They have an invaluable contribution to make. However, we should not forget that in taking part they would also have a great cost to bear in terms of their management time. The Government say that in time the Bill will produce significant savings for the criminal justice system, but I believe that there are a great number of areas where enforcing the provisions of the Bill will have cost implications immediately, especially for local authorities.
There seems to be considerable confusion on the part of the Government as to what the real cost implications will be. Frankly, the sections on the financial effects of the Bill are completely inadequate. For example, Clauses 80 and 81 amend provisions for remanding children and young persons to secure accommodation and, in the case of 15 and 16 year-old boys, to meet the specified criteria, to prison or remand centre. What estimates have the Government made of the likely increase in such remands and their consequent costs? Clause 80 gives the Secretary of State the power to implement the provisions in stages. How long a period of phasing-in are we talking about?
Clause 82 gives effect to the Government's policy for early release of prisoners who are serving from three months to four years. When opening the debate the Minister referred to "selected prisoners", but human nature being what it is, no doubt all prisoners will apply to be considered for this early release. Why indeed should they not? What estimate have the Government made of the cost of preparing and producing the reports required—costs which will fall upon the Probation Service and the Prison Service? What extra sums will central government be allocating to their budgets to cope with the extra work, and just what will be the criteria for deciding whether somebody qualifies for early release?
The Government have said that they want to use this Bill to reduce delay in the criminal justice system. I and others on these Benches welcome that. It is something that we always tried to achieve while in government.
592
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has sat as a Deputy High Court Judge, and he will recognise that there is always a tension between the need, on the one hand, to dispose of cases quickly and cost effectively and, on the other hand, to be fair to all parties, including the public. So when making changes we need to be aware of their impact, not only on the level of resources required but also on the role and functions of the courts.
I have concerns, which others have expressed tonight, about the implications of some of these clauses and some of the measures proposed in the Bill on the future of the lay magistracy. I hope measures are not being introduced which quietly, through the back-door, will reduce the value and the work carried out by the lay magistracy. I note the reassurances given recently by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Magistrates' Association at its AGM. However, I would refer as an example to Clause 39, which gives metropolitan stipendiary magistrates the power to sit alone in youth courts. I ask why. I imagine the reason given is that this will increase speed and efficiency. That is something I have heard before in regard to other matters. But surely this is implying that magistrates should be used only if they are stipendiaries and eventually that lay magistrates will be bypassed.
I note that Clause 53 requires a police constable who warns a person under Clause 52 to refer that person to a youth offending team for assessment and, if appropriate, to make provision for him to participate in a programme to prevent further re-offending and secure his rehabilitation. I do not quarrel with the intention behind that, but is this in itself a way of providing a solution to a problem by imposing a method of treatment that would normally be seen as a court disposal but yet without ever getting the person in front of a court? It seems as though one is trying to obviate going to a court.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, has tonight eloquently put the case—quoting from Clause 40—of the value of the lay magistracy. I thank him for the points that he made and merely endorse them in my own inadequate way. I also note that it is not only the magistrates' courts that are immediately affected by some of these changes but the Crown Court and that there appears to be a transfer of some duties from magistrates' courts to Crown Courts.
Clause 42 prescribes that there will be no committal proceedings for indictable only offences. At first sight that seems to be a sensible and cost saving measure. However, it means that paperwork will not be sorted out before it reaches the Crown Court. One role played by the magistrates' court has been to ensure that the paperwork served upon the defence is sorted out as far as possible before it reaches committal stage. That means that the Crown Court is able to get on with the job. Now people will be sent to the Crown Court before the disclosure of documents. It is a matter of transferring case paper management to the Crown Court. It also means that a person will have to wait months before he or she finds out what is the case against him or her. I hope that is not the case.

593
Crown Court judges will have to become case managers writ large—in a way that I suspect they are not quite used to at the moment—reviewing the progress of case papers and the readiness for trial far more than is currently the case. What resources have been allocated to the Crown Court to deal with this? Has a like sum been removed already from magistrates' courts' budgets?
I am aware that there is already provision in serious fraud cases and cases involving children, for example rape of a child, to transfer cases to the Crown Court without the need for committal proceedings, but before they are transferred the prosecution must prepare the case and serve it on the defence and certify that in its opinion there is a prima facie case against the defendant. Could that same principle be applied to indictable only offences?
In opening for the Opposition my noble friend Lord Henley pointed out that we greeted this Bill with a qualified welcome. It is not qualified because we object to the principles behind it of reducing crime and reducing delay in the court system. We, like others tonight, express our concern that some of the provisions in this Bill will simply not be achieved because of the way in which the Bill is presently drafted. Like others we look forward to the Committee stage and the attempts that will be made to improve the Bill.
9.3 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak at the end of what has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. I know that during the passage of the Bill this House will give the Bill its close and expert examination as regards the important measures which it contains. As everyone knows, the Bill has 96 clauses and addresses six particular topics. It covers a whole range of issues from racially aggravated crime to creating new methods of disposal for the magistrates' courts and makes fundamental reforms as regards procedure in the magistrates' courts. I thought it was a little churlish of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to ask, "Is this all?" when he made his opening remarks. In our view, this is a sensible, wide-ranging Bill. It is ambitious and innovative. The one thing that could not be said about it is that there is not enough in it.
Before I turn to particular points that have been made on particular parts of the Bill, I mention four themes that have arisen in the course of this debate relating to the principles of the Bill. First of all, the point has been made that we should not forget the causes of crime. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and a number of other noble Lords. We do not forget the causes of crime. If I may say so with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, slightly down-played the welfare to work provisions and the social exclusion unit. In a Bill which is, as it were, a criminal law Bill and a criminal procedure Bill, one would not expect to address the causes of crime. That is a matter for some other kind of legislation and for government policy.
594
The second theme that emerged in the debate was that of reducing the prison population. It was said that that matter was not addressed by the Bill. With respect, I take issue with that proposition, advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and a number of others in the course of the debate. This Government take the view that a certain number of offences are serious and require custody as a response. That is a view that has been taken by successive governments. If one does not take that view, confidence in the criminal law is reduced. This Bill, however, attempts both to reduce offending and to reduce the prison population. As regards reducing offending, there is a large number of measures which are designed to offer the courts alternative methods of disposal which allow the court to provide an answer that the public will have confidence in and which are not custody. In addition, the home curfew proposals will, when fully operative, reduce the prison population by perhaps as many as 6,000. Therefore the question of the prison population is addressed to some extent both in terms of reducing offending and, it is hoped, reducing the prison population.
The third general theme is a concern that was expressed in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford; namely, that this is a Bill about containment, not prevention. Again I take issue with that. The Bill contains important preventive measures—for example, antisocial behaviour orders, sex offender orders and crime and disorder strategies. These are all important provisions aimed specifically at preventing crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out, Clause 28 sets out for the first time the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young people. The work of the inter-agency youth offending teams will focus on preventing offending and re-offending. The many parts of the Bill designed to get agencies in the locality working together to prevent crime are certainly designed to provide not containment but prevention. The Bill is designed to get the community as a whole working on strategies to reduce crime.
The fifth, and final, general point is one that came across in the remarks of many noble Lords; namely, the important part that voluntary agencies can play in developing strategies, dealing with crime and assisting the community to move forward. We entirely agree with that in relation to the Bill. The measures in Clause 5 in relation to the inter-agency panels that the Bill envisages include provision for permitting the Home Secretary to designate the bodies that will sit on those panels, and they will include various voluntary agencies. That is a provision with which I believe we all agree.
To turn to more specific points, it would be impossible, having regard to the wide range of matters raised in the course of the debate, to deal with every point raised. Many will be more suitably dealt with during the Committee stage. However, perhaps I may deal with a number of general themes that have arisen in relation to particular parts of the Bill.

595
First, in relation to the antisocial behaviour orders, a number of noble Lords indicated that they did not want the orders to become a means of getting at people who were simply eccentric. We entirely agree. That is neither the intention nor the effect of this measure. The purpose of the antisocial behaviour order is to deal with behaviour that is so intrusive as to make a real, unpleasant impact on neighbours and others affected by it. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, made the point in an excellent maiden speech that, although it is difficult to define, one is certainly able to recognise such behaviour when one sees it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred to mediation and wondered if that might present a solution. We believe that in some cases it will be a solution; but it will not be in every case—and, if it will not he a solution in every case, then there is a place in the panoply of powers open to magistrates' courts for the antisocial behaviour order as a civil order.
To turn to the section on local crime strategies, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester suggested that it was at the heart of the Bill. We see it as a very important means of getting the community working together on crime strategies. It is important to involve all the vital agencies on a cross-agency basis. As I said, we are keen to include all the voluntary agencies.
In relation to the antisocial behaviour order, perhaps I should have dealt with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, as to whether people can be excluded from their own home under such an order. You can only be prohibited from living in your own home if it is established before the court that that is necessary for the protection of the public. That is the same test as applies under Article 8.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore would not offend against that convention.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodheart, asked whether the Bill has been "ECHR-proofed". We accept that, like other criminal justice measures, there may well be challenges to the legislation under the European Convention on Human Rights. We have accordingly considered the provision most carefully and have concluded that it is compatible with the convention. I believe that that answers the question of both noble Lords.
To turn to doli incapax, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked rather optimistically whether it was causing any problem at the moment. The position in relation to doli incapax was very well described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, during the course of his remarks. The position is that at the moment it has to be proved that the defendant knows that what he or she is doing is wrong. That process is being used in a manipulative way in many courts by defendants, who say, "You have to bring a teacher, a social worker or some mature adult in order to prove this". It leads to difficulty with the calling of witnesses; it is hoped on the part of many defendants that this will make the Crown Prosecution Service bring its proceedings to a halt; it clogs up the youth court; and it is simply designed to make the proceedings more difficult. So the answer to the question is: yes, it is causing real difficulties. It
596
offends against common sense that you have to prove it. The possibility is not ruled out, where there is a child who has genuine learning difficulties and who is genuinely at sea on the question of right and wrong, of seeking to run that as a specific defence. All that the provision does is remove the presumption that the child is incapable of committing wrong.
To turn to the detention and training order, it was suggested by some noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the detention and training order would simply involve sending more young people to "academies of crime". The detention order is not about locking up more children and putting them into an academy of crime. It will replace the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution of 15 to 17 year-olds and the secure training order for 12 to 14 year-olds. It will not initially be implemented for 10 and 11 year-olds. It has two clear advantages over previous arrangements. It will give a clear incentive to young people to make progress. If they do well while they are in the detention centre they will be released early.
Secondly, there is scope for the Secretary of State to determine where offenders of different kinds should serve the custodial part of the order, allowing youngsters to go to the most suitable accommodation. So far from being an academy for criminals, making them worse, it is hoped that they will improve there and also that there will be a wider range of places that they can go to.
On parenting orders, concern was expressed by a number of your Lordships, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that some of the parenting orders would not be of assistance. Examples were given of parents who had completely lost control of their children. How unfair, it was said, that those parents could be made liable themselves for being unable to control their children after a parenting order had been made. Before a parenting order can be made under Clause 8 of the Bill, the magistrates' court must be satisfied that it will contribute to the reduction of offending or similar behaviour by the young person. If the position is that upon examining the facts it becomes clear that the parent will have no effect in relation to the child's behaviour then the provisions of the Bill are such that no parenting order will be made. So the concerns expressed by noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate in that respect may be misplaced.
We believe that there is a place for the parenting order. It includes providing counselling and guidance to parents. It will be ordered by the magistrates' court when that court believes it can help the parents both by giving them guidance and by making it clear to them that they have a responsibility for their children's offending behaviour.
On magistrates' clerks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, made the point that he was extremely uneasy—and that may understate his concern—about clerks exercising judicial power. He rightly pointed out that in Clause 40 the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to designate to clerks the power that he can designate to single lay justices. The

597
position is that the clerks already exercise some judicial powers in relation to family proceedings. The judgment of what is suitable for them to do will obviously have to be made at some stage. The scheme will be piloted. We very much take into account the noble and learned Lord's constructive comments about what would and would not be suitable, and they would certainly be taken into account in any order made.
I move on from there to Clauses 80 and 81 on the committal to secure accommodation or prison of boys aged 15 and 16. Points were made from all sides of the House along the lines of, "This is a point that has caused this Government concern when in opposition. What is the present position?". The position is as follows. Remanding to prison 15 and 16 year-old boys is a longstanding issue which the previous Government failed to resolve. We are fully committed to ending prison remands for 15 and 16 year-olds as soon as we can. The courts will, subject to certain criteria and where a place has been identified in advance, be able to consider remanding direct to local authority accommodation those 15 and 16 year-old boys who are the most vulnerable in that age group, in addition to all 12 to 14 year-olds and 15 and 16 year-old girls. But it is not possible to do so for all 15 and 16 year-old boys while practical difficulties exist caused by lack of sufficient secure places.
While a building programme was put in place to provide 170 new secure places in local authority accommodation for that purpose, the number of juveniles remanded in custody has increased significantly since the building programme began, and prison remands of 15 and 16 year-old boys now range between 250 and 300.
The demand from that group alone would significantly outstrip the capacity of the local authority secure estate, even once the building programme has been completed, seven years after the provisions of the 1991 Act were put in place. We shall not lose sight of the problem but we believe that our proposals represent the most effective and practical way forward.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, made a number of important points about local authority secure accommodation, including inspection and the need for more places. It is too late in the evening and I have spoken for too long to answer all the specific points that he made, but perhaps I may write to him with answers.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on that point perhaps this may be a suitable moment to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would agree to this suggestion. He has been most conscientious in the replies he has given and has covered a great many points put forward by Members on all sides of the House. However, we would like the guarantee that he will answer by letter all the points which he was not able to deal with. He might then find that it would speed up the Committee stage process, since he said that many points would be more appropriately left to that stage. If he or his noble friend
598
could write to noble Lords on points not covered, then I and probably other Members of the House, including the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, would be grateful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we would be willing to do that. We shall have to go through Hansard and see which points it will be appropriate to answer. But, in principle, we would do that and one hopes that it would shorten the Committee stage of the Bill.
In the light of that, perhaps I can deal with two further matters of principle that formed an important subject of debate. The first is that a considerable number of questions were asked and points made in relation to racially aggravated offences. It would be fair to say that there was a broad welcome for legislation on racially aggravated offences. Some people asked if it was necessary and, if not, why were the Government introducing it.
The Bill makes two important improvements to the current law. It increases maximum sentences in relation to racially aggravated crime. Also, it creates the offence of a racially aggravated crime. Those new crimes are in the Bill in order to underline the importance that this Government attach to stamping out racially aggravated crime. The effect of including the provision in the Bill and making it a crime is that it will compel the evidence gatherers in specific cases to focus upon the issue of racial aggravation in respect of those matters. We believe that that is a good thing and an important message to send to the world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, asked why it does not apply to all crimes. Practically speaking, one cannot attach racial aggravation as an element to every crime. However, Section 68 of the Bill says that in all crimes racial aggravation will be a factor that can increase the sentence. We therefore believe that we have gone a significant way to meet what the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, would wish.
We note and take account of what the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said: that is, that effective implementation is important. We agree with that and will bear that very much in mind. We believe that these provisions make a real difference; it is worthwhile to include them in the Bill and therefore we intend to proceed with them.
In relation to Scotland, I take on board what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and stray into Scottish law with considerable reluctance. We are aware that certain elements of the legal order—if I may call it that—suggested that there was no need for this Bill in Scotland. However, certain parts of the community in Scotland, in particular ethnic groups, felt that it would be worthwhile to introduce this provision into Scotland. Taking full account of the consultation we had, including the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, we nevertheless decided that it was an appropriate course to take.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, felt that we should not be legislating at all in relation to Scotland because of the impending devolution Bill. That is one view. But, as it will be two years before the Scottish parliament is capable of passing any sort of Bill, that

599
seems rather a long time for Scotland to wait for any legislation of any sort. We therefore did not accept that view.
The other issue on which I should like to touch concerns sentencing guidelines. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that we should not interfere with the judges' discretion. We do not believe that we are interfering with the judges' discretion. It is good for consistency that judges give guidelines on certain issues. The structure of the Bill is such that, if the court does not think it appropriate to give guidelines, it is not obliged to do so. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, for saying that he is broadly content with the provisions in relation to sentencing guidelines.
I apologise for going on for so long, and I apologise for not answering every question that has been raised. Speaking for myself, I have found the debate immensely useful, immensely constructive and, having regard to the tone and quality of the debate today, I believe we will have an excellent debate at Committee and Report stages.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme
9.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 27th November be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft scheme has been laid under Section 18 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, as amended by the new Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act.
Since 1st July of this year an ex gratia scheme has been in place covering payments to those who have chosen to hand in their small-calibre pistols rather than await the passing of the new Act. To date, over 26,000 of these firearms have been given up, in addition to the 116,000 large-calibre handguns that were surrendered in the three-month period from 1st July. Over £27.6 million has already been paid out from the scheme. Of course, the final figure will be higher when the remaining claims and ex gratia applications have been processed.
The scheme we are considering today is virtually identical to the ex gratia scheme. We have given assurances that those who chose to surrender their small-calibre pistols voluntarily under the ex gratia scheme would not be disadvantaged compared with those who have waited to surrender their pistols under the formal scheme. That is why the two schemes must be consistent.
We estimate that no more than 10,000 pistols are still held lawfully throughout England, Wales and Scotland. This is a little under 200 firearms per police force. The police assessment is that this number of firearms can be
600
processed within one month, and we have therefore set the surrender period as 1st to 28th February 1998. All the necessary documents can be sent out by police forces in good time to potential claimants. In setting February as the hand-in period, we did not forget that the second anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy falls on 13th March.
The scheme itself will operate in the same way as the main compensation scheme already agreed by this House on 9th June. Before the hand-in period begins, certificate holders and dealers will receive full details of the new scheme together with application forms and advice on where and when to surrender their weapons. They must complete the appropriate claim form in respect of their weapons and equipment and hand this to the police at the time of surrender. Individuals will have a choice of three options. They may choose to accept a flat rate of £100 for their weapon. Alternatively, they may choose a standard rate for their weapon from the list of published values at Annex A for the most commonly held pistols. If they do not wish to accept the flat rate payment, and if their gun is either not on the list at Annex A or is markedly different from those that are on the list, they may choose the third option. This means a submission of claim, supported by an independent valuation or other evidence corroborating the value of the items surrendered. An extract or copy from a published source as at 16th October 1996 would often be acceptable and therefore an individual valuation will not be necessary in every case.
Similar arrangements will apply to dealers. They will be able to claim under any of the three options. They will be able to claim under the third option even though their stock may already be listed at Annex A.
The firearms must be handed over to a designated police station, as specified by the relevant chief constable. Special arrangements will be made with dealers because of the number of weapons they may have in stock.
Similar arrangements will apply to ancillary equipment which can only be used in connection with the pistols. The corresponding values are set out in Annexes B, C and D of the draft scheme. This is in accordance with the requirements of Section 17 of the 1997 Act (and Section 16 in respect of expanding ammunition) as amended by the latest Act. As under the previous scheme, this equipment will not itself become prohibited but the Government accept that where it cannot be put to any other use, such as with rifles, then compensation should be paid.
The claim forms will initially be checked by the police who will then send them to the Firearms Compensation Section of the Home Office for processing.
There are two points of detail in the scheme that I should draw to the attention of the House. First, two operative dates are mentioned in the scheme: 14th May 1997 (for possession of the firearms or equipment on the date of the Queen's Speech when the Government formally announced their intention to ban small-calibre pistols) and 16th October 1996 (for the values at the

601
time when the previous Government announced their intention to ban large-calibre handguns). When calculating the values of small-calibre pistols for the ex gratia scheme it was agreed to use the same October 1996 date because values for all handguns generally fell from that point. Taking the values as at 14th May 1997 could have given rise to criticism for treating shooters unfairly. Taking the earlier date is, we believe, in the best interests of shooters. I explained the reason to the House on 9th June.
For the sake of precision we have added three categories of ancillary equipment to the scheme: speed-loaders, speed-loader pouches and quantities of spare parts held by registered dealers. Component parts which have to be held on a firearm certificate, such as barrels and cylinders, were already in the ex gratia scheme.
We have decided to add these three categories because they were appended to the earlier compensation scheme after it was approved, but on an ex gratia basis. These three categories were genuine oversights and as payments are being made on them under the previous scheme it is only right that they should be included specifically in the new scheme and that the House should have the most up-to-date information possible available to it today.
We have not added additional pistol makes to the annexes because of the need to keep the schemes consistent and not to prejudice those who had chosen to hand in their pistols early. Any pistol not listed will need to be claimed for under options A or C. I have already indicated that an extract from a published source on or before 16th October 1996 will generally be acceptable as evidence of value and an individual valuation will not always be necessary.
I wish publicly to thank the people working in the Firearms Compensation Section who have moved a mountain of paperwork so that people get their compensation as quickly as possible. I regret that there has been some attempt to undermine confidence and to criticise the rate at which claims under the large-calibre scheme are being dealt with.
I am able to tell the House about the progress that has been made. As at 12th December, 39,896 claims have been received, and 23,183 payments have been made, to a total value of £27.6 million. Most claims under options A and B will have been dealt with before the end of March, and regular payments on option C claims will have begun by then. Some dealers who have claimed under option C will already have received at least an interim payment by now. The additional new claims in respect of up to 10,000 guns will add to the current pressures upon the FCS but the processes and procedures involved in dealing with these claims will be no different from those already in train.
There were teething troubles with the purpose-built FCS computer system which slowed down the initial processing rate. We hope that those teething problems have been completely overcome. Staff are working hard to deal with claims as quickly as possible. Weekend overtime is being worked and measures have been taken
602
to boost the number of staff engaged in the primary task of examining claims. The work is not simply the automatic payment of claims when received. All the claims have to be examined carefully to ensure that the items surrendered are eligible for compensation under the scheme and that the correct scale of payment is made. We are committed to keeping up the pace of processing the claims but we cannot lose sight of the need to maintain the proper checks and balances to ensure correct payment and prevent fraud.
It is not a simple rubber-stamping exercise. A great many claims—unfortunately, about 35 per cent. of those received—have been wrongly completed. Common mistakes include descriptions of items not matching the code numbers on the published list; lack of details under certain headings, such as "specialised tools"; and payment details, such as bank account numbers, are sometimes wrong. If 35 per cent. of forms are not properly completed, that adds to overall delay and takes up valuable staff time to resolve. Unfortunately, a number of cases of possible fraud have come to light and are presently the subject of criminal investigations. I cannot give details of those cases, for obvious reasons. But we are dealing with public money and we have to be careful about the mechanisms in place to control and avoid fraud.
We are looking at ways and means of improving the throughput of cases. There have been improvements. In July the total number of payments was only 351 because of the problems with the computer system. In August the number of payments rose to 2,602 and in September to 4,091. This improvement has continued. The average number of weekly payments is now running at 1,400.
We are keeping the promise of compensation which is reasonable and which is paid out in order to fulfil our promise to the British public to end private ownership of handguns. The scheme is no more and no less than the ex gratia scheme that has been in place since 1st July. There have been no major criticisms of that scheme which, we believe, properly compensates the owners of small calibre pistols and related equipment. I commend the scheme to the House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 27th November be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to take this order tonight rather than on Thursday, which might have caused both myself and, I suspect, the noble Lord a little more inconvenience.
There are one or two questions that I wish to put to the noble Lord. He has dealt with some of them in his admirable opening remarks about this order. They are particularly my concerns about delays and the timescales in dealing with claims. Perhaps he will elaborate a little on where we are precisely at the moment in terms of how long it is taking to deal with particular claims. The noble Lord seemed to imply that as regards claims being dealt with under Options A and B there were relatively few problems. It was cases under Option C where matters were more complicated.

603
Having said that, would it be worth considering leaving Option A and B payments to simple across-the-counter payments, to be dealt with presumably by the police, rather than coming to the FCS and therefore taking up Home Office time, thereby leaving its officials more time to deal with Option C cases? It may be too late in the day to move to such a system, but it might have been an approach considered earlier on.
In the light of the fact that there are delays, about which we have heard anecdotal evidence, and more than that, will the Government consider whether there is a case for paying interest on late payments, particularly those where the delay is more than the 30 days (which we suggested as a maximum when the Bill was going through Parliament), let alone the 30 days which the Government have always put forward as the proper limit for business to observe?
I make that point because, as I believe will be the case in the Bill coming before another place relatively soon, business late payments will be subject to interest, as is the case with those of us who occasionally manage to pay our income tax late. It is possible to be charged a level of interest, just as the Revenue occasionally pays a degree of interest on its late payments when making refunds for overpayments. There is quite a strong case for the Government to consider whether interest ought to be paid, particularly as regards those cases where through no fault of the applicant there are delays in the department. I do not want to criticise the department because it has had to deal with a great number of applications coming through the system, some of which have been complicated. But it is a case that the Government should consider seriously.
I have one further question. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to answer it at the moment. He kindly wrote to me on 4th December and told me that about 26,000 small calibre pistols had been handed in and another 10,000 were due to come forward. Of those 26,000, I shall be interested to know how many claims have come through to the FCS already and how many are still at the different police stations throughout the country. I would like to know whether there are delays there before the claims are reaching the Firearms Compensation Section. That might be a process that can be speeded up. If the noble Lord does not have the answer at the moment, I shall be more than happy for him to write to me in due course.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, as always, for his courteous approach. I shall obtain the up-to-date figure for the 26,000 and I shall write to the noble Lord as he invited me to do. I try to keep him fully in the picture. But the figure I have is the one that I gave him up to 4th December. I shall write to him as regards his last question.
The Option A and B claims have already been submitted to the FCS and therefore there would be a further delay if they were then sent back to the police. As the noble Lord implied, and I believe, understands, the scheme has been specifically set up in the way that
604
the FCS is operating it. Therefore, it would be a waste of its time and a hopelessly inefficient use of police time if we went that way.
On the question of interest, I must point out that these are not ordinary business transactions. We cannot make payment immediately on receipt of a claim. Claims have to be fully considered. We do not take the view that adding interest to the compensation payment is appropriate. Indeed, one takes the view—perhaps this is not susceptible to argument because it is simply the view that has been taken—that we do not believe that it would be a justifiable further drain on public funds because we do not think that we have been unreasonable about the level of compensation.
I thank the noble Lord generally for his approach. I have tried to reciprocate it by, for instance, conceding the amendment that he put forward, having taken on, as it were, the baton of civilisation from the noble Baroness, Lady B latch, in respect of the nature of the compensation scheme. I cannot stress enough that I appreciate the way in which he deals with such matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Independent Television Commission Codes
9.40 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what changes are necessary to the Independent Television Commission Codes to allow publishers and television companies to produce programmes for terrestrial television based on magazine titles in the same way as currently allowed on the BBC, satellite and cable.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there are two main reasons why I feel it important to introduce this topic. First, I believe that the Government and the Independent Television Commission have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is known in the industry as "masthead programming." I believe that the current policy is unfair to ITV and to Channels 4 and 5. Secondly, there seems to be no clear view at the ITC of what its policy will be for the proposed terrestrial digital broadcaster, BDB, when it comes into play.
The current ITC position is to allow masthead on satellite and cable but not on terrestrial stations. I believe that that is an anomaly and I find the reasons for the decision unconvincing. In commercial television the ITC has traditionally regarded publishers in the same category as advertisers and has seen masthead as just a way of promoting print titles rather than as a way of providing new material for television.
I should perhaps say something about what masthead broadcasting actually is. Masthead programming is not just a way of offering free promotion to a magazine; it is much more. It is the development of intellectual property by those who have the resources and the editorial expertise. It is production supported by magazines, using their expert knowledge. It is a way of re-creating a magazine—or, indeed, part of a

605
magazine—as a programme in the format that suits the viewer. It is not an extended commercial and it is not a direct promotion for sales or sponsorship.
Sponsorship is done in other ways. In fact, viewers of ITV will find it hard this Christmas to escape sponsored programmes. Toyota, for example, has signed up a five-year £18 million sponsorship deal for New Year. Sponsorship currently brings in £40 million to ITV: it is a growing but, I stress, separate market.
The BBC is currently allowed masthead programming and, as your Lordships know, it does not come under the ITC. The BBC has launched successful magazines off the back of its most popular programmes. It has also developed programmes from magazines. Good Food began as a BBC publication and is now a hugely popular programme with full brand visibility throughout the show. The BBC's "Gardener's World" is now a very successful programme and, indeed, a major event at the Birmingham National Exhibition Centre.
The BBC has another advantage. It can commission a long series of programmes linked to a magazine which address a specialist audience. ITV and Channels 4 and 5 do not have the freedom or opportunity to reach such audiences. Although under an agreement with the Office of Fair Trading no programme on the BBC may mention a BBC magazine in the course of that programme as an encouragement to buy, so-called "legitimate editorial reference" to the magazine is allowed.
Cable and satellite are also exempted from the rules. They were regarded as almost extra and have no public service remit. The past two years have seen consolidation among the cable operators to the point that 65 per cent. of the UK's cable systems are now controlled by two groups.
It is interesting to compare our approach with that of Europe and the rest of the world. There are only two countries in Europe which have not taken a more progressive approach, France and Sweden. They are the only countries that regard print publications as a special category and therefore subject to different rules. In France, as with many regulations, I am afraid that only lip service is paid to the rules. In neither America, our main competitor, nor Australia are there any restrictions.
Soon we shall see the launch in this country of BDB. This will provide a huge proliferation of channels, choice for the viewer and a need for programmes. It will mean interactive dialogue through the system. The interactive capacity will make it possible for publishers, if allowed, to recreate the magazine experience in television. Viewers will be able to view masthead programmes at a time that suits them. Perhaps even more remarkable is that digital will enable viewers to select pages of a magazine or different camera angles while watching a sporting event. For example, in France, Germany and Italy one can now watch Formula One grand prix from several vantage points. As I understand it, the ITC sees no logical reason why BDB should not be in the same category as cable and satellite, but has not finally decided.
BSkyB is to launch its own satellite digital channels next year. BSkyB already receives a huge amount of promotion from its newspapers and gives promotion to its newspapers that are part of the Murdoch empire. This is at a time when its non-sport and movie channels have small audiences.
What is the Government's view on terrestrial digital? In order for BDB to plan for its launch it must have an answer from the ITC. I understand the position to be that ITC intends to allow masthead on BDB. Can the Minister confirm that this evening? If so, it begs the question: why not ITV? I understand the concern of the ITC that it does not want peak hours dominated by masthead programmes, but there are many off-peak hours that would be suitable. Much more importantly, there are regional slots in each of the 15 ITV regions that need good programming. Relaxation of the rules would improve programmes for these markets. The more spent on production, the better the schedule for the viewer.
Regional programming is important. Do the Government really believe that if Farmers Weekly produced a programme on sheep farming for Border Television that would not be beneficial for Border viewers? There is already a control system. The ITC has an advertising and sponsorship directorate and the terms for cable and satellite for masthead are found in its code of programme sponsorship.
There is no evidence that viewers have so far had any reservations about masthead programmes that they have seen on the television; quite the reverse. Viewers enjoy this new relationship between television and text. Quality can be maintained. The experience from America I believe proves the point. For example, National Geographic Television is masthead's first global brand. It is high quality and very successful.
This is an industry where the old divisions between newspapers, publishers and television are being broken down. You can read a newspaper on the television, read a book on the Internet and watch television on a computer. To compete with the rest of the world and multimedia conglomerates rules that hinder the development of our media industry must go. They have gone in nearly all of our competitor countries. At the moment the only multimedia company in this country is in effect the BBC, which is allowed to do what ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are not allowed to do. If the Government care about the ability of the industry to export its product and prevent the dominance of the industry by US material that has happened so often in the past in broadcasting, they must act.
I know that the Government care about the independent production sector in this country. Relaxation of these artificial rules would give the independent sector an enormous boost. They are the ones with the expertise to make programmes. The industry will also be able to cut costs and be more competitive. Your Lordships will also remember that payments from Channel 4 to the ITV companies are being phased out and the ITV companies are being asked to renew their franchises. The Treasury currently extracts £450 million a year from ITV. If the Treasury

607
wants the maximum revenue, ITV must be competitive, so a change of the rules is necessary for it to compete on equal terms.
The current rules are an anomaly. For example, they allow Channel 5 to air features produced in conjunction with magazines and newspapers in its news programmes. The rules are not all the same.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the public service remit. I do not believe that there is a difficulty for channels which have a public service remit and those which do not. The situation for the BBC proves that that is not a problem. Television viewers in this country have a right to quality and choice. I believe that magazine publishers have a great deal to offer terrestrial television which could be new and exciting for the viewers. Earlier this year the ITC agreed to review the case for allowing masthead programmes on terrestrial channels next year. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to announce that the review will take place sooner rather than later. I look forward to her reply.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House from the pleasure of hearing my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale replying to the debate and speaking for the first time at the Dispatch Box. Therefore, I shall be brief.
Two issues are involved. First, broadcasters, particularly those in television, should not abuse the considerable promotional power which they enjoy as a result of having exclusive access to that medium. I can fairly say that I approach the question neutrally and can see both sides of the argument. The truth is that I have been on both sides during my short career in broadcasting.
In the early days of Radio Clyde, the commercial radio station which I started in Glasgow, we were aware that our presenters were running discotheques in the evenings, quietly mentioning on air, "To those of you I met at the XYZ discotheque, thank you for a lovely evening and I will play this record for you." It occurred to me that it was entirely appropriate that we should run the discotheques and derive the benefits.
That seemed fine and I did it in all innocence. There was then a complaint to the Independent Broadcasting Authority from discotheque owners in Glasgow stating, "These chaps on Radio Clyde have the benefit of free advertising and that is an unfair advantage." There was a great deal of merit in the case and rules were introduced which stopped our promoting on air discothèques we were running unless we were actually broadcasting them.
On the other side of the coin, I may have approached the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he was a Minister at the Department of National Heritage and I was chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association asking for some curbing of the BBC's tremendous power to cross-promote radio and television, which the commercial sector does not enjoy. Even if we were able to strike a deal with the commercial television companies in our areas, recent changes prohibit an ITV company giving free
608
promotional time to a commercial radio station. It must take that out of its advertising time, which is distinctly unattractive.
I am aware of the distinct benefits conferred on great works of literature by their serialisation on television, commercial or the BBC. It may shock the House to know that I welcome that. If the only thing that brings people to Jane Austen or Evelyn Waugh is the serialisation of Pride and Prejudice or Brideshead Revisited, so be it; it is part of the educational process and it is one of the good aspects about public service television in this country.
Furthermore, the BBC inevitably promotes certain programmes in magazines. That was the subject of an OFT reference which I believe went to the European Court. Rules were drawn up to ensure that the BBC could not steal a march over other commercial magazine publishers by promoting its own magazines. The BBC is a large magazine publisher. The main difference in all that and masthead programming is that in the former the magazine follows the programme. The idea is to allow the programme to come from the magazine publishers. I have no objection to that in principle, provided certain points are observed.
The noble Viscount slighted overstated the case when he assumed that there would be a great creative explosion. Magazine publishers do not have the technical resources to make television programmes. They would go either to the terrestrial broadcasters or to independent producers, which might be welcome. Therefore, their infusion is not likely to be creative but rather financial. It is none the less welcome for that.
The problem is that control, both editorial and otherwise, must remain with the broadcasters. I am one of those who did not welcome the Broadcasting Act 1990. The only thing that could be said for it was that it might have been a good deal worse had it not been for a considerable rearguard action by the Home Office team under the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. If there is to be any quality in broadcasting, then clearly the broadcaster is answerable for the content. The broadcaster can also be sued for any libel that occurs in a programme.
We are talking about something which could be the same difference, as it were. The theory in broadcasting before 1990 was that none of us was allowed to broadcast a programme suggested by an advertiser. Let us all admit that that was probably honoured in the breach in that it was very simple to say, "We are doing such and such a programme" or for an advertiser to mention, "If you were to do such and such a programme, we would certainly support it or sponsor it." Nevertheless it is an important distinction that the broadcaster must remain in charge of the programme and its editorial content.
There is another issue involved, however, which, in its own way, is rather more important. I refer to the whole basis on which we regulate broadcasting. I have sympathy with one part of what the noble Viscount said but I am slightly worried about the other. I shall deal with the bit that I am worried about first.

609
I do not believe that there will be an explosion of channels on digital—or there will be, but they will last about 18 months. Half the cable channels at the moment are losing money; most are hanging in there hoping that they will survive longer than their neighbours and therefore benefit from a smaller market.
It is important that we do not allow ourselves to be dictated to by the technological imperative and end up, if we stand the old adage on its head, in a position where invention becomes the mother of necessity and, just because there is the capacity for more channels, we feel that there must be more channels. There can only be more channels worth watching if they have the necessary resources, both creative and financial. The fact that digital broadcasting makes more frequencies available does not reduce the cost of making good programmes. If many cable channels are failing at the moment, they are not suddenly going to become wealthy enough to make even more programmes and produce even more channels. We need to be careful about that.
I join the noble Viscount in asking the noble Baroness gently to nudge the Government in the direction of drawing the ITC's attention to the fact that there are anomalies.
I hope people will not think that I have gone native after only two months in this place if I express nostalgia for things. It is a nostalgia I have felt for a long time. Prior to 1990 all broadcasting in this country operated under the same public service rules. They were enshrined in the BBC's Royal Charter and, in the case of the independent broadcasting sector, in an Act of Parliament, if anything even more tightly drawn.
Six out of seven of the public service obligations were repeated in the 1990 Act and apply to cable and satellite as well. It is important that public service does still apply to them. The notable exception is the famous "inform, educate and entertain" which, instead of being a universal obligation, is now enforced with varying degrees of rigour by the ITC through individual licences with terrestrial broadcasters, Channel 3, Channel 4, satellite and cable. There is even a disparity of treatment between Channel 3 and Channel 4, let alone between terrestrial broadcasters and satellite and cable.
A viewer sits watching a television set. Whether it is delivered by satellite, cable or terrestrial broadcasting is immaterial to him. If we are to have a level playing field and fair competition between them, we should have the same rules. I tend to agree with the noble Viscount that if masthead programming were to be a good thing, we should all be allowed to do it. If, on the other hand, it is a bad thing, then nobody should be allowed to do it. It is patronising and disparaging of the ITC to say, "We are a bit worried about this, but not many people watch cable and satellite so we will try it out on that." It is like decriminalising cannabis for redheads to see if it works and what effect it has.
I believe that there is a case for creating a level playing field. To that extent, I join the noble Viscount in suggesting that the ITC may feel that the year is up and that it is time to bring everyone into line, wherever that line is drawn. For my part, I do not care whether
610
they are all allowed to do masthead programming or none is allowed to do so, but there should not be one law for cable and satellite and another for terrestrial.
10 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for introducing this debate this evening. Over the weekend, reading a critique of the new James Bond film, I was struck by the reference to various brand names of the equipment seen on the screen, down to a Brioni suit, an Omega watch, a BMW motorbike and so on. Of course, that is all very European for our rather special British secret agent.
It is commonly believed that product placement provided part of the funding for "Tomorrow Never Dies" and we, the viewers, cannot help but notice all that advertising which is now on the screen. But I was not aware of it in past films. That may be because it was not very noticeable. I guess that it is a sign of the times, because the costs of TV drama and film are spiralling upwards with no sign of stopping. Therefore, it is not surprising that sponsors are now able to place their products on screen in addition to being included prominently in screen credits. I suppose that is fair enough.
I mention that only because it has a bearing on this evening's debate. Clearly there is a case to be argued for and against the expansion of masthead programming on free-to-air Channels 3, 4 and 5. The ITC first published its code on programme sponsorship in 1991, and a revised code was published earlier this year. Next spring will see another reassessment. Therefore, nothing is set in concrete. Reading the original code on programme sponsorship and now the reasons behind the latest review, I sense a move towards a relaxing of certain rules because the ITC accepts that the context has changed sufficiently to justify continuing a review of its position with regard to this form of programming. Will the 1989 EU "Television without Frontiers" directive on sponsorship have to be updated in order to take account of the new sources of funding that masthead programming offers?
The BBC, as we know, operates on guidelines which are somewhat different from those of the ITC in that they are only guidelines and not statutory. Being a publisher in its own right, there is a natural cross-over for specific programmes. I understood that both "Gardeners' World" and "Top Gear" were television programmes before being published in magazine form. I stand to be corrected on that by the noble Viscount. I have not seen any masthead programming involving an independent magazine title. One could argue that, ultimately, the BBC might be accused by the viewer of reaping rich rewards from advertising through the back door. In that case why are we paying it increased licence fees? At the moment, we all own a television and so are obliged to pay whether or not we watch BBC programmes.
I have sympathy with both sides of the argument because all three commercial channels have public service obligations which are enshrined in the Broadcasting Act. Air time, particularly in the case of

611
Channel 3, is somewhat limited because several ITV companies are involved. Channel 4 was set up originally to devote a fair proportion of its programming to minority interests. Channel 5 is getting over teething problems and is still relatively new. Therefore, we shall have to see what happens in the future.
Digital terrestrial broadcasting is around the corner and, in view of the growth in cable and digital satellite stations, many more channels will have to compete for currently available and new material. Advertising revenue in itself cannot possibly hope to fund what the viewers want to see. I for one do not wish to see endless repeats.
Up until now, we have every reason to be proud of our high quality television. Other countries recognise that and we must not lose the advantage which we already have. Where do we draw the line in preventing the sponsor influencing the programme content in a way that might conflict with the broadcaster? Commercial TV is committed to showing a variety of programmes, as they are not themed channels. ITC licensing requirements insist on maintaining diversity. That must be right but, as I said before, the subject is under constant review. In the end market forces will prevail and there will be a compromise between both sides regarding masthead programming, but I, for one, hope that we proceed with caution and do not rush into it.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we wish to support the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in raising this issue, principally on three grounds. The first is the straightforward one of equity. As we have heard, the BBC has already allowed masthead broadcasting; satellite and cable channels have allowed masthead broadcasting; and given the increasingly competitive nature of the television network, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, about the extent to which the digital channels may or may not proliferate in the longer run. It seems to us that to deny terrestrial TV the opportunity to schedule masthead programmes is to put it at a disadvantage which simply is not justified.
Secondly, looking at the question of diversity, creativity and quality, I was particularly interested to read in today's Financial Times a survey that Cable and Wireless has done of what its consumers want from their television programmes. An overwhelming majority said that they wanted better programming rather than more channels. It is hardly surprising, given the quality of many programmes already on television, that this should be the case. However, given that it is the case, there should be a prejudice on the part of all of us to support moves which will lead to better programming.
The question therefore is whether allowing TV programmes to be based on magazine titles will lead to better programmes. On balance we think that that is likely to be the case. The kind of magazine which is likely to become involved in making programmes is almost certainly operating in a highly competitive sector. It will almost certainly have a powerful brand already and will be concerned about maintaining the strength of that brand in the marketplace. It is, therefore,
612
likely to want to make good quality programmes. As the BBC experience has already shown, the content of such programmes could be argued to strengthen rather than to dilute the public service ethos of the channel. The proposed change should lead to an increase in the production of UK programmes, or programmes in the UK, which we believe is to be welcomed.
I also share the hope of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that masthead programming could strengthen regional broadcasting—a matter which all of us, whichever region we are in, are always keen on.
My final argument for supporting the subject of the debate relates to the situation with ITC and the timetable for considering the issue. ITC has the difficult job of regulating an industry which is moving at breakneck speed. Whether you agree with the speed or direction it is going or not, there is no doubt that every day there are major changes in the technology, the regulatory framework and the international situation in which the industry is operating. While ITC has to move in a deliberative way, it also has to move with due pace, and in this whole area it has sometimes taken deliberation to an almost extreme level.
We understand the need to avoid taking steps which could reduce either the quality or diversity of programming. But, as I said, the balance of probability is that allowing masthead broadcasting on terrestrial television would enhance rather than reduce quality and diversity. We would therefore urge ITC to move on this issue without delay. It is for those three reasons that we strongly support the thrust of the Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising in this House an interesting Question in which many complex issues of concern about broadcasting are involved. That has been shown in the valuable contributions to this rather short debate.
I shall endeavour to satisfy as many of the points that were raised as I can. I thank the noble Viscount for his courtesy in giving me notice of his main questions. Before I begin my general replies, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, who speaks not, as he modestly said, from short experience but from rather long professional experience in the field of broadcasting. He mentioned some interesting issues of principle and outlined the problems of achieving some kind of level playing field among the various contending interests.
I am also grateful for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. In answer to a direct question which she addressed to me, I do not believe that the ITC will need to amend its code on advertising sponsorship to take account of the EC television without frontiers directive. I do not think that is necessary. However, I stand to be corrected on that and I shall write to her if that is not the case. I also agree with her that nothing is set in concrete. She pointed out that last spring it was decided that the review would take one year; in other words, the review will be completed this spring. I do

613
not think it is reasonable to demand an outcome of that review a month or two earlier than that. The noble Baroness is right in that programmes must come first and that we should all exercise caution before we rush into this particular minefield.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his contribution. He made the important point that what consumers want is quality and not quantity. I am not quite so sure that I go along with his case for "masthead programming" as being quite so clear cut in terms of improving quality. However, it is important to bear in mind that it is quality not quantity that viewers and listeners want.
The Independent Television Commission is responsible for regulating commercial television. It is its decision as to whether "masthead programming" should be allowed, and not the Government's. Nevertheless I am sure that the ITC will take due account of what has been said tonight in your Lordships' House. I do not think that I need—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon—to nudge it to do so. I am sure that the ITC will watch and will read what has been said here tonight.
The ITC published a revised Code of Programme Sponsorship this spring. Paragraph 10.6 of that code deals with "masthead programming", which it defines as programming made or funded by periodical, newspaper or informational software publishers which incorporates the name of the publisher's product in its title and which has editorial content similar to that of the publisher's product. Such programming is not allowed on the terrestrial television channels; namely, Channels 3, 4 and 5.
However, as a result of the revised code, "masthead programming" is permitted on cable and satellite channels. In announcing the revised code, the ITC said it would review the arrangements for such programming after one year—that will be done this spring—taking into account any issues which emerge in connection with "masthead programmes" which are broadcast on satellite and cable. Although the ITC has not used the phrase, it seems to me that in some ways this is a kind of pilot scheme. I understand that since the new code was introduced, BSkyB has launched programmes based on Good Housekeeping and Zest magazines and Carlton Select has launched one related to Ideal Home magazine. UKTV, a joint venture between Flextech and the BBC, also carries a preview programme called Radio Times on one of its cable channels.
I should, however, like to clarify the precise nature of the restriction on masthead programming, and in particular deal with the perceived disparity between the arrangements applying to BBC public service channels and those applying to Channels 3, 4 and 5. Under its Charter and Licence Agreement the BBC is not permitted to take advertising or accept programme sponsorship for its public service channels without the express permission of the Secretary of State. The BBC could not, therefore, base its public service programmes on an existing publisher's product, but can, and does, use its resources to launch its own magazine titles to complement its programmes. The BBC therefore
614
engages in masthead publishing, using programmes to promote magazines, as opposed to masthead programming.
The BBC has been very successful in this area, enabling it to become the UK's third largest periodicals publisher, with a turnover in excess of £100 million per annum. This provides a valuable source of additional income to supplement the licence fee. Like other BBC commercial ventures, publication of magazines is subject to the BBC's fair trading commitment, which places a duty on it to compete fairly and openly in commercial markets, at no risk to the licence-payer. BBC magazines are not therefore subsidised by the licence fee.
Additionally, the BBC has given undertakings to the Office of Fair Trading concerning the on-air promotion of its publications to ensure fair trade. The BBC, like all other broadcasters, is subject to both domestic and European competition law and the Office of Fair Trading can intervene if it feels that the BBC is abusing its position. The BBC will also be subject to the prohibitions on anti-competitive behaviour and abuse of dominant position in the new Competition Bill.
Channels 3, 4 and 5 similarly could launch magazines, and indeed other products, to complement their programmes. I believe that fans of Channel 4's popular programme, "Brookside", can now purchase Brookside Magazine. There is no doubt considerable potential for licensees to emulate the success of the BBC in launching programme-related magazines, whether in their own right or in conjunction with existing periodicals publishers.
Where a commercial licensee seeks to promote a magazine or other publication based on its programmes, it is subject to restrictions in the ITC programme code. Paragraph 10.3 of that code states that the licensee must retain responsibility for the content of any material promoted. Promotions must be clearly distinguishable from commercial advertising and must not be included within a programme itself. Announcements about programme-related publications must be brief, and confined to the name of the publication, the price and details of its availability. Such announcements are in turn subject to the ITC's general rules in its Code of Advertising Standards and Practice. Those restrictions apply equally to the new category of masthead programming allowed on cable and satellite programmes.
The purpose behind the ITC's rules in this area is to provide protection for the consumer. Television is a uniquely powerful medium, and UK free-to-air terrestrial channels enjoy substantial audiences. Because of television's ability to influence opinion and engender debate, it is subject to a number of content regulations, including a requirement to be impartial. Hitherto, the ITC has ensured that programmes and advertising must be clearly separated and the content of programmes should not be influenced by an advertiser or programme sponsor. In permitting masthead programming on cable and satellite channels, the ITC recognised that the resources and editorial expertise which publishers could

615
potentially offer to television are considerable and could enhance the choice and quality of programmes available to the viewer—a point made by the noble Viscount.
However, masthead programming is likely to have a strong and direct promotional effect on sales of parent publications, which is not consistent with rules applying to other sponsors or advertiser suppliers. Furthermore, titles which could benefit from masthead programming are not subject to the same rules as to content and impartiality as any programmes which might bear their name, and clearly there is a greater risk that the editorial independence of such programmes might be compromised.
While some 75 per cent. of homes still have access only to terrestrial channels, and those channels still command large audiences, it is understandable if the ITC proceeds cautiously on allowing masthead programming on Channels 3, 4 and 5. Developments in the media, including multi-channel terrestrial television and convergence between traditionally distinct areas such as publishing and broadcasting, will need to be reflected in rules on advertising and programme sponsorship as the market matures. For the time being, consumers make a clear distinction between broadcasting and publishing and I believe the current rules reflect the realities of the media market as it stands at present. As I have already indicated, the ITC will review the current arrangements for masthead programming next spring. Its task is to ensure that the regulatory framework remains up to date.
The BBC's public service channels do not enjoy an advantage over their commercial rivals in being able to provide masthead programming. Only cable and satellite channels can offer such programmes at present. As I
616
said, the ITC will be reviewing this position in spring next year. As to masthead publishing, I believe that the BBC's fair trading commitment and its undertaking to the Office of Fair Trading regarding the on-air promotion of its publications put it on much the same footing as Channels 3, 4 and 5, which may develop programme-related magazines if they wish.
As to the specific question put to me by the noble Viscount, BDB is in the same category as cable and satellite for masthead programming. Under current regulations it will not be allowable on ITV simulcast on digital. But the ITC is reviewing the code next spring and that will be part of the review, as I understand it.
While I understand that periodical publishers believe it is unfair that the BBC has been able to become a major publisher while they are prevented from developing their magazines as television programmes, it is open to publishers to collaborate with broadcasters in the provision of programme-related magazines, subject to the rules set down by the ITC.
I hope my statement has clarified the position on masthead programming.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, prior to moving that the House do now adjourn, I would have wished to raise a comment about the temperature in the Chamber. However, I appreciate that if I were to go through the various draught ingresses into the Chamber, the maximum time I could take to do it would he five minutes. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

  Development Agencies: Funding and Job Creation
  Development Agencies: Funding and Job Creation
  Mixed Sex Hospital Accommodation
  Mixed Sex Hospital Accommodation
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Asylum Seekers: Reception Conditions
  Asylum Seekers: Reception Conditions
  Crime and Local Action: Response to Consultation
  Crime and Local Action: Response to Consultation
  Community Safety Orders: Response to Consultation
  Community Safety Orders: Response to Consultation
  Ethnic Minority Support: Section 11 Grant
  Ethnic Minority Support: Section 11 Grant
  Student Top-up Fees
  Student Top-up Fees
  Hazardous and Noxious Substances: Carriage by Sea
  Hazardous and Noxious Substances: Carriage by Sea
  Scottish Local Authority Staff Numbers
  Scottish Local Authority Staff Numbers
  N.I. Medical and Dental Students' Tuition Fees
  N.I. Medical and Dental Students' Tuition Fees
  Wales: Firearm and Shotgun Appeals
  Wales: Firearm and Shotgun Appeals
  Legal Aid in Damages Claims
  Legal Aid in Damages Claims
  Sex Offender Supervision in Scotland
  Sex Offender Supervision in Scotland
  General Election Candidates' Expenses
  General Election Candidates' Expenses