Sitting of 19 December 1997

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

  Welfare to Work
  [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Education and Employment Committee, The New Deal (HC 263); First Report from the Social Security Committee, Tax and Benefits: An Interim Report (HC 283).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  9.34 am
  The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): I welcome this first opportunity that the House has had to debate the new deal for the young unemployed. I want today to set out the enormous progress that we have made and to listen to colleagues' comments on how things are going in their areas.
  The new deal for the young unemployed is an important part of the much wider welfare-to-work strategy promised in our manifesto, in which we made very clear our determination not to continue with a permanent have-not class, unemployed and disaffected.
  Welfare reform is essential, given the position that the Government inherited. There are 3.5 million families of working age with no one in work—nearly one in five households, compared with one in 12 in 1979. Long-term unemployment is almost double the 1979 figure. Youth unemployment is twice the national average. Two million people are on incapacity benefit; many of them would like to work but lack the opportunity to do so. Hundreds of thousands are denied child care. One million pensioners do not get even the help to which they are entitled.
  Faced with that inheritance, we must modernise the welfare state. We do so according to the principles of opportunity and fairness that inspired its creation, by promoting work for those who can work and providing a better and fairer deal for those who cannot. We must provide skills for work, make work pay and create new job opportunities. Our starting point is that, for those who are able to do it, work is the best form of welfare.
  The Government have moved fast and decisively to put welfare to work into effect. We have done so with the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, the new deal on the way for older people out of work for more than two years, the new deal for lone parents, the tax and benefits review, progress towards employment zones, and the new deal for disabled people and those with long-standing illnesses. That is a huge and radical programme of work, which will help to change people's lives for the better. There will of course be hard choices along the way, but the Government will not be deflected from reform which is essential for a
  558
  stronger, fairer society in which we tackle social exclusion, open up opportunities to work and match rights with responsibilities.
  Let me deal straight away with the anxiety and speculation that there has been about the review of benefits for sick and disabled people. Let me assure the House that it will be driven not by a cuts agenda but by our clear objectives of getting the right support to people who want to work and the right mix of cash and services to people who cannot work, so that they can live with independence and dignity. No one is talking about taking away benefits from those who need them.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Minister has just touched on an issue of great importance and interest to many people inside and outside the House. Can he give the House a categorical assurance that the Government will not table proposals to cut benefits in payment to qualifying disabled persons?
  Mr. Smith: I have just made it clear that nobody is talking about taking away benefits from those who need them. With such a wide-ranging and fundamental review, it is important to set the right principles and objectives for it. Let me say what they are, because they underpin not just the review but our approach to welfare to work more generally.
  Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman may have heard Lord Ashley saying in Wales on the radio this morning that it is perfectly possible to have as the starting point of a benefits review the principle that qualifying disabled people should not suffer a cut in the benefits paid to them. Is that the basis on which the Government's review is taking place; or is that a reassurance that the Government are unable to give?
  Mr. Smith: I say again: no one is talking about taking away benefits from people who need them. In a searching review, of course, the terms on which particular benefits are paid in particular circumstances have to be examined.
  As the right hon. Gentleman will know, with disability living allowance, for example, on inquiry, a quarter of assessments were found to be incorrect. Some people are being paid too little and some too much. In those circumstances, we cannot say that, as a consequence of a review, no one's benefits will decrease, but it is a question of getting and doing it right, according to principles that help people into work where they can work and, of course, provide the support that people need when they cannot work. Frankly, we will not take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, whose party cut benefits to disabled people, blocked their civil rights and was clearly happy for disabled people who wanted to work to be trapped on benefit.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: Let me make just a little more progress, as I am coming to the important question of the principles that underpin our review and the wider approach to welfare to work.
  The first principle is inclusion. We want to enable people to make the most of their potential and to play a full part in society. Our approach is built around what

  559
  people can do, not what they cannot do, so the benefits review will reinforce the steps that we have taken, for example, on civil rights for disabled people.
  Mr. Gibb: With regard to his previous outburst, will the Minister answer this question: which Government passed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and introduced the disability living allowance?
  Mr. Smith: Which Government left enforcement out of the Disability Discrimination Act, which this Government have pledged to rectify, by moving as quickly as possible to set up a proper disability rights commission to advise and enforce, and to ensure that disabled people can use their rights?
  I was going through the principles that apply to our review. The second is fairness. We want to ensure that people receive help that is right for their individual needs. Thirdly, people should have independence and self-reliance, opening up opportunities to work for those who are able to, while, fourthly, effective support is provided to sustain and improve the quality of life for those who are incapable of work. Fifthly, there should be consultation. We shall not make changes without consultation. In particular, when we have options to consider, we shall consult disabled people, their organisations and others with an interest in the proposals before any changes are made.
  The steps that we have already taken on disabled people's rights—our establishment of a ministerial task force and our pledges to implement part III of the Disability Discrimination Act and to establish a disability rights commission—have been widely welcomed. The new deal builds on that by opening up new opportunities for disabled people. In applying the £195 million that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer earmarked in the Budget, we have undertaken consultation and invited bids for innovative projects to improve personal advice and training support for disabled people moving into work and staying in work. They can include improvements to support for access, work trialling and job coaching. The projects will be carefully evaluated for more general application, and represent a big investment in opportunity for disabled people.
  What is more, the new deal for the young unemployed gives particular help for disabled young people, including the choice of early entry into the programme, without waiting six months in unemployment, and advice and support that are tailored to the young person's needs. That flexibility and responsiveness to individual needs is a key characteristic of the new deal for the young unemployed as a whole. It is but one of a number of features that make the programme different and better than anything before.
  I stress the importance of the gateway—the period of up to four months before taking up a new deal option, with the assessment, careers advice and help with basic skills that it offers, along with the availability of mentoring for people who can benefit from it most. To open up opportunity to all, help with child care will be available in all new deal options.
  The new deal is different, because it offers tasters of the options—the chance for a young person to take up a place for a short trial period, to find out whether it is right
  560
  for them. It is different, too, because it offers young people real work—work of real economic and social value: the best way in which to build the confidence and self-esteem that many young unemployed people need. The new deal is better resourced, with provision for personal advisers, the range of options that it offers and the offer not only of the subsidy to employers of £60 a week for six months, but of the contribution of £750 to train participants towards a qualification.
  The new deal recognises that some people will need help to improve their basic skills before they can move into employment or further education and training. There is dedication to quality throughout, with proper monitoring systems and quality assurance, to make absolutely certain that high standards are achieved. The new deal is different, too, because it places real emphasis on improving employability. Each young person will have a personal action plan, with providers and trainers helping and, indeed, with the incentive to achieve it. From the start, we have emphasised that partnership is crucial to the new deal's success. Partnership was the foundation of the development of the new deal framework, and partnerships are the building blocks of its delivery.
  The Employment Service has been charged with overall responsibility for the delivery of the new deal, and I have been struck by the energy and enthusiasm with which it has approached this huge enterprise. In its report on the new deal, the Select Committee on Education and Employment commended the continuing culture change that is being effected in the service.
  Of course, the Employment Service cannot do it alone. The active support of local authorities, voluntary and environmental organisations, employers, trade unions, training and enterprise councils, further education colleges—in fact, the support of everyone in the community—is essential to make a success of the new deal, and we have been delighted with the commitment and enthusiasm that we have encountered.
  I challenge the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) to tell the House whether he and his colleagues will now pledge that they will support making the new deal a success in changing young people's lives. I shall give way to him if he would like to tell us now that the Conservatives will support it. We look forward to him giving that commitment later, but with him or without him—
  Mr. Graham Brady rose—
  Mr. Smith: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support.
  Mr. Brady: On that point, will the Minister join me in congratulating the previous Government on having achieved so much for young people, by dramatically reducing the number of young unemployed over the past couple of years?
  Mr. Smith: We had record unemployment among young people under the previous Government. When they left office, unemployment was twice the level that they inherited and youth unemployment was twice that in the rest of the population, so the best contribution that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can make is to join us

  561
  in supporting the new deal and truly to make it a whole community effort. That is what it needs to be and that is what it is, given the amount of support that we are receiving throughout the community from all sections of society and, I have to say, from some Conservative Members who, in their feedback forms on the new deal's progress in their constituencies, are making it clear that they are committed to its objectives.
  However, we want that to be matched by a commitment from the Conservative Front-Bench team, so that there will truly be a whole-nation effort behind a project that can transform the opportunities and prospects not merely for young people, but for their families, the communities in which they live and the economy as a whole.
  Partnership is at the heart of the new deal and, of course, one of the most important partnerships is between society and the young person. We all have a responsibility to help young people to find a way out of unemployment through the provision of high-quality training and work, but the young person must meet us part way. We need to make young people aware of their responsibilities and, as we have said, there will be no fifth option of a life on full benefit.
  Young people must give the new deal a chance. They will have a voice in shaping their own future, and the help needed to do it. They need to believe that the new deal will have something to offer them as individuals; something that will make a real difference to their prospects; something to renew their confidence and self-esteem. That is why every aspect of the design of the new deal must have quality built into it. For example, we have ensured that every participant has access to high-quality training—everyone must work towards an approved qualification.
  We are determined, too, that every effort should be made to enable young people to build on their new deal experience. We have built in a follow-through strategy to help them improve their employability and to secure a job, if they have not already got one, once they have completed their new deal option.
  As we have carried the project forward, it has been greatly informed by consultation at every stage. More than 600 firms attended the national events, and 3,500 individuals and organisations attended regional consultation, as well as many more at local level. That consultation was real; it made a difference. The views of those who attended those events made a significant difference to the design of the new deal, including greater emphasis on mentoring, the development of the self-employment opportunity and the involvement of the public sector in the employment option.
  The new deal has benefited greatly from the work of the advisory group and the new deal task force, which includes several representatives from business, as well as from the voluntary sector, local government, trade unions and education. Ably led by Sir Peter Davis, they have been instrumental in helping us to develop the high-quality framework for the programme. They are also assisting with marketing and will be involved in helping to monitor the quality of delivery.
  From business, we have seen enormous good will and enthusiasm for the ideas behind the new deal and an understanding that it will be good for business, as well as for our young people and the country as a whole. Employers have already made a superb contribution. They
  562
  have contributed ideas and expertise to the detailed design and implementation planning of the new deal at national, regional and local levels. They have seconded key managers to help us to take the work forward-17 private sector secondees are now working with the Employment Service. At board and senior management level, they have been helping personally with the assessment of local delivery plans.
  What is more, an impressive range of major British employers have expressed their support for the new deal. That runs across all sectors—from manufacturing, including Rolls-Royce, Unipart, Rover and British Aerospace, to services, including British Telecom, British Airways and the Business Services Association; from utilities such as Thames Water and General Utilities, to retailing, including Tesco, Sainsbury, Littlewoods and Marks and Spencer; from food and drink, including Northern Foods and Allied Domecq; to financial services such as Prudential, Abbey National and NatWest.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That is all very valuable and encouraging, but have the Government had any success in trying to get below the level of some of the blue-chip companies? Of course the Government are right to start with the bigger, better organised businesses, but will the Minister give us an assurance that, once that has been done, he will move on, because the vast majority of employers in this country are small or medium-sized enterprises?
  Mr. Smith: Indeed, and I am about to deal in the next part of my speech with the enormous progress that we are making on that level. I cannot resist saying that I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the value of the employer support that we are receiving. If the Liberal Democrats had had their way, with their opposition to the windfall tax, there would not have been the resources to pay for the programme, and it would not have been carried forward, with large or small employers.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that we get support from the full range of businesses—small as well as large. An enormous effort is being made, and will continue to be made, to build up still more involvement. We have established national account managers in response to requests from large employers, so that there is a single point of contact nationally. We are working systematically through the top 500 companies.
  We are also working with employer organisations to agree arrangements for particular sectors such as construction and tourism. The Institute of Personnel and Development is working with us to distribute a special fact sheet on the new deal to 80,000 personnel and training managers. The national insurance and tax packs, which will go out to 1.2 million employers early in the new year, will all include new deal information.
  The small and medium-sized businesses which are crucial to the success of the new deal will be receiving information, and there will also be a local marketing effort. We are paying particular attention to getting the message across to firms at local level. Local plans are building on the links that the Employment Service, chambers of commerce, training and enterprise councils and others have with small firms. That will be backed up by information and advertising.

  563
  To date, local partnerships have already contacted 60,000 employers through events, visits and letters. Already, 9,000 have undertaken to employ people through the new deal. We shall have contacted more than a quarter of a million employers by the end of February.
  There has also been a high level of interest from the voluntary sector and environmental groups. We are seeking to build alliances between the smaller organisations, which might not have the capacity to deliver the options alone, so that they can also play a role. We have provided funding to support smaller voluntary organisations in the bidding process and, as contracts are awarded, we shall encourage the larger organisations that win them to work with the smaller ones, to ensure that the widest range of opportunities is available.
  Energetic efforts have also been made to engage education and training providers in new deal delivery, both for the full-time education and training option and to provide the training that is an essential part of each of the three work options. The Further Education Funding Council has been a key partner in the development of the programme, and strong links are being built with the Association of Colleges and the Further Education Development Agency. The further education sector is well represented on local partnerships.
  The spirit of involvement and working together is the spirit of the new deal. It characterises the other employment initiatives that we are taking as part of welfare to work, such as the employment zones that will help those over 25 who have been unemployed for a year or more. That is a new and innovative approach that will start in five pilot areas in February.
  In those areas, local partnerships will tailor help to individuals, rather than simply imposing standard programmes, so that those individuals have the best chance of getting into work. Those employment zones are about people, not programmes. Each of the zones will include new proposals, decided locally, for improved training, work projects to benefit the community and business enterprise.
  Despite falling unemployment, there are still concentrated pockets of high, long-term unemployment. Those are often areas where a lot of public money is already spent in the form of benefits, education, employment and regeneration programmes, the European social fund and money from local authorities. As well as providing extra resources—some £58 million across the five pilot areas—employment zones will enable local people to co-ordinate more effectively the use of the existing money, bringing new coherence and effectiveness to tackling concentrated unemployment. We shall be looking closely at the innovative features in employment zones, so that we can apply more widely the lessons of what works best in getting people into jobs.
  We have achieved a lot in a few months, but we are by no means complacent. We are on course to deliver the new deal—a fortnight from now in the 12 pathfinder areas and in 15 weeks' time right across the whole country. But with a programme as complex and ambitious as this, there is always more to be done to ensure that we get it right. The invaluable work that so many hon. Members have been undertaking as ambassadors and advocates for the new deal will be even more important in the months ahead.
  564
  The test of welfare to work will be in its delivery and in its impact on the employability, and therefore the lives, of all the unemployed individuals it aims to help. Welfare to work and all the initiatives that are part of it have mobilised the support and enthusiasm of people from all walks of life. It also demonstrates our belief in a society in which we do not simply pursue individual aims but hold many goals in common, working together to achieve them.
  Our welfare-to-work strategy will attack unemployment and the despair that it brings. It will break the spiral of escalating spending on social security, and it will be of lasting benefit to those taking part, to the community and to the economy. I commend it to the House.
  9.59 am
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Opposition Members are very pleased to have this debate, and I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member agrees that reducing dependency on benefit and enhancing people's opportunity to work are important objectives. The Minister asked me whether the Opposition were committed to enhancing opportunities and enabling people to leave dependency. Of course the official Opposition—like, I suspect, all right hon. and hon. Members—share those objectives.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have not made much progress yet, but I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Smith: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I welcome his support for the Government's overall objectives. Will he tell us, therefore, whether he and other Opposition Front Benchers will pledge their support for the new deal for young unemployed people?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have a speech to make yet, and not every element of it, the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear, is uncritical endorsement of everything that the Government are doing. He has asked me to endorse the objectives of getting people off benefit and enabling them to return to work. I am very happy to do so, because that is a very widely shared objective. It is important that such objectives should be endorsed, because they are most critical for those who have endured long periods of unemployment.
  Achieving those objectives is critical not only for young people—as the Minister stressed again in his speech and as the Government repeatedly stress as part of their welfare-to-work programme—but for those in later life and for lone parents. Those groups form other aspects of the new deal, about which he said rather less in his speech and about which I shall want to say more.
  The key question that every right hon. and hon. Member must ask about the Government's new deal and welfare-to-work packages is not whether we share the objectives—we can take that as read—but whether, given the inevitable competition for resources, they are the most effective way of achieving those objectives. We should realise that the issues that we are debating today are

  565
  important not only to those who will benefit from improved labour markets and job opportunities but to the wider politics of Britain.
  The Prime Minister has made it clear that achieving radical reform in the welfare system is a centrepiece of the Government's programme. He has stressed that point on several occasions this week. He is inclined to suggest, however, that reforming welfare is the same objective as achieving welfare to work, reducing welfare dependence and enhancing job opportunities. As he and the Secretary of State for Social Security discovered yesterday, the process of reforming welfare is broader than can be summed up in the rather glib soundbite "welfare to work".
  The Prime Minister's difficulty was underlined in this week's New Statesman by the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who wrote:
  "It is self-evident that the majority of people, whether lone parents, the disabled or other groups, would prefer to earn an income than rely on state benefits. But work will not always be a realistic option and this is what went wrong on lone parents … As a strategy, welfare-to-work is quite well thought out and understood. Modernising the welfare state is not, and that is our central problem."
  That was written by the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party.
  The Prime Minister has no one but himself to blame for the difficulties in which he finds himself in trying to secure the consent and support of his Back Benchers for his programme for reforming the welfare state. The Government's and the Prime Minister's entire approach to the subject—particularly in much of what he has said about the new deal for the young unemployed, which is one of the Minister's specific responsibilities—has been typified by superficiality and naivety.
  The Prime Minister has consistently implied that welfare-to-work programmes—the Minister's programmes—are self-financing. In February 1997, the Prime Minister said:
  "we will reduce spending on the costs of unemployment and increase it on education. We will begin with the programme taking 250,000 young people off benefit and into work".
  He tried to establish a link between increasing education spending and the welfare-to-work package by implying that implementing welfare to work will bring revenue savings that will allow him to increase spending on education.
  On 3 April 1997, at the Labour party manifesto launch, the Prime Minister was at it again when he said:
  "Education will be our number one priority; and we will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure".
  Last week, an official in the Department of Social Security was at it again by writing the leaked memorandum that suggested that the Government's capacity to increase health and education spending depended on the welfare reform process releasing money for which the Department of Social Security is responsible.
  Given such conjuring tricks, it is hardly surprising that voices are being raised against the Government on their own Back Benches. Some of the Minister's more battle-hardened colleagues realise that they are being offered an inherently implausible scenario. First the Prime Minister says that education will be paid for by saving
  566
  achieved by the new deal, then the Minister for Welfare Reform says that increased charges for students will pay for £1.2 billion-worth of child care—
  Mr. Roger Casale: Yes.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says yes, but I thought that other parts of the Department for Education and Employment had give assurances that those increased charges would be spent on higher education and further education. Although I think that they should be spent only on higher education, the Department has at least given an assurance that they are for higher and further education. However, it appears that some Labour Back Benchers still think—with the Minister for Welfare Reform—that that money will go into child care.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way after I finish this catalogue.
  As we discovered last week, the Department for Social Security is also being charged with the task of finding savings in the cost of benefits for the disabled and the elderly to finance the cost of growing health and education expenditure. I asked the Minister twice during his speech whether he could assure disabled people in Britain that the Government will not cut benefit payments to qualifying disabled people, and twice he avoided the question. The Government's objectives are not wrong, but they are simply not prepared to come clean to the British people about their different objectives and about the necessity of reconciling those objectives.
  When the Minister talks about the new deal programme for the young unemployed, he is not taking about a programme that will release money for spending on other desirable objectives. He should have the honesty to say so. He ought to recognise that the programme for which he is responsible is a programme of spending which, in the Government's view, is designed to improve the operation of the labour market. That is not a view with which I entirely disagree; it would be strange if I did, because the previous Government spent money on many similar schemes.
  The programme involves the net spending of taxpayers' money. It does not release money for spending on something else—quite the contrary; it pre-empts money which, if not being spent on this programme, could conceivably be spent on something else. Therefore, to represent it as a programme that allows the Government to spend more on health, education or other social provision is a conjuring trick, as it does nothing of the kind.
  The Government should be clear about the fact that the justification for the programme for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible has to be made on the basis of the benefit it brings to the labour market and in the enhanced job opportunities that result. That is the test that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes accepts and sometimes does not. However, the Prime Minister apparently still believes that his programme is part of a wider reform that will release benefit from one element of public expenditure so that it can be spent on another.
  Mr. Wicks: I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. On 1 May we inherited a social

  567
  security budget that was rising to about £100 billion a year, or one third of total public expenditure. We are having to grapple with that mess. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that that £100 billion was being well spent? Is he pleased with the previous Government's distortion in spending all that money on the consequences of economic failure?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am certainly proud of the fact that the previous Government enhanced spending on disabled people and provided them with a range and generosity of benefits that did not exist in 1979. I am not attacking the previous Labour Government, but those improved benefits were an element of the progress that we made during our 18 years in office. That is why I am now probing the Minister as to whether the enhanced benefits for disabled people, which we were responsible for introducing, are to be chipped away. If that is the case, it is about time that a Minister was prepared to defend that policy on its merits.
  The key questions before the House are whether the programme for which the Minister is responsible is the best possible use of roughly £3.75 billion and whether it represents good value for money. They are the issues we should be focusing on. In answering those questions, I repeat that I agree with the Government about the benefit that can come from active labour market measures. I am prepared to be straight and say that they do involve some public expenditure. That was why the previous Government—[Interruption.] I see that economies are coming early. I am prepared to concede that a saving on electricity releases expenditure for something else. I am prepared to recognise and argue for the necessity for extra expenditure on active labour market measures.
  The Minister rightly stressed the importance of the gateway element in his programme for the young unemployed. One of the questions asked by the Employment Sub-Committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), to which I would be interested to hear the answer, is, if the gateway principle is right for the young unemployed—I agree that it is—why is there not a similar principle in the elements of the new deal focused on the over-25s, where the same arguments apply? With that caveat, I agree with what the Minister said about the gateway element.
  I also recognise that there can be a role for employment subsidies in the promotion and enhancement of work opportunities. That is why we launched the workstart pilots. Provided that they are highly targeted, and provided that some of the distortion and displacement effects of wage subsidies are recognised and controlled, there can be a role for them. There certainly can be a role for what I understand are now, in the awful jargon, called the intermediate labour markets but might more revealingly be referred to as voluntary sector employment or the environmental task force. I have no difficulty in principle with those or with the training option.
  The basic principles of the Government's scheme are not necessarily wrong, but we have to consider the detail behind them. What stakes will the Minister set in the ground to define the scheme's objectives and, therefore, its success or failure? When the Labour party first spoke of the scheme for the young unemployed, it talked about taking 250,000 young long-term unemployed people off the dole. It can no longer use that as the definition of
  568
  success, given that there are now only 122,000 young long-term unemployed who qualify for the scheme. The original definition of the scheme has had to be changed.
  It should at least be a warning that a scheme that was designed several years ago with one very definite objective is substantively unchanged, although the objective has changed radically because it was achieved by the previous Government by another means. Since the date on which the Labour party announced its scheme, the previous Government reduced the number of the young long-term unemployed by 250,000 by ensuring more flexible labour markets—
  Mr. Ernie Ross: They were fiddled figures.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about adopting that argument. One of the things that at least some new Labour Members have been learning over the past few weeks is that the unemployment figures that are published every month are now the responsibility of the Labour Government. I have not noticed that they have been coming forward with any great haste to change the basis of those figures in a way that reflects the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall be delighted to do so. Are we going to hear about a change to the basis of the unemployment figures?
  Mr. Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned what I had understood to be the previous Government's commitment to give more prominence to the labour force survey? We have made it very clear that we believe in giving it more prominence, as it is a more reliable and, indeed, internationally comparable measure of the levels of unemployment.
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree with that proposition. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the labour force survey does not paint a significantly different picture. I was seeking to deal with the outburst of the hon. Member for Dundee, West, who was using old Labourspeak. The House will remember that, whenever the unemployment figures were published—the labour force survey figures or the monthly ones produced by the previous Department of Employment—Labour Members used to leap to their feet and say that they were fiddled. The Government are now using exactly the same figures on the same basis.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I have been a member of the Select Committee that deals with employment issues for the past three Parliaments and I have to say that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is a pile of arrant nonsense. The Committee never disagreed with the labour force survey figures. We disagreed with the way in which the previous Government dealt with the claimant count and their suggestion that that somehow reflected the real number of people looking for work.
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall not dwell on that. The hon. Gentleman now appears to recognise that the important

  569
  element in the argument is not the way the figures are constructed but the fact that over the past two years there has, according to the labour force survey and the claimant count, been a substantial reduction in the number of young unemployed people.
  The original objective that the Labour party set itself when it published its welfare-to-work programme for the young unemployed, which was to take 250,000 young people off the unemployment register, was achieved by the previous Government. The new Government have had to redefine the objectives of what is still the same scheme. I was suggesting that that should be a cause for questioning by those of us who follow the matter.
  Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I want to make a little more progress.
  I want to cite what the Minister said when pressed on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in the Education and Employment Committee. My hon. Friend asked the Minister:
  "Would it be a fair measure of success to say that we would have to see the current trend rate of decline of unemployment increase?"
  The Minister started by not being very clear. He said:
  "That does depend on assumptions about what is happening to the wider macroeconomy and, for that matter, the labour market … So that would be an oversimplification to put it like that."
  My hon. Friend then pressed him:
  "So you might be happy that you were getting value for money if the current trend was maintained, or even if unemployment rose?"
  The Minister responded:
  "Only if something devastating, which was unforeseeable, happened to the economy."
  My hon. Friend then put it to the Minister:
  "So, barring some devastating and unforeseeable action, you would expect the trend rate to be improved."
  The Minister said:
  "I would, yes."
  The Minister's definition of success is an improvement in the declining trend rate. I should be grateful if he could confirm that that is his definition of success for his programme for the young unemployed. It is important to be clear about the Government's objectives for the scheme to which they are going to commit more than £3 billion of public money.
  Mr. Smith: The measures of the programme's success will be: first, keeping our promise to get 250,000 young people off benefits and into jobs; secondly, significantly enhancing the employability of the young people who have undertaken work on the programme; thirdly, a higher level of youth employment and a lower level of youth unemployment than there otherwise would have been.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am interested that the Minister does not appear to be confirming what he said to the Select Committee. When my hon. Friend said:
  "barring some devastating and unforeseeable action, you would expect the trend rate to be improved",
  the Minister replied:
  "I would, yes."
  570
  Is the right hon. Gentleman changing that position?
  Mr. Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman reads on in that Select Committee evidence, he will also see that I made it clear that, with the falling numbers in the client group, the proportion of those who are harder to help is increasing. We want the declining trend rate in youth unemployment to continue, but that becomes a bigger achievement as we get further towards those who are hardest to help. That has implications for the gateway and the wider support services involved in the new deal.
  Mr. Dorrell: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I shall read on. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland then said:
  "Minister, can we turn to the Employment Service and its preparation to deal with the New Deal".
  It is not true that the Minister went on to say what he has just claimed. The Chairman of the Committee changed the subject. That is not surprising. The Select Committee was more circumspect in its report than was the Minister in setting the objectives.
  Mr. Smith: It is important that such matters should be correct for the record. In my subsequent answer, I specifically referred to the previous question. It was clear that that was the question that I was answering.
  Mr. Dorrell: The Minister went on to make points that he had already made but were not reported. I am not sure whether the House will have followed that contortion.
  The Select Committee was more circumspect than the Minister in defining the objectives of the programme. The Committee was clearly concerned that, if success was defined too closely by a decline in the trend rate, it might be a difficult test to pass. Given that we are probably close to the peak of the economic cycle, the Select Committee is likely to be right.
  The Committee, importantly, broadened the focus on the definition of the scheme's objectives. The Chairman said:
  "we have taken certain evidence which suggests that, because unemployment has been falling pretty rapidly, the target group, which most of the money has been spent on, is diminishing and it might be better to focus the scheme, or to rebalance the scheme, to take more into account the longer-term unemployed."
  The Chairman made it clear that he was reflecting evidence that the Committee had heard that the Government's programmes will spend the lion's share of the money from the windfall tax on the young unemployed.
  The figures are revealing. The Chancellor announced that he would spend £3.15 billion on 18 to 24-year-olds during this Parliament. The Government have earmarked £350 million for over-25-year-olds who have been unemployed for more than two years. That is barely 10 per cent. of the money earmarked for the young unemployed. For lone parents, they have earmarked only £200 million. The focus of the welfare-to-work scheme remains heavily on the young unemployed, but the facts of the employment market have changed sharply.
  Not only, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has the number of long-term young unemployed people fallen sharply over the past couple of years, but the turnover rate of unemployed people—the number leaving the register

  571
  to go back to employment—is significantly faster among young people than among the older age group. On the most recent figures, there are more than 400,000 people between the ages of 40 and 55 on the unemployment register. The rate at which they are leaving the register to go back to employment is approximately two thirds of the rate at which younger people are leaving the register.
  That is why the Chairman was right to point out that the changes to the labour market since the Labour party committed itself to the shape of the new deal some years ago might require a shift in the balance of the programme to offer more assistance to the older unemployed. There are serious social problems associated with long-term unemployment in the older age group.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister went on to concede that he would build sufficient flexibility into the programme to enable it to respond to the changing nature of the jobs market?
  Mr. Dorrell: I was about to quote the Minister on that. I should like him to clarify what he meant when he said, in response to the Chairman:
  "if the numbers of 18–24 year olds more than six months unemployed diminished significantly below that which in overall terms has been budgeted for, clearly that would release resources which could then be considered for reapplication elsewhere."
  That is clearly what the Minister's brief said. When my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West asked the same question later—whether the shift in the balance of the labour market meant that the money allocated for the young unemployed could be shifted within the welfare-to-work programme to benefit the older unemployed—the Minister said:
  "What I was saying was that, if as things develop you can see that you are well within the overall budget that had been provided, it follows logically that there could become resources available for reallocation."
  The Minister's brief clearly said that, if he was asked that question, he could say that the resources were available for reallocation. His words do not tell us whether the money would be available for reallocation within the welfare-to-work programme or for reallocation by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on a wide range of other Government spending programmes. Is welfare to work a £3.7 billion programme with priorities that may shift between the young unemployed, the older unemployed and lone parents, or was the Minister telling the Select Committee that, if the money allocated to deal with the young unemployed was found to be more than necessary, it would be taken away from his Department and reallocated by the Treasury? That is an important question that his evidence did not answer.
  The details of the rules of the Government's scheme also raise value for money issues. The most obvious unintended effect of the scheme is the deadweight cost associated with any wage subsidy programme. To what extent is it anticipated that the scheme will pay employers to do what they were going to do anyway?
  When National Economic Research Associates looked at 17 schemes in 10 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with similar
  572
  wage subsidy characteristics, it concluded that up to 50 per cent. of spending on wage subsidies could be deadweight. NERA also said that only 10 to 30 per cent. of the expenditure on those wage subsidy programmes would result in extra jobs. That led it to conclude that it was
  "ultimately somewhat sceptical about the likely effectiveness of a permanent full-scale wage subsidy programme."
  When the Select Committee asked the Minister about that issue, he did not dissent from the proposition that deadweight costs could be between 25 and 50 per cent. of expenditure. Given that the Government are suggesting that a substantial sum of public money should be spent on the programme, we need to know in far greater detail what plans they have to control the level of deadweight, and what level of deadweight expenditure they would find acceptable. Presumably there is a level at which the Government would conclude that the deadweight expenditure was such that the money would be better spent in the interests of the people on whom it is targeted on a labour market programme or on another programme.
  More insidious than the deadweight issue is the problem that the welfare-to-work programme may encourage people to do things that are slightly different from what they would have done otherwise. The changes brought about as a result of the scheme may be undesirable. Let us consider the young unemployed person who has been unemployed for five months. If that person finds someone who wants to employ him, is it not in the interests of both parties to delay the employment contract for a month, at which time the young person will qualify for the £60-a-week subsidy under the Government scheme? Nobody would regard that as a desirable result. What safeguards will there be to prevent such distortions?
  There are worse possibilities. Let us consider the young person who is thinking of attending a further education course on terms that are available to the whole community. Is it not in that young person's interest, in some circumstances, to wait for six months on the unemployment register to qualify for the more generous terms that are available under welfare to work? Surely that would be a perverse effect of the Government's programme.
  Let us consider the case of an employer who is considering recruiting a young person. We can take as the control case the 18-year-old who has just left employment or who is still in employment and considering changing his job. If a person between 18 and 24 has been unemployed for more than six months, he will be £60 cheaper to the employer. That is the five months argument with which I have already dealt.
  Let us consider the case of an employer who is considering taking on a 16 or 17-year-old instead of the 18-year-old control case. One of the perverse effects about which the Government need to be careful is a result of the provision in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill which imposes on the employer of the 16 and 17-year-old the obligation to cover the cost of a day a week on a training course. The employer does not have the same cost obligations with an 18-year-old. We need to know that the Government have thought through the different cross-subsidies and the incentive effects of various programmes taken together.
  Of course I do not believe that the Government's objectives are wrong; we share their objectives. We all want enhanced job opportunities, linked to training to

  573
  improve the output potential of young people and of all people who are currently unemployed. That is a shared objective.
  We are concerned about whether the details of the Government's programme have been sufficiently clearly thought through. In considering such programmes, we need to remember that they are being implemented against a background of low and falling unemployment, by historic standards and by the standards of most of our OECD competitors. We need to recognise that there is a danger that the structure of the Government's schemes will have a number of unintended and undesirable side effects.
  The most important question is whether this programme represents the best possible use of £3.7 billion, given all the competing claims on expenditure. If it is claimed that this programme is part of a general programme of welfare reform which will release money from one part of the welfare budget so that it can be spent on another, that is a fraud.
  When Labour Members go through the Lobby next year to vote for the Prime Minister's programme of welfare reform, they should remind themselves that the previous Government achieved Labour's target of a 250,000 reduction in the number of long-term young unemployed. They must ask themselves whether the £3.75 billion that the Government are committed to targeting on an objective that has already been achieved by the previous Government is being used in the best possible way, particularly against the background of cuts and other restraints that it is the inevitable lot of Government Back Benchers to have to support.
  10.35 am
  Mr. Derek Foster: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who is doing his job as Opposition spokesperson. All the questions that he has raised are perfectly legitimate. It is important for our democratic process that we have a vigourous Opposition, and good government is made even better through proper probing by the Opposition and by Select Committees.
  Some of my colleagues would have taken some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks rather more seriously if the previous Government had shown a real intention to address the problem. Who put unemployment up in the first place over 18 years or so? The right hon. Gentleman has the audacity to claim that his Government achieved this Government's objective during the last few months of their time in office. He went a bit over the top at that point.
  Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: I am just beginning my speech, and I know that many of my hon. Friends want to contribute to the debate.
  I would have been a little more kindly disposed towards the right hon. Member for Charnwood if I had heard him express the sentiment expressed by one of his predecessors, Lord St. John of Fawsley, whom I distinctly recall saying, when he was Leader of the House, that unemployment was a moral and social evil. Many of us came to this House to ensure that that moral and social evil was totally abolished, and I am proud that the Labour
  574
  Government have addressed the problem with a tremendous amount of political will and with great ambition. I am proud that they are prepared to drive through this part of the programme with great flair and imagination.
  I was rather critical of the idea that the Employment Service was the appropriate body to do the job, however, as the enforcement agent of a pretty harsh benefits regime seemed unlikely to be able to transform itself into an all-sharing, caring organisation which could assist young people in negotiating their way into employment, education and training. I will now repeat what I said yesterday to the chief executive of the Employment Service. I said that the culture change required within his organisation to make it fit to drive through the programme is seriously under way. The staff at my local jobcentre at Bishop Auckland are implementing the new programme with enthusiasm and a sense of liberation. We owe a debt of gratitude to Leigh Lewis and his staff.
  I should also refer to the commendable flexibility that the Government insisted should be written into the design of the programme. It would have been excusable for a Government with such an ambitious programme to lay down the law pretty rigidly from the centre. That could have got the programme off to a good start, as everyone would have known exactly where they stood. However, the Government rightly foresaw that needs differ greatly from area to area. Enormous care and trouble has therefore gone into creating imaginative partnerships which will design programmes that are relevant to their areas.
  That is highly commendable, but there is one slight difficulty: despite the flexibility that has been written into the design of the programme, some of the uncomfortable deadlines that have to be met—particularly in the pathfinder areas—are making it difficult for the most innovative and imaginative programmes to succeed. I should like my right hon. Friend to give that just a little attention. It would be regrettable if the deadlines that had to be achieved made it difficult for innovation and imagination to be shown within the programmes.
  The Select Committee report referred to problems with private sector take-up. The global players have been extremely supportive of the programme—once again, the Government deserve congratulations for getting them signed up—but as we know from our own constituencies, the success of the programme will be determined by small and medium-sized enterprise take-up. Once again, much time and effort is now being given to that and there are signs that many opportunities are forthcoming. I know that the Government are already addressing the issue, which is crucial, as is the quality of training that is written into the private sector option.
  Training must be relevant to the young person and to the job market. Not only must it provide benefit to the young people, as it did in the past, but it must be relevant to the employer. In the past, much of the training provided by the training system left the private sector dissatisfied, because the training was not directly relevant to the businesses concerned and did not result in any improvement in productivity. I know that my right hon. Friend is giving a great deal of attention to that, too.
  There are also concerns about voluntary sector participation in the programme. I am a veteran of such programmes. I remember the report written by one

  575
  Geoffrey Holland in 1977—an imaginative document, which set out some far-sighted ideas. The voluntary sector played a major part in earlier programmes, but it is finding it rather more difficult to respond this time. In my constituency there is some difficulty in finding the funds to create an overarching structure that would allow the voluntary sector to participate. That is absolutely essential, and I know that my right hon. Friend wants that part of the programme to succeed.
  Finally, I should like to say something about the new deal for lone parents and disabled people. I have not heard one right hon. or hon. Member dissent from the view that it is absolutely essential to get more lone parents and disabled people back to work. That has to be right for lone parents, for disabled people, for the labour market and for society at large. There is no dissent from that among my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I suspect that there may be no dissent among the Opposition. The legitimate concerns are that it will be extremely difficult to facilitate lone parents and disabled people getting back to work. The barriers are pretty formidable.
  For lone parents, of course, the problem is child care. We very much welcome what the Government are doing in the way of child care, but I suspect that much more will have to be done if we are to get large numbers of lone parents back to work. There are transport problems to be faced. Many employers are not exactly family-friendly, so the culture change that is required to get employers to welcome lone parents back to work may take rather a long time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not underestimate that.
  Disabled people also have a wide range of problems and must not be considered as a generality. We must address their individual problems in getting back to work. There is no question but that they want to work. Many people who work for Remploy do so through choice, even though they might be better off on benefit. Many disabled people would prefer to work, but physically cannot cope with a full day's work, so we have to be absolutely certain that it is made easy for disabled people to get back to work.
  Let me issue a warning that appeared in the leader of the Financial Times yesterday:
  "The lesson from both sides of the Atlantic is that real welfare reform is not a cheap option or an exercise in cost-cutting."
  In the United States, it was found to be rather expensive to get people back to work. If my right hon. Friends feel that there are huge savings to be gained by pursuing such a policy, they may be mistaken. I genuinely hope that they are not. We are all signed up to it and we want it to succeed. It is good for the nation, it is good for disabled people, it is good for lone parents, it is good for everyone—but it is has to be done sensitively, and I intend to play a full part in ensuring that it succeeds.
  10.48 am
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I shall confine my remarks to one subject—women with children and whether or not they should be forced into the market place.
  Sometimes the United States sets the fashion in such matters. In some states—notably Wisconsin, which the Select Committee has studied—women on benefits with
  576
  children as young as 12 weeks are forced back to work. If they refuse to work, their benefit is simply removed. I consider that a cruel practice. I believe that there is a possibility—perhaps a danger—that in our wish to get women into work, which is of course very desirable, we shall force or begin to force women with very young children into work. I will address that subject on the basis not of my own views and prejudices but on the basis of the massive social surveys of women with young children carried out in recent years.
  Of all families with dependent children, 70 per cent. are headed by a married couple and 8 per cent. by a cohabiting couple. Of the rest, 20 per cent. are lone mothers and 2 per cent. lone fathers. There has been a dramatic growth in lone-parent households, from 8 per cent. of all households with children in 1971 to 16 per cent. in 1986 and 22 per cent. today. Some lone-parent households are created by bereavement, but the majority nowadays are the result of divorce or separation.
  The Department of Social Security has conducted a great deal of research into the attitudes of lone parents. "Lone Parent, Work and Benefits", which was published this year, found that, of lone parents who had never lived with "a partner", 38 per cent. said that they had no intention of ever doing so, and 20 per cent. said that they were looking forward to having more children. When all lone parents were asked why they wanted to remain a lone parent during the "current spell", 48 per cent. said that they preferred to live independently and not as part of a couple. The report discovered a great deal, but one thing is clear: some lone parents simply prefer to remain lone parents—they make that choice.
  No modern democracy can or should force people to get married, but that does not mean that lone parenthood is an entirely private matter. First, the taxpayer picks up the bill for welfare payments; secondly, the children grow up with one parent instead of two. In most cases, the missing parent is the father. There is ample evidence available to the House and the nation that such children tend to die earlier, have more illness, do less well at school, exist at a lower level of nutrition, comfort and conviviality, suffer more unemployment, be more prone to deviance and crime, and repeat the cycle of unstable parenting from which they suffered.
  It is right that Governments should be concerned about spiralling welfare payments, and I understand why this is a major concern of the new Government. Clearly there is such a thing as welfare dependency, and it has grown dramatically in recent years. Every civilised nation finds it the greatest problem with which they are trying to grapple. The tax and benefit system can encourage people to behave more irresponsibly, and undoubtedly, in every nation in the western world, the tax-benefits system has done precisely that over the past 20 years. It can encourage people not to take responsibility for their own lives, and it can make it easier for people to get away with irresponsible and anti-social behaviour.
  In the United States, the deadbeat dad phenomenon is well known. Many men father children, but are then for all practical purposes absent by choice from the home. I have no doubt that there are deadbeat mums, too, but in this country the main problem is families without fathers—and families need fathers. The Child Support Agency can make men pay, but there is a danger of politicians reducing the whole problem of lone parentage solely to one of money. Children need a mother and a

  577
  father. The Government should be concerned to promote what is best for children—the two-parent family—and they can do that through the tax and benefit and education systems.
  I agree with what Cardinal Hume said on Thursday last week when he asked the Government for a review of the tax and benefit system so as to promote marriage. The cardinal said that lone parents need to spend more time with their children, and that the long-term health of society depends on the health of the family, whether it be the family with a lone parent spending as much time as possible with the children, or the two-parent family.
  It is of course right for the Government to discourage welfare dependency, but I should also say very strongly that young children, particularly in a lone-parent household, need a substantial time commitment from their parent. The Government should never use the benefit system to force mothers with pre-school children into work. That is unfair and cruel in a modern and compassionate society.
  There has been much talk of high-quality child care, but the best child care is provided by the natural parent. Cardinal Hume suggested that the Government's initiative to get single parents back to work could be "false economy". It concerns me that children of a lone parent, having already been deprived of—usually—a father, will be further deprived through their remaining parent being forced into work.
  I do not make that point about the child who is already at school. Perhaps we have been too lax in saying to single parents, "Well, so long as your child is under 16 you can stay at home." Perhaps we have gone to the other extreme from what has happened in Wisconsin. My remarks are directed at the plight of the child of pre-school age.
  Why should my opinions matter? Most women, however, share such views.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that mothers in Wisconsin asked to go back to work after 12 weeks not as a result of any social policy but because American working women from all classes go back to work very quickly? Therefore, the decision is made not on the grounds of social policy but simply because Americans refuse to treat welfare mothers any differently. They simply treat mothers very badly. We must therefore be careful what conclusions we draw from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Leigh: I am pleased that my colleague on the Social Security Committee has made that point. In an American two-parent family, there is at least some element of choice. Many professional American ladies will want to go back to work very quickly, but at least they have some choice because there is a working father in the family. What concerns me about what is going on in Wisconsin, and what I do not want to be replicated in any way here, is that lone parents who have no choice are simply ordered back to work by the state. That is what happened in the Soviet Union, and it is not a civilised way of behaving.
  According to the British social attitudes survey, most women—55 per cent.—believe that mothers with pre-school children should stay at home. Nearly a third of women-28 per cent.—say that part-time work is okay. Only 5 per cent. of women advocate full-time work for
  578
  mothers with pre-school children. Women should choose; if they want to work part time, full time or not at all, let them. I have no opinion on that. All that I am trying to drive home is that they should not be forced to go out to work as a result of the benefit system.
  According to some figures from the Office for National Statistics, 17 per cent. of mothers with pre-school children work full time and a further 31 per cent. part time. The majority of mums with pre-school children do not work at all. Of all mothers with children under 16 years old, only 22 per cent. work full time for an average of 41 hours a week, while 37 per cent. work part time for an average of 18 hours a week. We must recognise that children need time with their mothers.
  The British social attitudes survey asked mothers who work part time whether they would change the hours that they worked if they could have the child care of their choice. Interestingly, just over two thirds—67 per cent.—said that they would work the same hours. Only 17 per cent. of those mothers said that they would work full time, and 7 per cent. said that they would like to work additional part-time hours. The survey also asked—this is the interesting point—what sort of child care women wanted. Most said that they would prefer it to be provided by relatives or husbands. The study concluded that the views of women on that point were so firm that
  "no amount of child care subsidy will make a difference to them."
  The survey found that 62 per cent. of working mothers with children under 12 used relatives, including husbands or cohabiting partners, as child carers. Only 15 per cent. used child minders, and 6 per cent. used a nanny. It is worrying that 4 per cent. of mothers with children under 12 said that they did not need child care arrangements because the children "looked after themselves."
  The norm in this country, and the evidence that I have quoted from studies, is that most mothers do not want full-time work. The overwhelming majority of mothers—78 per cent.—do not work full time. It is true that 37 per cent. work part time, but the majority of those mothers are at work only when the children are at school or cared for by a relative.
  Caroline Flint: The Joseph Rowntree study showed that the two major issues that lone parents said would help them get back into work were opportunities to improve their education and skills, and child care. I do not know what world the hon. Gentleman is living in, but certainly in my experience one of the reasons why so many women depend on friends and family to cobble together child care from one day to the next is that we do not have the same provision for child care as the rest of Europe. In Britain, we have places for only a third of children aged three and over: in France, there are places for 95 per cent. of those children, and in Germany and Spain there are places for 70 per cent. of pre-school children. Women have to cobble together child care because it does not exist in this country, but the Labour Government will address that problem.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a fair intervention, and if we can improve child care, I shall be the first to welcome that. However, as the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said, it will require massive increases in public spending, because no savings will be made. The American experience is that increasing child-care

  579
  opportunities has increased public spending. If women want to put their children into child care and go out to work, I am happy with that, but most women do not want to be forced into full-time work against their will. That is my only point. I do not criticise the Government or their efforts to improve child care. Nor am I making a party political point. I am simply warning the House about the implications for this country of what is happening in the United States of America.
  I am worried that, in solving one massive social problem—welfare dependency, about which we have all worried for years—we may exacerbate the cycle of deprivation experienced by children, who need and want at least one parent, but preferably both, involved with them all or most of the time. After all, children do not choose their parents, and they are not responsible for the actions of their parent or parents.
  Melanie Phillips, a well-known left-of-centre journalist—[Interruption.] Well, she used to be.
  Mr. Wicks: No more.
  Mr. Leigh: She is no more, apparently. She has written:
  "Of course, some mothers want to work and do work full time from when their children are very young. But to expect all lone mothers to do so is either effectively to deny the importance of the maternal caring role, or else to condemn women to a form of servitude in attempting to combine, alone and unsupported, separate roles in conflicting domains".
  The breakdown of the traditional family goes to the heart of the issue. Yes, welfare dependency is a bad thing, and why should others pick up the bill for irresponsible behaviour? However, in the midst of all that, we must consider the children. Forcing lone mothers to work full time could have serious effects on their children. Patching up one problem could lead to even worse problems, unless the central issue of the breakdown of the family is addressed.
  What should the Government do? First, a strong distinction should be made between lone parents with pre-school children and those whose children are older. There should also be a cap on the number of hours that lone parents are compelled to work under the scheme even when their children are of school age. Secondly, the Government must address the issue of fatherless families. It is not enough to take money from fathers through the CSA and then leave them alone. Fathers should be expected to perform some of the duties of parents even when a couple have separated. Fathers should be strongly encouraged to take more of a role and the court welfare officers must uphold the need for fathers to have access to their children. Thirdly, and most importantly, the Government must support the traditional family. The divorce rate is far too high.
  What should the Government do to support the traditional family? From a number of newspaper reports, it appears that some members of the Government believe that something should be done. A major article in the Financial Times on 5 December caught my attention. It claimed that Ministers are considering introducing tax incentives for marriage, making divorce more difficult, reforming the CSA to encourage fathers to keep in touch with their families, and educating children about their
  580
  future responsibilities. If that article is true, I welcome it. When Treasury civil servants appeared before our Select Committee recently, they were unable to tell me anything about the source of that story, but as it appeared in the Financial Times it must have come from a well placed ministerial source.
  I hope that the Government are, indeed, considering such radical and substantial steps to support the family. I hope that they are fully seized of the vital importance of encouraging both mother and father to take an active interest in their child. I hope also that the Government will reject the cruel practice of forcing women with pre-school children into work against their will.
  11.5 am
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Most of my hon. Friends and I listened in amazement to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) as he tried to redraw the past 18 years of the Tory Government's performance and the past 10 or 11 years of his own performance. If some of the evidence that he offered today had been offered by him and his colleagues instead of the rhetoric that we heard from the Tory party conference and the actions that we saw from the previous Government, we might not be in the current situation. Others will have the chance to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman said and the way in which he used his vote when his party was in government.
  I wish to echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), because those of us who have experienced 18 years of opposition need to remind Conservative Members—especially new ones, and also our new hon. Friends—of the history of the previous Tory Government. We saw a succession of make-work schemes, few if any of which were completed according to the programme set out by whoever happened to be the Secretary of State for Employment at the time. In my time in the House, we got through a number of Secretaries of State for Employment. Their attitudes were usually driven by the previous Tory conference and the rhetoric heard there against the unemployed and single parents.
  During the previous Government's time in office, those of us on what was then the Select Committee on Employment learned from bitter experience of those schemes—and from trips with various Secretaries of State to the United States of America, to assess whether so-called successes in that country could be introduced here—that getting the long-term unemployed back to work is costly. There is no escaping that principle, and empirical evidence for it is contained in all the Committee's reports, which are available in the Library. That is why I am pleased that, early on, the Labour Government identified the means by which we would meet that cost. We said exactly where the money would come from.
  Those of us who followed various Secretaries of State round the world looking at experience elsewhere, discovered that, if we were to deal with the long-term unemployed and single parents, child care, after-school care, and in some cases before-school facilities, were essential. That is why I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and his fellow Ministers have said about ensuring that child care, after-school clubs, and even before-school clubs, will be available to support our new deal policy. All the empirical evidence on the record shows us that there is no easy option for anyone.

  581
  I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister and to other hon. Members, because I shall have to leave shortly after speaking. I have a constituency matter to attend to in Dundee, which is rather a long way away, so I must leave the House.
  Tayside is one of the pathfinder areas for the new deal, so I shall give my right hon. Friend the Minister the benefit of some of our experience there. I join all the other hon. Members who have spoken of the enthusiasm that has been engendered in the Employment Service. It is amazing to see people who started their careers—in some cases long before I became a Member of Parliament—hoping to help people back into work. They then spent 18 years massaging the unemployment figures—or rather, the claimant count figures—to meet the terms of the latest Government scheme with which they had to try to work.
  Now we see those people doing the job that they entered the Employment Service to do—getting people into jobs. They have opened their arms and welcomed with enthusiasm the new deal and the possibilities that it offers. I want to place on record my appreciation of the work of Bob Alexander, Alison Blake and the rest of the Tayside Employment Service team who are leading the pathfinder scheme.
  Why was Tayside chosen? Why not Glasgow? Tayside is both an urban and a rural area, whereas Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland, containing most of the population. More importantly, before the Tories gerrymandered the boundaries to get rid of the regional councils, Strathclyde region used its spending power to set up structures that helped to offset the worst aspects of the Tory Government's policies. Those structures are still there, and it would not have given us an accurate reflection of what the new deal could achieve if the pathfinder area had been established in Glasgow. That is why we welcomed the pathfinder area in Tayside.
  It has been a struggle. From the day and hour that the initiative was announced, we have had to work hard, and many people have had to learn many lessons. We have had to find ways of working together, and new initiatives that we can all support. It has been exciting. I have tried to play my part, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who unfortunately cannot be with us this morning. We have been heartened by the response, especially from employers.
  More than 200 employers from all over Tayside have attended the various meetings, and more than 100 have committed themselves to working with the scheme. When my right hon. Friend the Minister visited Dundee recently, he met the representatives of several of the companies, so he will know for himself the enthusiasm with which they have greeted the new deal.
  We now have targets to meet, and 36 personal advisers are ready to move in and work with the clients. We knew from the beginning that most of the clients would be disillusioned after 18 years of "revolving door" schemes, which they quickly learned how to operate. We wanted to stop the revolving door and have a one-door approach. People would come in and go out at the end better, more whole people, who we hoped would be able to move into real long-term employment.
  Because of that disillusionment, we said early on, "Let's not keep the client forums and focus groups inside the Employment Service." The Employment Service has
  582
  many connotations of people being pulled in and having their benefit cut, or told that they have to go into a programme that they do not agree with.
  We went out and made contact with organisations throughout Tayside that helped people with problems such as drink, drugs, homelessness and debt. We built a structure of information points and organisations already funded for such provision, and we met the clients there. As a result of that, the gateway will be managed in the special needs group by a consortium led by the adult community training organisation, and in mainstream education and careers guidance by Tayside Careers Ltd.
  The gateway is ready to start. Last week, all the contracts were handed out for the other areas. In education and training, the lead body will be Scottish Enterprise Tayside, and the chamber of commerce, local authorities and other training providers will also be involved, with local colleges and voluntary organisations.
  The voluntary option will be led by the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations, with more than 90 organisations in the voluntary sector participating. We discovered early that if the environmental task force is to work, we must have regard to the way in which Tayside is structured. We have Angus, Perth and Dundee—communities that are significantly different from each other.
  We therefore decided to place the environmental task force contracts with the three councils, Dundee city council, Angus council and Perth and Kinross council, to ensure that the differences within Tayside were reflected.
  We have also had support from the private sector. I should especially like to place on record our thanks to Travel Dundee, a subsidiary of National Express, which offers free travel to new deal clients attending job interviews and half-price travel for six months for those who are successful in obtaining employment at the end of the programme.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman said that about 100 employers on Tayside had expressed support for the new deal. Have those 100 employers actually offered jobs? Do they believe that the current level of employment will continue for the next year or so, or do they, like many other employers, expect a downturn in the economy, which will mean that they are unable to provide jobs?
  Mr. Ross: None of the employers has said, "We've got five jobs," or, "We've got 10 jobs." They have given a commitment to work with the new deal scheme, and they are confident that, when the clients are ready, they will be able to take some on. They have not said, "Here are 10, 15 or 20 jobs." If they did that, I would expect the Employment Service to provide clients off the normal unemployment register to be taken now. The employers have given a commitment. They have signed the contract in the new deal employer agreement, which is much more important.
  I do not want to delay the House too long, because I know that other hon. Members seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. ScotRail has offered the same deal as Travel Dundee, and Stagecoach, which operates a service throughout the region, is also to offer subsidised travel for new deal clients. However, we have a problem

  583
  in Angus, because we have not yet managed to convince the local bus operator there to offer the same facility, but we are working on it.
  The programme is up and ready to go. We in the Tayside new deal programme set ourselves the deadline that everything had to be in place by 15 December. That has been achieved. On 16 December, my colleagues in Tayside invited all the organisations involved in the programme to attend a walk-through from the identification of the client to the end of the option. That was held in Angus college, and more than 70 people attended. It was a huge success.
  Now we are waiting for 15 January, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to Dundee to launch the new deal there. We are up and ready to go. Roll on that day.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Paul Keetch: It is a pleasure to speak in the first debate on the new deal, as the newly appointed Liberal Democrat spokesman on employment and training. As the Government know, my party supports their efforts to get people off welfare and into work. We find it hard to believe that anybody could criticise those efforts.
  However, we have a few concerns about the new deal that I should like to raise with the Minister and with the House. The first involves the voluntary sector. I enjoyed the speech by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) in that respect. We also have concerns about the problems that will be faced by rural areas, and about the element of compulsion in the new deal. I shall touch on that later.
  In response to a question from me on 28 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who is responsible for welfare to work, pointed out that the new deal's objective is not to create more jobs; it is principally aimed at raising employability. We all know that some of the most basic and fundamental skills that people need to achieve employment are literacy and numeracy. We welcome the Government's moves so far on early years education and their announcement a few days ago on tackling under-achievement among 16 and 17 year-olds. We are confident that the education and training option under the new deal will also help 18 to 24-year-olds to improve their basic skills.
  Our concerns lie with the fact that the final group of young people who will enter the options will be those who are most difficult to help. Recent research by the Royal Statistical Society shows that most young people do not stay unemployed for long. Even before the new deal, 90 per cent. of all young people signing on for jobseeker's allowance found a job after nine to 12 months. With the intensive job search help available within the gateway period, that figure will inevitably rise.
  We support that, because it means that those young people will achieve what they want—a job. In that respect, we are confident that the gateway policy will work. However, the people who will go on from that need the most attention because they will be the least
  584
  employable, the lowest skilled and the least motivated, and they will go on to the new deal options. That must be recognised.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although young people are important, the group that needs most help consists of people who are over 40 years old, unskilled and long-term unemployed? Is it not odd to offer wage subsidies to young workers but not to older workers who most need the help? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that exacerbates the problem for older workers, because they must then compete in the job market with younger people who have a wage subsidy? Does not that encourage all the worst trends in the employment market in terms of agism?
  Mr. Keetch: I endorse some of what the hon. Gentleman says, but the Government's policy is to target the young unemployed, and this morning we are simply responding to that policy.
  I was discussing the four options that the Government propose after the gateway period. The first is the basic skills option, which many young people will take up. The second is the job subsidy option, which the Employment Service expects some 40 per cent. of young people going through the new deal to take up. Those participants are most likely to get jobs, and the participants left to go on to the voluntary sector and the environmental task force sector will be the most difficult to place. We are worried that participants in the new deal will regard the last two options—in the voluntary and the environmental task force sectors—as less attractive.
  We have few fears about the ability and will of the voluntary sector to deliver programmes that will produce high quality and value for individuals who take part. The voluntary sector does a real job, and we want the Minister to make sure that the help that the voluntary and the environmental task force sectors receive is designed to ensure that those are real options. Intensive support is needed in that area, and we hope that the Government will provide it.
  Some people who take up those options will have genuine problems. Some will have difficulty getting up in the morning, not just because they are bone idle, but because they have little or no experience of the workplace. Some will be apathetic; some will be badly motivated; some will think that working in the voluntary sector is not a real job; and some, because of the compulsion element, will be pretty disruptive. We hope that the Government understand the voluntary sector's concerns and will deal with them.
  Concerns have been raised with my colleagues and me about the problems likely to be experienced under the new deal in rural areas. Because of inaccessibility, participants in rural areas might not get as many options as unemployed people in urban areas. Rural areas will need particular attention. I come from Herefordshire, and I know the problems of accessibility and transport. We realise that the Government have set up deals with transport companies and that some partnership deliverers in the new deal have prepared excellent strategies. For example, the new deal partnership in Herefordshire recently received an A grade for its strategy, and I congratulate it on that. However, the Minister must give an assurance that unemployed people in isolated rural

  585
  areas will have the same number of high-quality options as those who live in cities. Can he assure the House that participants from those areas will have the opportunity of high-quality training?
  The aspect that most concerns Liberal Democrats about the new deal is the compulsion element, which should not be necessary. Recent studies conducted by, for example, the Children's Society show that, even given the poor number of quality schemes available under the previous Government, the vast majority of young people continued to participate in them. With a policy of compulsion, a small minority of those who will need to be forced on to a scheme will simply create a disruptive element, threatening the quality of training available to others. They will be apathetic and begrudging about the whole scheme.
  On a broader point, we are concerned that young people will always have in the back of their minds the fact that the person assigned to help them will also have the power to remove their benefits. That will damage the relationship between the adviser and the participant, and limit the potential for trust.
  Mr. Gibb: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, if a young person does not make himself available for work, he should be allowed to continue languishing on income support?
  Mr. Keetch: People do not want to languish on income support. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the vast majority of young people want to work. The experience under the previous Government showed that, when 16 and 17-year-olds had their benefit withdrawn, a significant number of those young people simply disappeared from the system. We are concerned that, if sanctions are imposed on 18 to 24-year-olds as well, it could have a similar impact, creating a status-zero group within society. That will do nothing for those individuals or for society as a whole. On a scheme such as the new deal, where individual attention is vital, the compulsion element could damage young people's perception of the programme. Young people will be encouraged to take up the programme if it offers quality, not compulsion.
  The Children's Society and other voluntary organisations share our concern on that issue. We recognise that the Government have tried to ensure that young people are offered as many options as possible; if they are to have no choice about whether they participate, they should at least be given a choice about the option that they would like.
  Many thousands of young people are on existing Government training schemes, but would rather be in full-time work. The Royal Statistical Society says that 70 per cent. of young people who leave the claimant count to enter existing Government training schemes will sign back on the dole within 12 months, because they cannot get work. That is where the broader aspect comes in.
  The new deal is meant to improve employability, but it will not create more jobs. While there are undoubtedly sectors that require additional training, the new deal will not target those high-skill places. Essentially, we are worried about the "revolving door" syndrome, to which the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) referred. Young people may enter the new deal and come out of it at the end with improved employability, but if no jobs are available, they must simply wait around for a new scheme to come along.
  586
  We are also concerned about the funding of the new deal. As Labour Members regularly remind us, we did not support the windfall tax. It is a one-off measure, and we are concerned about what will happen after this Parliament in terms of long-term training. Do the Government intend to privatise a few more industries in this Parliament, so that they can introduce more windfall tax in the next and have another new deal?
  Before the general election, the Liberal Democrats put forward a series of fully costed proposals that would have dealt with education and training for the length of this Parliament and beyond. We would have invested in people from day one. We would have guaranteed early years education to all three and four-year-olds, which would have helped thousands of lone parents, as well as being an investment in our country's future. We would have shifted the tax burden from jobs to pollution. We would have introduced a new low-income benefit and a remissible training levy.
  We have many other policies, for example, on how we would have introduced training, which I am more than happy to discuss at length if hon. Members want—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—but I do not want to detain the House. However, Liberal Democrat Members welcome the new deal as a valuable approach intended to deal with a problem that the previous Government neglected. We shall support it and encourage it as much as we can.
  11.30 am
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on his first speech in his new post. Most of the hon. Gentleman's comments were perceptive, and in this debate and beyond he will see how the Government are dealing with his points. However, his final comments rather spoilt what had been a good speech.
  I shall refer to a number of ways in which the Labour Government are already tackling continuing employment. I hope that, given those comments and others that will be made in the debate, the Liberal Democrats will give their genuine and full backing to the welfare-to-work programme, and resist the temptation to snipe at the inevitable practical difficulties.
  I welcome the welfare-to-work programme. It has special importance to my constituency; Liverpool, Riverside has the second highest unemployment rate in the country—17.8 per cent.—and a male unemployment rate of 24.2 per cent. That is nearly 6,500 people—and nearly 2,000 of them are aged between 18 and 24. Welfare to work needs to have a special impact in Liverpool, Riverside, where unemployment is a deep-seated and long-term problem.
  In that context, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his decision to designate Liverpool as one of the country's five employment zones. He recognises the special position not merely of unemployed people in general in Liverpool, but of older unemployed people. I also thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Liverpool to announce the employment zone policy, and for the subsequent decision to designate the city in that way.
  I support the welfare-to-work programme because it is a decisive and well thought out attempt to intervene in the cycle of unemployment at the individual and community level to give people individual attention, opportunities for

  587
  work and the acquisition of skills to enable them to obtain and retain work and to ensure that people who missed out on basic educational qualifications get a second chance.
  The very fact that the Government are prepared to do that and that they are working out in great detail the practical way in which to do it, to assist the individual and the community, is very important. Equally, it is important that that attempt to deal with individual needs—employability and the acquisition of skills and basic educational qualifications—is carried out in the context of a Government who are already changing priorities to ensure that public and private sector money is spent to generate employment in the economy in general and to create more opportunities.
  The redistribution of more than £5 billion from the excess profits of the privatised utilities into employment-generating projects in health, education and training and directly into employment is a significant part of the Government's policy. Liverpool will benefit by £9 million from the programme to release capital receipts. That is £9 million of employment-generating activity that will also meet social need. From the additional £2.3 billion funding for schools, Liverpool already knows that it will benefit by around £11 million—£11 million of employment-generating, construction-based activity that will again assist social and educational needs, but will also provide employment.
  More generally, the Government are about to put before the House a proposal to set up regional development agencies, which will bring together the public and private sectors, led by the business sector. That will lead to more employment and more regeneration of local economies, such as that of Liverpool and the north-west, and create and develop long-term employment.
  I welcome the welfare-to-work programme, with its attention to detail and to individuals and its designation of individual employment opportunities, but I see its real value as leading from individual attention and opportunity to employment-generating activities in the economy as a whole and in the regional economy in particular. As we help individuals, we will be creating more opportunities for long-term employment.
  The welfare-to-work programme is working across a broad range. It is working with private employers and with the voluntary and public sectors. In Liverpool, it is already working with locally based community organisations, which are already generating employment-training opportunities, such as the work being done in Vauxhall, the work of the Eldonians, the work being done in Dingle by Dingle Opportunities, the innovative Brunswick furniture resource centre and the Granby-Toxteth development trust. Those projects are already creating employment through socially beneficial work.
  I am pleased to note that, in addition to working with private employers, the welfare-to-work programme will work with community organisations to extend opportunities for employment and contribute to the social well-being of local communities.
  It is a long time since a Government took such a brave initiative. Any initiative that tackles long-term problems encounters snags. It is inevitable that, if expectations are
  588
  raised, the problems will not merely be mentioned, but highlighted. However, the Government are determined to tackle unemployment.
  The last Government to tackle unemployment in this way was the previous Labour Government and some of my first involvement in developing employment opportunities was through working with the Manpower Services Commission on the original job-creation programme under that Government. I saw some excellent work, some of which led to long-term employment and met social and community need as well as employing people and giving them skills.
  Regrettably, soon after the Conservative Government won the 1979 general election, the Manpower Services Commission was dismantled, and all that excellent work was cut asunder and destroyed. I am sorry that 18 dark, long years followed, during which the unemployment figures that we thought unacceptable in the 1970s grew higher and higher and became simply a fact of life.
  This Government do not accept that unemployment on that scale is a fact of life. That is why we are instituting the welfare-to-work programme. I am convinced that a programme that considers individual and local needs against a background of employment-generating initiatives, redistribution and the regeneration of the regional and national economies is the way forward.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his work on welfare to work. It will benefit this country and my constituents.
  11.39 am
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I crave the indulgence of the House, because I know that I cannot make a maiden speech twice, but I hope that I may follow the usual courtesies and thank my predecessors for all the work that they have done. I come from a tradition of Members of Parliament who are very involved in the constituency of Beckenham: Sir Philip Goodhart was its Member of Parliament for 35 years and he and Piers Merchant, whom I succeed, had a strong reputation for supporting their constituents. I plan to continue that tradition.
  Crystal Palace park is in Beckenham, although it is on the borders of many other London areas. Those who have visited the park will know that it is most beautiful, but sadly in need of regeneration. An application is being prepared under the new deal for intermediate labour market work to restore the park to its former glory. I look forward to the benefits from that.
  Under the previous Government's single regeneration budget, Crystal Palace, Penge and Anerley have some very imaginative proposals, one of which is to create new construction jobs through training. That is producing precisely the same effect that any new deal proposal would. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that there are many effective ways of ensuring that the young and long-term unemployed get back into the labour market.
  We must ensure, as the money is available, that it is used. The Crystal Palace project is working along those lines. I should like to make my next point to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who has probably left to go to his constituency; as a very new Member of

  589
  Parliament, I will also have to go to my constituency, so I hope that I have the leave of the House to go soon after I have spoken.
  Mr. Keetch: It is not far.
  Mrs. Lait: That is right: as it is not far, I can carry out more engagements than, perhaps, the hon. Member for Dundee, West, who may take some time to get up to Tayside.
  It is important to concentrate on ensuring that the young and the long-term unemployed get into the labour market, but we must also ensure that the economy can expand to accommodate those jobs and those people. It is of some concern to me that, although unemployment is decreasing, thanks to the policies of the previous Conservative Government, we are facing circumstances in which there could be a downturn in the economy.
  In my view, the pound will remain strong, and that has a disincentive effect on some export industries; we are beginning to see the effects of higher interest rates; and the effect of windfall income on domestic spending is coming to an end. Those three factors, taken together, are being taken account of by the retail sector, which is already preparing for a downturn that it foresees happening next summer.
  After the Christmas spending rush, we will probably find that spending is down for this year: there is already anecdotal evidence that less is being spent on leisure and in shops because people's incomes are being restrained. That will have a knock-on effect on businesses, which in the long run or—dare I say it?—even in the shorter run may not expand and take on people who want to join the labour market.
  The Government would be better advised to consider the areas in which employment is weak. The speed with which many young people get back into employment has already been mentioned. We should consider those geographical areas in which people find it especially difficult to get back into employment because there is a weak local economy.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) mentioned the problems in Liverpool, with its extremely weak local economy; other areas, despite an effective regional development policy in previous years, remain weak. Coastal areas tend to have higher unemployment than inland areas, largely because communications and infrastructure are poor there. The Government might consider recasting their regional development policy to ensure that the weaker elements in the United Kingdom are encouraged and brought up to the level of employment opportunities throughout the rest of the country.
  Although the Minister refers to the enthusiasm with which separate companies—many of them blue chip companies—have greeted the new deal, it appears from the briefing of the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry, which have surveyed their membership, that, while employers are happy to take the subsidies on offer, the broad membership of those organisations has no enthusiasm for the new deal and indeed has some concerns about it.
  Some of those concerns were outlined by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch): problems of market distortion, with companies making the wrong decisions
  590
  merely because subsidies are available; deadweight; disruption; and—I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—red tape. There is an enormous fear that a huge amount of bureaucracy may be created. We also need to ensure that the recruits are willing to work and have an aptitude for the employment on offer.
  The new deal criteria require an employer to keep on a trainee who displays the necessary aptitude. Is it the employer who decides what the necessary aptitude is?
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Of course.
  Mrs. Lait: I am most grateful for that intervention. How is aptitude defined? Is it the ability to do a job, or is it the necessary discipline on the part of the employee? Will an employer make the same decision as if the trainee had come in through a direct application and not through the programme? Will an employer be able to employ someone on the criteria that they would normally expect to apply? People have expressed concern about that. I take it from the Minister's nodding that he agrees that those are the criteria. I thank him for that.
  How will the minimum wage affect the longer-term unemployed over 25? As I understand it, employees must receive in wages at least as much as the employer's subsidy. If so, how does that interact with whatever level the minimum wage is set at? Will an employer have to pay the minimum wage to people he takes on under the new deal, despite the subsidy? It would be useful to have an assurance on that.
  Like many others, I want the long-term unemployed and young people who are unemployed to be in work, but I have considerable doubts about whether this new deal will, in the long run, keep the labour market free of distortion and allow companies to make their decisions free from the influence of subsidy. We must never revert to what happened in 1979. It was not beneficial to the British economy to have companies with over-employment, retaining workers for all the wrong reasons. We need companies with productive workers who can help to keep those companies in business.
  11.50 am
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who was making, if not a maiden speech, then a kind of comeback speech. I congratulate her on it. I spent some days in Beckenham before the by-election trying to persuade her electors to give the hon. Lady a rather different route from welfare to work—we nearly succeeded—but she has ended up here, and my congratulations are genuine.
  The hon. Lady's constituency boasts the original site of the crystal palace—the dome of its day. My constituency—here comes the link—boasts one of the finest football clubs in the world, Crystal Palace football club.
  We are here some 50 years after the post-war compact devised by Keynes and Beveridge. The latter was a great Liberal, although not great enough to make 1p on income tax stretch as far as today's Liberals can make it stretch—perhaps because he knew some arithmetic. Beveridge, Keynes and the post-war Labour Government tried to refashion the relationship between the economic and the social in a welfare state of considerable sophistication but

  591
  always based on the assumption of full employment. We, in the years and months to come, need to look again at the relationship between the worlds of work and of social policy, in different and rather more difficult circumstances than those facing the post-war reformers.
  Our inheritance is one of unemployment and economic recession. Many hon. Members have today rightly focused on the young and on the long-term unemployed, who are often men in their late forties and fifties. We need to focus rather more on that group than we sometimes have done.
  Owing to family insecurities, more and more children are being brought up in one-parent families. Typically, the head of the household is a lone mother who is not in employment. This new challenge raises difficulties to do with values. We are attempting to grapple with such problems and with disability issues and with the problems facing people with severe learning difficulties who are seeking access to the labour market.
  Not surprisingly, we are not alone in having to tackle these problems. Australia, New Zealand, the United States and many other western welfare democracies are grappling with them too. The Labour Government in Australia produced a welfare-to-work strategy in the document "Working Nation" some years ago. I have seen it in operation in New Zealand as well, and more recently—with parliamentary colleagues—in Wisconsin.
  The changes are called for because of changes in the economic, social and demographic fabric of society. We are having to think through the future of our welfare states. It may be relatively easy to apply the strategy to some groups among the young unemployed, although many of them have known too many schemes and have become disillusioned, but there is a minority on the margins of crime and drug misuse to whom it will be much more difficult to apply it. The Australian experience shows that it is sometimes necessary to adopt a one-to-one case work approach to get some of these people back into work. It is neither easy nor cheap; but it is worth doing for social as well as economic reasons.
  The number of one-parent families has been increasing steadily in societies such as ours—these trends are international. As many as 60 per cent. of this group find themselves part of it because of separation or divorce, but the most rapidly growing group are the families headed by what demographers describe as single never married mothers—they constitute one third of the group.
  Such families tend to be the most insecure; the father is less likely to be a player than in some other one-parent families. Between 70 and 85 per cent. of them depend on income support for all or most of their income. It is quite right that the Government should focus on this group, among others, when drawing up their welfare-to-work strategy. There must be a change of culture in social security and employment offices. It is no longer good enough to say that until the youngest child is 16 the mother's need will be assessed; meanwhile she is simply handed a giro and not required to work or even to be seen again. We need a more positive approach to enable this group to find work and child care and to build up the confidence necessary to do so. That is why I believe the Government's overall strategy to be right.
  No decent strategy of welfare to work, however, must be based on blind dogma of the sort that suggests that every lone mother, whatever the needs or age of her child,
  592
  has to be in employment, and that, if she is not, she is somehow a failure. We need to blend into the strategy a family perspective which focuses increasingly on the most important group of all: the children.
  We must not dodge these issues. At the moment, we say that, until the youngest child in. a one-parent family is 16, there is no requirement to work. That is patently absurd. I have not checked the history books, but I guess that the notion dates back to the 1940s, when most mothers stayed at home looking after their children. Those days, thank God, have gone, for all sorts of reasons. Women now work outside the home just as men do, to pay the mortgage, the rent and so on. For the sake of equity, we need to re-examine the respective positions of one and two-parent families.
  If anything, we need to talk more about two-parent families in some of these debates. At some stage, we should grasp the nettle and abandon the rule that says that a lone mother must stay at home until her youngest child is 16. That is daft, and, gives the wrong signals. I have seen the desperate effects on lone mothers who, when their youngest child does reach 16, suddenly find, 25 years after they were last in the labour market, that they are required to work, which terrifies them—and I can understand why. It is a silly rule. At some stage—I am not urging the Government to do it immediately; let us try the voluntary strategy—we should grasp the nettle.
  Similarly—this is the quid pro quo in terms of the social politics; I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on this one—we must not be over-harsh. The judgment about how to care for a young child up to the age of five, say—I am not sure whether it is five, six, seven or eight, but it is certainly the judgment about how to care for a baby—is best left to the family. Mother does know best, and it is not right for any Government to say otherwise.
  We saw the horror story in Wisconsin. Some good things are being done there in terms of child care, but saying to a mother, "When your child is 12 weeks old you will be required to work, and your benefit can be cut if you do not," has more to do with child cruelty than child policy. I see a Conservative Member shaking his head.
  Mr. Leigh: I am nodding. It is all right.
  Mr. Wicks: No, another one—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). The splits remain, even on this issue.
  There is a serious point here. The income support regime for lone mothers should be liberal and generous for those with children under the age of five. The benefits should be as generous as possible. I am saying not that mothers with children under five should not be in employment—many are—but that the mother, not Parliament or Government, should make the choice. That has to be the basis of sound social policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) mentioned disability issues. I want to talk more about people with learning difficulties. In my home borough of Croydon yesterday, a charity called Status Employment showed me its work with young people with severe learning difficulties—people whom the social security system categorises as not capable of working; and it has the benefit structure to match. I met one young woman, now 32, who has Down's syndrome. After she

  593
  finished school, she spent nine years of her life going to a day centre—the cost of which, incidentally, was about £54,000. She wanted a job; she knew that others had jobs.
  Status Employment, an excellent agency—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister might be able to visit it sometime—said that it would help the young woman to find a job. Its strategy is to go into the place of employment—in her case, a hotel—and, for a week or so, do the job itself. Afterwards, the young woman went in and, for a week or two, did the job with the hotel management until she had been properly trained.
  The young woman has been doing that job for about four years now. She is one of the hotel's most valued employees, and has had an award from it for her service. The only problem is the social security regime: the regulations—I understand the complexities here and am sympathetic to the problems—say that she cannot work for more than 16 hours. If she does, she comes off income support and some other benefits. Given that she lives in a residential home that costs £400 a week, hon. Members will realise the difficulties.
  I urge the Minister to say something in his winding-up speech about the needs of people with disabilities or, in that young woman's case, learning difficulties. There is good practice out there and we need to work away at the social security traps so that more people such as that woman can find the work that they want and deserve to have. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the issue, but I urge him to say something about it.
  The welfare-to-work strategy is the right strategy. We must not confuse it with a work ethic triumphalism that says that the only decent work is in the waged economy, as opposed to caring for very young children at home. We need to blend the strategy with a perspective about family policy. As I have said, as well as the obvious groups to be concerned about, we should also be concerned about those with physical disabilities and learning difficulties, many of whom are out of the job market and, as my experience showed yesterday, dearly want what we all have—a job.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: This is undoubtedly an important debate. I am sorry to see so few hon. Members on both sides the House, but particularly perhaps on the Government Benches, as this is clearly a centrepiece of their programme.
  Mr. Kirkwood: How many Friday attendances has the hon. Gentleman seen?
  Mr. Woodward: This is a centrepiece of the new Government's programme. To see barely 20 hon. Members on the Government Benches to discuss a centrepiece programme is relevant.
  Mr. Wicks: It is the secret seven on the other side.
  Mr. Woodward: We are also the effective seven.
  When I was in America a few years ago, I was incredibly impressed by the teaching of Professor Galbraith. I share with the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and others the view that unemployment is an evil in our society.
  594
  Unemployment is a terrible thing. It has happened in my family; my brothers have both recently experienced long periods of unemployment, and I know the devastating effect that it can have on individuals and their families. Nobody on either side of the House would question for one moment the importance of measures that need to be taken to alleviate the effects of unemployment. The questions are what those measures should be and whether they are relevant.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North rightly raised the question of the very different world in which we operate today from that of William Beveridge—and indeed, thinking about the idea of the new deal and welfare to work, the world of Roosevelt back in the 1930s. Listening to some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), one might think that that has not been recognised. Unemployment in this country undoubtedly rose in the earlier part of the 1990s, but the hon. Lady seems to have failed to notice that it also rose in a number of other countries as well.
  The only difference seems to be that, unlike the situation in other major European nations, unemployment has fallen considerably in the United Kingdom in the past few years under the Conservative Government. It has not fallen in the same way in France or Germany. It may be worth Labour Members showing a little humility and recognising that there was a Government before the one elected on 1 May, and that that previous Government presided over a dramatic fall in unemployment.
  There is no disagreement over the fundamental objective of the new deal, which is to do something about taking people off the unemployment register and getting them into jobs. The question is whether the measures are appropriate. There is a danger that, in the rhetorical flurry of the new Government, some realistic measures of objectivity may be lost. Since the new deal was dreamed up by the Labour party, more than half the members of its specific target group are now in employment. That did not require a new deal or a welfare to work programme; it simply required real jobs.
  One need not necessarily pay credit to a Conservative Government or an incoming Labour Government, but one should pay credit to the companies that have created the jobs that the young people now have. We spend a great deal of time criticising each other on both sides of the House and flattering each other as colleagues about what we are doing, what we intend to do and what we did not do, but the truth is that the jobs have been created by British firms for young, and older, British people. Those firms deserve the credit. When Labour Members heavily criticise the Conservative Government—I obviously disagree with their comments—they must bear it in mind that they are effectively criticising the firms that created the jobs. Those firms should be praised for that. They are the firms with whom the Government are seeking a partnership in the prosecution of their new deal.
  There are two crucial questions to be asked. First, what will the measures of the new deal do for the specific target group of 18 to 24-year-olds? The current number is 122,000—by the time that the national scheme is up and running, it will probably be fewer than 100,000. What will the new deal do to get those people into jobs that will be sustained when the period of subsidy ends? The second critical question is what the new deal will do for the other

  595
  people who occupy the registers of the long-term unemployed. What will it do to enhance their employment prospects?
  The new deal is not so new. The only thing that is really new about it is the new tax that it raised this summer—the £3.5 billion to £5 billion of funds to be used to pay for it. Like many others, at school I was taught to cite my sources. The new deal stems principally from the work being done in Australia and America. I suspect that Robert Reich deserves a little more credit in Government documents than he currently receives.
  America has had an extraordinary period of economic prosperity, with 12 million new jobs created since 1993. In their period of welfare to work and in their new deal, however, the poor in America have barely benefited from the tremendous economic benefits.
  California is often cited as a model for welfare to work programmes, and I am sure that hon. Members have learnt from many of the mistakes that have been made there. Nevertheless, it is important to prick the bubble and to remind ourselves of the reality—that California's welfare-to-work scheme has not been a great success. Recent evaluations by California's Public Policy Institute show that, in the next five years, measured poverty in California will rise from 27 per cent. to 42 per cent. Recent surveys examining the GAIN—the greater awareness to independence—programme show that, after three years, only one in four of those who participated in the programme are still in employment.
  California's programme has not been a huge success and has had huge problems. I very much hope that the Minister, as part of his consultation, will want to take on board what went wrong there. Undoubtedly the programme's aims were right, but it has not worked. We have to understand a little more about why it has not worked.
  Ms Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United States is an extremely large country, that it is generally accepted that both California and New York are quite exceptional in their conditions, and that to draw general conclusions would therefore be somewhat disingenuous?
  Mr. Woodward: The hon. Lady is right. The danger is always that, in examining models around the world, everyone will get caught up in the flurries of excitement about a model somewhere that is thought to work. Many people wanted to study the California model. I am saying that we should examine also how that scheme has evolved, and beware of extracting its first half without examining its second half.
  The worry is that current studies evaluating the California programme are revealing that it is not the success that it was originally thought to be, and that, after originally taking many people off welfare, it is creating a situation in which many people need welfare but in which the programmes have been removed. The programmes are not there when people need them.
  There is undoubtedly a need to match the new deal welfare to work programme with the Government's welfare reform programme. All hon. Members should heed the type of comments made by the chairman of the
  596
  parliamentary Labour party—who I hope will not be shown any yellow cards, called into Downing street, or even removed, like Oasis and other bands, from Downing street party lists. He made a valid point: serious welfare reform is crucial.
  To answer the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the lesson from California must be that we should beware an early flurry of excitement which allows us to dismantle measures that may protect people. Lone parents, the disabled and others whom the Government may wish to have off unemployment registers will need welfare support if those programmes go wrong, but by that time the support may not be there.
  We have been so carried away by the rhetorical flush of everything being new—the new economy, the new deal, the new responsibilities and the new everything else: Labour Members have learnt the rhetoric well—that real debate and analysis has been stopped. Education and training, for example, are now always said in the same breath. But they are different issues. There is, unquestionably, a public responsibility for education, because the state can and should provide good education. But is the state the best provider of training?
  I heard the Minister talk about partnership. Of course there should be partnership, but a great deal of the evidence to date suggests that public sector training does not endure. It perhaps offers a short-term panacea to get people off the unemployment register, but at the end of the day one has to ask whether the training that the public sector provides is the best kind of training.
  The report produced by the Select Committee on Education and Employment is tremendously interesting. That is especially so of the evidence that it contains. Having read the comments of Peter Davis at the beginning, I found it worrying that there have been fewer representations from business than the Minister might have liked. I am sure that he will do all he can to change that. As hon. Members have said, it is worrying that there have not been enough representations from the small and medium-sized enterprises which will be absolutely vital if the Government's objectives are to be met.
  Is this programme the right measure at this time? David Webster, the chief housing officer of Glasgow city council, has produced an excellent study. He went behind the rhetoric and examined many of the assumptions made about the link between unemployment and the long-term unemployed. For the benefit of the House, I shall refer to one or two of his conclusions. He points out that there is a very interesting pattern and a close correlation between rising levels of unemployment and increasing numbers of long-term unemployed. As unemployment falls, so does the number of long-term unemployed, although the fall in the latter lags behind a little.
  The survey covers the period from 1948 until the present day. It includes research that shows that, while there are regional variations, the situation is pretty much identical across the country. It also shows that, if the long-term unemployed are to be helped, unemployment itself has to be tackled and real jobs have to be created.
  There is no question but that welfare to work is a good objective, but is it the right use of £3.5 billion of public money? Is there a danger that it is a short-term measure to deal with a long-term problem? Of course we need to tackle joblessness, but perhaps there is a case for more specific targeting of the money in areas such as

  597
  Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool which have particular problems that have resulted from a changing job market. That changing job market has stemmed not from the policies of a Conservative Government but from changes in the global environment and the demand for work. Are the measures of the new deal the correct ones to tackle such problems?
  Will the new deal promote greater equality, one of the other objectives mentioned by the Government in the Select Committee's excellent report? There is undoubtedly a huge discrepancy between those who are well off and those who are not in employment, but will the new deal redress that? I think probably not.
  In his evidence to the Select Committee, Peter Robinson said:
  "I think the equity case for wanting to rebalance priorities within the overall New Deal is quite strong in that clearly the older very long-term unemployed have more difficulties in getting back into regular employment when compared with the youth group, particularly the group unemployed for between six and 12 months or six and 18 months. So, yes, I think we should be thinking about that rebalancing. It also perhaps offers an opportunity to rebalance the objectives towards other groups who are not registered unemployed: the disabled, lone parents. That is a feature of the New Deal but perhaps it is a feature that ought to be elevated to greater prominence."
  That is a very important point. Labour Members are genuinely concerned about the plight of lone parents and the disabled, because they are worried that many of the pledges that they made and endorsed behind their leader are subject to considerable questions. It is clear from The Daily Telegraph this morning that yesterday's meeting with the Secretary of State for Social Security was not a happy one. The disabled lobby could not get satisfactory answers. Only last week, there was a rebellion over lone parent benefits. Though that was a one-night wonder, it raised important questions. I find it startling for a Labour Government in their first six months in office to be seen to be deaf to the demands of lone parents and the disabled.
  Will the new deal save money? The unemployment costs on the benefit register are a fraction of the amount spent on the disabled—7 per cent. against 20 per cent. It is argued that the measures will go on to help in health and education, but I suspect that no money will be saved. The subsidies for the young people will eventually end and they will be unemployed again. They will then be back on the register and requiring welfare.
  The debate is not about kindness—hon. Members on both sides want people to be in work—but about whether the new deal measures will do more harm than good. My fear is that we are embarking on an exercise in great rhetorical flurry that will not do much for the long-term prospects of the unemployed or improve the situation in the job market.
  12.21 pm
  Mr. John Healey: I welcome this debate and the Government's strong commitment to the new deal. It holds out hope in Rotherham and the Dearne of new benefits for young and long-term unemployed people, benefits for local firms and benefits for the local economy.
  We are used to thinking about the new deal as an employment programme, but we should also think of it as part of a wider economic development programme. If we get it right, it should increase the capacity and activity in
  598
  local firms, increase the pool of local employable labour and boost regeneration efforts in Rotherham and the Dearne.
  The new deal programme could have been written with Rotherham in mind. We have more than 2,000 adults who have been unemployed for more than two years and 1,081 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for more than six months. Of the young people eligible for the new deal, nearly half have never worked. Some 47 per cent. have no educational qualifications and a further one in four have only basic qualifications up to GCSE or NVQ level 1. We have an employment problem and an employability problem—the twin targets of the new deal programme.
  I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) back in his place. He has been absent for most of the debate. People in South Yorkshire do not think as highly as he does of the previous Government's employment record. In a decade, we lost 50,000 coal and steel jobs in the county. The people of South Yorkshire would not recognise his self-congratulatory description of the previous Government's record on jobs.
  I am proud to say that Rotherham was picked as one of the Government's 12 national pathfinder areas for the new deal. We are well placed to pull together the partnerships and programmes required to deliver it. Agencies in Rotherham have a long track record of working in partnership. Indeed, we have a long track record of delivering something very close to the new deal. I am referring to the direct recruitment programme which was started in 1993; the Select Committee took both written and oral evidence on this. The programme was developed under the current manager, Jane Wheelhouse, and it is run under the wing of Rotherham Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise, with the active collaboration of the Employment Service, Rotherham council and voluntary agencies in the area.
  Direct recruitment offers help with advertising vacancies, CV sifting and shortlisting of potential interviewees, a training period of up to 16 weeks, negotiable funding for off-the-job training during the 16-week period, a training grant for continuing development after that period and, from last year, a wage subsidy for six months after that training period.
  I dwell on this example because the results of the programme point to the potential of the new deal. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) urged us to get behind the rhetoric and to offer objective measures. The large majority who have gone through the Rotherham direct recruitment programme have been long-term unemployed. Since the programme started, 1,500 people have been placed in work; that is 75 per cent. of the total in contact with the service.
  In the 12 months of the wage subsidy element, 289 people have been put into work. Of that total, 86 per cent. were still in those jobs at the end of the six-month subsidy period and, crucially, 69 per cent. were still in the same jobs six months after the subsidy finished.
  Mr. Dorrell: That was under a Tory policy.
  Mr. Healey: The programme was a local initiative and was locally developed with great imagination and innovation. It was not helped by the constraints people were working under at that time.

  599
  We have seven working days, including Christmas eve, until we launch the pathfinder area on 5 January. I pay tribute to the part that Rotherham borough council, the Rotherham Employment Service, the Rotherham Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise, voluntary agencies and local employers have played in sinking their organisational self-interests in the common interest of making the new deal programme a success.
  With regard to our plans for the local area, four innovative features of what we shall deliver in Rotherham and part of the Dearne area on 5 January are worth noting. First, we are setting up a new deal company which will contract for the overall provision, independently of the new deal programme suppliers. Secondly, we are creating independent, stand-alone, shop-front user access to the new deal company. Thirdly, we have appointed independent consultants to give an authoritative external view of every tender submitted for the new deal programme. They are assessing a quality threshold that all potential contractors will have to meet.
  Fourthly, we shall deliver employment status and a wage to all those on the voluntary sector option and the environmental task force in our area which are either directly ruin or sponsored by Rotherham borough council. Everyone in Rotherham is pleased that we are to be a pilot for the programme. I am certain that other areas will be able to learn from what we do, and that they will also learn from our mistakes.
  In relation to the national level, I will focus first on the inquiry by the Select Committee on Education and Employment into the new deal. It was our first inquiry, and we looked in particular at the new deal for young people. This is the most fully developed and heavily funded part of the new deal programme. We examined it particularly in the light of falling rates of unemployment among that target group and because there was common criticism that perhaps the Government should concentrate on other client groups instead. However, the Committee backed the need to tackle first and foremost unemployment among young people because it is such a waste.
  When a generation looks forward to a life on welfare, it is a waste of human potential and taxpayers' money. If we can intervene early to establish new work options, skills and habits, we should do so. Otherwise, we shall end up with a generation of young people who do not do jobs, but do cars, their neighbours' houses and drugs instead. There are strong labour-market arguments for targeting that group first, but there are equally strong social reasons for doing so.
  The hallmarks of the design phase of the new deal have been genuine openness and flexibility. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on that. However, I caution him that openness and flexibility must also be the hallmarks of the delivery phase. If the new deal is fixed and inflexible and is not open to continuous improvement, and if the Ministers and agencies involved are unable to review and rework the programme as it proceeds, this will become just another scheme whose great potential is strangled. I am committed absolutely to making the programme work in my area and across the country.
  Finally, let me set out five aspects of the programme with potential for early review. First, let us extend the modest funds for voluntary sector capacity building
  600
  beyond the end of March next year. When the voluntary sector sets out to develop something new, it does so slowly and scrupulously. If, in the next financial year, no funds are provided to help the voluntary sector in that respect, it will be a great waste of potential.
  Secondly, let us ensure that the chance to tender for the gateway, the voluntary sector option and the environmental task force is more than a one-off opportunity. If we do not, we risk losing innovation and the ability to respond to new needs as they emerge.
  Thirdly, let us review the per capita price for provision in the gateway. The costs and the budget were calculated at an earlier stage in the economic cycle, when the planned flow through the gateway was significantly greater. As a greater proportion of those entering the gateway are likely to require support for the full 16 weeks, the costs and complexity of needs are likely to be greater.
  Fourthly, let us make a management fee available for other agencies than the Employment Service to help deliver the job option of the new deal. Other agencies, such as training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce and local employers associations already have established contacts and membership among local employers. At present, they are being asked to get involved in this part of the new deal on the basis of good will and new deal managers have no freedom to fund the contribution that they can make.
  Fifthly, let us consider in the short term introducing a gateway element for the new deal for the older, long-term unemployed, and in the long term let us also consider establishing a continuing careers service to advise and support people throughout their working lives. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed and economically inactive people—mainly men—have a wealth of workplace experience and work habits behind them. Re-skilling may be the issue for many, but for some it is more a matter of personal adjustment and considering new options. Pamela Meadows, director of the Policy Studies Institute, appeared before the Select Committee earlier in the week. She put the case as one of needing to help a former steel worker see a future as a traffic warden rather than one on welfare payments.
  Everyone involved in the new deal has been working flat out with 5 January or 1 April in mind. I am confident that we will get off to a good start on those dates. Under the immediate pressures of delivery, however, we must not lose the vision of what the new deal programme could become. It is an opportunity that we and the long-term unemployed will not have again.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It arises from early-day motion 128, which called for a public inquiry into Westminster city council. It was tabled in the names of myself, my hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley)—all three of us are former Westminster city councillors—and a number of other Members on 17 June. On 27 June, by which time the motion had been signed by 108 hon. Members, it was suspended on sub judice grounds, pending the outcome of the appeal by Dame Shirley Porter and others against the finding of the district auditor that she been guilty of wilful misconduct.
  The early-day motion asked the House unreservedly to condemn the Conservative party under Dame Shirley Porter and her leadership in relation to

  601
  "the sale of the cemeteries for 15p, the placing of homeless families in asbestos-ridden towerblocks, and the 'homes for votes' gerrymandering of local elections"
  and to condemn
  "the failure of successive Conservative governments to take action against Westminster Council or condemn its wrongdoings".
  I have just returned this minute from the High Court, where the case was determined. For that reason, the rules of sub judice can no longer apply. I therefore ask that the early-day motion be reinstated at the earliest possible opportunity. So far, not one Conservative Member has appended their name to it.
  The High Court found that Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor Weeks lied to the court and to the district auditor and that their ulterior purpose was to alter the electorate in Westminster to affect the outcome of the 1990 city elections by gerrymandering through the sale of council homes. The appeal by Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor Weeks was dismissed and the High Court is today issuing a certificate against Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor Weeks which states that their wilful misconduct jointly and severally caused a loss to the council of £27,023,376. A certificate is today being issued to Westminster council to recover that money—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I have got the general drift of the hon. Member's point of order, and I must tell him that it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Ms Karen Buck: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate to ask for a Government statement today on the verdict in the High Court that we have just heard, which confirms the massive wrongdoing by two former leaders of Westminster city council who were engaged in gerrymandering in Westminster throughout the late 1980s?
  Will such a statement address the fact that Westminster council tax payers are £27 million worse off as a consequence and that the absolute priority must be the recovery of that £27 million for the well-being of the citizens of Westminster? One of those found guilty by the court today is still a councillor. The Conservative party has never condemned the behaviour of Westminster city councillors and must now do so on the grounds—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member has added a great deal to the original point of order. I have no knowledge of the events that have been raised, but I am sure that the Table Office and other appropriate offices in the House of Commons will ensure that the court's findings are examined and, if need be, set the usual wheels in motion.
  12.38 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Before those two points of order, which raised important and controversial issues, I was about to say that the debate had been proceeding in a positive, non-partisan and ecumenical fashion. We have had an interesting and valuable debate on a subject of extreme importance to all our constituents and to the Government as a matter of public policy.
  602
  Friday debates are usually better than those that we have during the rest of the week, because hon. Members actually listen to one another on a Friday and the debates are the better for it. I listened with interest to the speeches by the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). The House benefited from their direct experience of living in pathfinder areas, and they made valuable and important contributions.
  As a Member who is interested in the subject and as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, I am happy to respond to the Minister's earlier challenge to Opposition Members to be fully supportive of the Government's endeavours. I shall certainly ally myself and—I venture to suggest, because I think that I know my colleagues well enough—the Social Security Committee with that request and say that we shall all work positively to try to achieve the Government's objectives. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said much the same, although, as he got a wee bit excited, he started shouting, which detracted a little from the bipartisan nature of the debate.
  Debates such as this are important. I teased—from a sedentary position, which I know is not allowed—the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) when he complained that not enough hon. Members were present. I do not know how many Friday sittings he has attended, but we have a good turnout today and also a high-quality one. The hon. Gentleman made an important contribution to the debate, and I shall refer to his comments about David Webster's study shortly.
  It has always puzzled me that the House still has, in this day and age, annual and fixed debates about the individual armed forces and the defence public expenditure papers. We have set-piece debates on all sorts of traditional matters, which are historical baggage from the time when the House had a direct and important interest in them, at the expense and to the detriment of some new areas of concern that deserve regular consideration by the House. I suggest that we make today's debate an annual one. Perhaps the Minister could speak to the business managers and see whether, once a year, we could spend a day monitoring the progress of the Government's policy.
  I hope that the Government's policy will evolve—we have heard much evidence about the need for it to do so—and the hon. Member for Wentworth was right when he said that, to succeed, the policy would need to be flexible and also be implemented locally. All hon. Members will want to share their experiences of the working of the scheme in practice.
  The Government may have rushed the introduction of the scheme. I do not blame them for that, because the expectations of the incoming Government were very high. I do not wish to carp, but it is asking a lot to take the whole country into the scheme after a 10-week pilot project from 1 January to the beginning of April. The work of Bob Alexander in north Tayside has been exemplary, and the culture in the Department for Education and Employment has changed signally for the better—I pay tribute to the work that has been done. However, it is asking a lot of everyone to change so dramatically in such a relatively short time. The timetable for the scheme may be too precipitate.
  The House is deplorably bad at learning lessons and monitoring schemes. The previous Government implemented several schemes, such as the workstart

  603
  project, which did not appear to be properly evaluated. I do not know whether the present Government evaluated the previous schemes before they introduced their proposals, but those schemes did some valuable work from which lessons could have been learnt. The new scheme should last 10 or 15 years, not three or four, and it should be based on a consensus that is capable of surviving a change of Government. That is very important.
  As an Opposition spokesman rather than a member of the Labour party, I believe that the Labour Government are now in a crucial position. Expectations are high, and the state of the economy gives them valuable flexibility. They must seize the moment.
  The Labour Government are in a better position to introduce radical welfare reform and welfare-to-work schemes than the Conservatives were, because some of the decisions and some of the implementation of the schemes will be very hard to bring off. I do not seek to make a party political point, but it is true that people were highly suspicious that all that the Conservatives wanted was to save money—nothing more, nothing less.
  Social security, as a policy subject, became boring during the 18 years of Conservative government because there was no philosophy—except that perhaps the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is now the shadow Chancellor, tried at the end to get some cohesion and philosophy into the debate with his Mais lecture, which contained some interesting ideas.
  The Conservatives approached social security reform with a salami-slicing technique, taking out £100 million here and £500 million there each year for 18 years. That did nothing. It did not address the problem, or even begin to. I am pleased that the Government have grasped the nettle and seized the opportunity. I am pleased that they are doing what they are doing. In so far as I can help, I am willing to help.
  I should like to recommend a book that I took on holiday—and incidentally, I could take this opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) for my copy back. I have responded to the Minister's challenge, and I shall give him one in return. Over Christmas, will he read Nick Danziger's book, "A Journey to the Edge"? It is in the tradition of Jack London and George Orwell, and the desperate thing about it is that in some areas the problems now are the same as if not worse than when they wrote.
  I come from a rural area and do not have the experience of other hon. Members whose areas have much more difficult inner-city problems. I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), and I take my hat off to her. It must be a difficult job to act as a constituency Member in such an area, and perhaps we do not do enough to help.
  Nick Danziger's book is unbearable because it is about powerlessness and hopelessness. The Minister should read it, and so should everyone else in the House. It certainly persuaded me that something of a completely different nature needs to be tried. The Government deserve credit for introducing the policy. I think that the planets are in harmonic conjunction, and if the Minister does not grab the opportunity, it may not come again for 10 or 15 years, so it is important that we get it right.
  604
  Expectations are high. There have been programmes in the past, but the hon. Member for Croydon, North was right to say that they failed, and that people are now cynical about them. We must get the policy right this time.
  Having said all that, I now want to endorse some of the points made by the hon. Member for Witney. I, too, have read the David Webster study. He gave written evidence to the Social Security Committee's tax and benefits study, which appears in our report. David Webster conducted an interesting study in Glasgow, a place that I know because it is my native city. He asks some legitimate questions about the "withering flowers" theory propounded by Alan Budd and Richard Layard.
  According to that theory, if we leave people languishing in unemployment for long enough, they become unemployable. David Webster also expressed some doubts on the theory of replacement ratios and the idea that the benefits system was encouraging people to remain jobless. The Minister and his officials should read that work carefully.
  Long-term unemployment, although it is a lagging indicator, tracks total unemployment almost exactly. That being so, perhaps we should not concentrate exclusively on supply side questions—although I realise that we have to start there. I also understand the point of starting with the 18 to 25-year-olds. It is important to get them early and try to do something.
  None the less, we must tackle some of the other factors, too. Webster has some valuable suggestions to make in that direction. If we are to be flexible and have a system that evolves, why do we not do more pilots? Why do we not pick and mix, and try different things?
  I have travel-to-work areas in my constituency with bad problems. The town of Hawick has just seen 200 lay-offs in a declining knitwear industry. The people who have been made redundant are struggling and do not know what to do next, because 80 per cent. of the manufacturing sector employment in that town derives directly from knitwear. Moreover, the town is geographically remote and receives no regional development assistance.
  As well as the 10 or 12 pathfinder projects, we should encourage community-based local initiatives on a travel-to-work area basis throughout the country. We should be much more adventurous in how we invite people to tackle joblessness and employability issues in their areas. I agree with the right hon. Member for Charnwood that taking £3 billion and applying it to 122,000 18 to 25-year-olds is questionable. Although it is important to deal with young unemployable people, I, too, wonder whether that balance is right.
  The Government should also consider immobility in the labour market. I am worried about the impact of housing benefit, which can freeze people permanently into difficult labour market situations.
  I want the Government to consider other ways of approaching the problem. I am pleased that a start has been made and I hope that the gateway approach will develop and that we shall learn lessons from it. When we deal with the residual hard-to-employ group to which the hon. Member for Wentworth referred, it is essential to do so on a one-to-one basis, so that the scheme works. We should perhaps try giving employees, rather than employers, a top-up. There is an argument for giving prospective workers an incentive to find long-term work.

  605
  The Social Security Committee went to America and met people who are actively engaged in some of those matters, although the context was different, because America has a tight labour market and now has more people in work than it has had for the past 25 years. We do not, alas, enjoy such a context. I was struck by the fact that companies receive tax breaks for contributing to charities and community activities. Perhaps we should consider giving those blue chip companies, whose participation in welfare-to-work schemes is essential and welcome, a tax break if they put money into them. We could also encourage individuals by offering them tax breaks if they invest in welfare-to-work schemes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and the hon. Member for Dundee, West mentioned transport. In rural areas, transport is an essential part of the package, without which it will not begin to work. Some areas have no public transport, and people have no cars because they cannot afford them. The same problem arises with child care, but that was dealt with adequately earlier in the debate. Transport needs to be looked at extremely carefully if areas such as south-east Scotland are to have any meaningful chance of access to the Government's proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford mentioned sanctions. I was formerly very uneasy about sanctions, but I am beginning to change my mind. When the Social Security Committee went to Wisconsin, we were told that there must be an element of sanction in order to "call out the cheats", in American jargon. We must face the fact that people abuse the system. It is not a nice thing to say, because it is our constituents who do it. The percentage of the population involved is not huge, but people work on the black economy and it is condoned. We must try to change that culture. Therefore, sanctions may have a role to play, as long as they are not rigidly applied.
  The waiver scheme used in some of the states and counties in the United States can be used in conjunction with sanctions in a way that calls out the cheats, without causing personal catastrophe to those who are acting in good faith, but who can get caught in the rough justice to which rigidly applied sanctions will almost certainly lead. The Government have to be careful and to monitor how that works.
  Some of the Minister's colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment have been studying the United States' experience and there are lessons to be learned, although we must be careful how we translate experience there into the conditions in this country.
  This is an important debate, and I congratulate the Government on putting this policy at the heart of their political agenda. I shall do everything I can to assist the process. In return, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that it is an evolving policy, which must be flexibly applied. If there are lessons to be learned, I hope that next year, or whenever we next debate the matter, the right hon. Gentleman will say that he has learnt those lessons from hon. Members on both sides of the House. A consensus on both sides of the House is essential if the scheme is to work.
  12.55 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am particularly delighted to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and
  606
  Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). We spent a week in Wisconsin as part of the Select Committee on Social Security, and I want to use this forum to thank him for his tremendous work as Chairman and to congratulate him on that role. When we were there, we also found that we have a lot to learn when it comes to soundbites. I heard many pithy little snippets, such as "Jobs or gaol", which I remember avidly, and also "Pay or paint"—I hope that we learned not to do that.
  During the election campaign, which seems a long time ago, I knocked on doors in housing estates where we have about 90 per cent. unemployment, asking people to vote for a Labour Government. At times, the response was that politicians are all irrelevant—"What difference will it make to us whoever is in power?" I very much hope that the welfare-to-work programme will be the most glaring example of the difference that politicians can make and of the fact that a Labour Government can make a difference.
  My constituency is a little like a cake slice of Birmingham, as it takes in part of the inner city and part of the very deprived outer city—the deprivation is worse in the outer city. A quarter of the unemployed people in my constituency are under 25, and 40 per cent. of them have been unemployed for more than six months. I take issue with the argument that the young are the unemployed group whose numbers will quickly be reduced. That is certainly not the case in my constituency. Three quarters of the unemployed have been out of work for more than two years, and the vacancy to claimant ratio is 1:1.9, so every job is being chased by two people. The pattern is stuck solid and there is little change.
  What is welfare to work all about? The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) suggested that it is all about releasing money from one sector to another, and Opposition Members seem to agree. If that is what they really think, they still have not got it. They have not understood that it is part of a much wider package to deal with social exclusion. This is the start. This is a Government who look at the long term. If Opposition Members still cannot see that wider picture, let them keep travelling along this journey with us. I hope that they will learn.
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), asked how we would judge the success of the welfare-to-work programme and whether we merely look at the monthly unemployment count. There could be an increase in well-being if more people are working and fewer are unemployed, but one could argue that some people in low-paid jobs are simply choosing to take part-time jobs, so their sense of well-being is better. Those figures tell us little. The evidence that we found in America was that whole sections of the population simply withdraw from the official market and disappear from the statistics. That is one of the lessons that I hope we learned from Wisconsin: whole groups of people can fall off the edge, without it being clear what happened to them. A drop in the monthly count of those registering as unemployed may make us feel good, but it may mean that huge sections of the population have disappeared.
  Let us consider a different measure: the annual benefit count. Which benefits and which groups are we to concentrate on? Should the fact that huge sections of the population do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled be considered a success? I suggest not. That is not an especially good indicator.

  607
  Another measure that has been used in the past is of households below average income, but if we have fast economic growth, the top rate of income may increase and push up the average, so there would appear to be a huge disparity, but it gives us no indication about real poverty.
  All those measures are snapshots that do not tell us what happens to people's lives. We should remind ourselves that we are dealing with real people and with huge changes in patterns of life. If we want to assess what is happening to those people, we must consider factors such as lifetime income, the way in which they drift in and out of work, and whether we have realistic career patterns.
  In Washington, we had an interesting encounter with a Mr. Rector at the National Heritage Institute. Those of us who met him will never forget him. He claimed to be one of the architects of the Wisconsin model; it is interesting how success has many fathers. When asked what his criteria were for judging the success of welfare to work, he referred to a reduction in case load, and a reduction in the number of out-of-wedlock births; if all children were born in wedlock, all society's problems could be solved. It would be wonderful if that were so, but it is an extremely narrow interpretation, and even the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), whose concern for the family is well known, found it somewhat simplistic.
  We must be careful not to end up creating a working poor. Welfare to work is laudable, and we all want to work towards it, but in the United States we found that huge sections of the population worked full time and still could not meet their most basic costs. Simply to replace the non-working poor with the working poor is not progress. That is why I warmly welcome the introduction of the minimum wage as a base level to help us forward.
  Mr. Gibb: Does the hon. Lady have any estimates of how many jobs would be lost as a result of the minimum wage? Could she cite the Confederation of British Industry, for example, or any other authorities on that question?
  Ms Stuart: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for the Low Pay Commission to report with its suggested minimum wage figure, and we can take the debate from there.
  Opposition Members criticised the Government for concentrating on the young at this stage, but we must remember, as part of the aim of the welfare-to-work programme is the reduction of poverty, that young workers and part-time workers are most at risk from poverty in work. An Australian study on welfare to work said that having a job was necessary to escape poverty in the 1990s, but that now it was no longer sufficient to ensure that escape. Young and part-time workers went back to work, but their incomes were too low to address the basic problems.
  How should we measure the success of the welfare-to-work programme if the static measures are not sufficient? If we consider it as part of the whole social exclusion programme, we can come up with some realistic measures. If people return to work and take part as stakeholders in society, we can measure a whole range of factors that will give us a much better indicator of well-being.
  608
  Welfare to work addresses poverty and social exclusion and provides opportunities. We should consider factors such as class mortality rates. Birmingham has very low life expectancy rates. In some wards, male life expectancy is 54 years. The causes are great poverty and high unemployment. Birth weights also give us a good indication, as do suicide rates among young men. Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies will know that suicide rates among young farm workers are rising dramatically. Those are all signs of a lack of well-being.
  What about the numeracy and literacy to equip the next generation to take part in work? At a primary school in my constituency, about 60 per cent. of the children in a given age group will have moved on after one year. There is no stability; the school sees its role as providing a safe environment. It has become a pastime of many parents in the area, because they have no jobs, to seek rehousing continually. This is why we need to keep an eye on numeracy and literacy rates for the future.
  As for the long-term unemployed, I was taken aback by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who suddenly expressed tremendous concern for people over 40 who have not worked for many years. Who put them in that position, if not the previous Administration? If they were so concerned about them, why did they do nothing—
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Lady agree that we should be concerned about people over 40 who are unskilled and who have been unemployed for long periods? Does it really make sense to concentrate the new deal wage subsidies on the young unemployed, who are already finding it easier to get work than the other group, thereby disadvantaging the latter even more?
  Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with him. I am of course extremely worried about that group, but we have inherited a huge problem and we have to start somewhere. I suggest starting with the generation that has not yet been wasted. We must start by giving those people opportunities, and then move on—it is an evolving programme.
  There are no easy or cheap solutions. One universal lesson has been that this is not about saving money in the short term: it is about saving money in the long term if we can crack the problem of social exclusion. The Labour Government have a unique opportunity to bring about a change in the culture of benefits dependency. One of our most powerful tools will be the welfare-to-work programme. The pilot projects offer a tremendous opportunity from which to learn and on which to build, and I congratulate Ministers on the schemes already in place.
  Meanwhile, I plead with the Opposition to cease their petty-minded attacks. Previous measures have not worked; now we have some positive models in place from which to learn. Given time, I am confident that they will tackle social exclusion. Let us give welfare to work a chance to develop; let us learn from it.
  1.7 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I shall try not to engage in petty attacks. We have had quite a constructive debate this morning, and I hope to continue in that vein.

  609
  I believe that the new deal in the welfare-to-work programme illustrates a fundamental philosophical difference between us—which is hardly surprising. Some Labour Members may find it reassuring to see measures that reflect old-fashioned socialism, whereas some of the talk emanating from Ministers about flexibility in labour markets may not be quite so welcome to them. They prefer talk about job subsidies, and so on.
  It is important to debate the subject not just from a philosophical point of view but on the basis of evidence about the way in which labour markets work and about which practices appear to be effective and which do not. By way of a preface to my remarks, I want to recall that we have had considerably greater success than many of our European partners in areas such as tackling youth unemployment. It would be very worrying if we set off towards a more regulated, structured and dirigiste labour market of the kind that would only emulate the failures that some of our continental partners have experienced.
  We have all welcomed the goals of welfare to work. We would all like more people to work and fewer people to depend on benefits. Conservative Members have been happy to endorse specific elements of the policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) picked out the active labour market policies as welcome in some respects; however, remarks such as those from the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) about the experience in Rotherham, one of the pathfinder regions, highlight one of the new deal's flaws, which is that it takes the lessons of local experiences, some of which I agree have been good, and tries immediately—and without any great evidence that they will be positive or constructive nationally—to spread them throughout the country. That will be dangerous, because it will lead to a massive distortion of the labour market. We have not had any opportunity to test the effect of such a policy.
  The evidence that the Select Committee on Education and Employment took from the Policy Studies Institute showed that workstart had been effective with a very small subsidy concentrated over a short period. I am not sure that it is wise to extrapolate from that that a permanent subsidy at a much higher level will have correspondingly greater effects. In fact, the evidence suggested that such a long-standing subsidy at such a high level might be a waste of resources, and that it might be better to focus on the shorter term with a smaller amount.
  We have heard much about the focus on the 18-to-24 age group and whether that is appropriate—a matter that the Select Committee considered in some detail. The figures provide compelling evidence that the emphasis in the new deal is wrong. The reduction in the number of people in that group from 250,000 people when the Labour party made its pledge to 122,000 surely suggests that there should be a change of emphasis. It is important that the Government take that on board. Indeed, as I always seek to be helpful, I tried my best in the Select Committee to emphasise that we wanted to help the Government to get over their reticence about not adhering strictly to the target that Labour set two years ago. The success of our labour market and economic policies has largely obviated the need to fulfil that pledge. The focus on 18 to 24-year-olds may be wrong.
  The Government's response to the movements in the labour market has been somewhat worrying. The principal change of emphasis has not been from the young to the older unemployed. It seems that the Government are now
  610
  talking about the flow of unemployed rather than about stock. The stock simply is not there any more so they have to consider the figures for flow. If one is looking at flow, there is never any need to reallocate because, over time, one will always find sufficient people to satisfy whatever criteria one sets. It troubles me that we may never reach the point of reallocation.
  I have been pursuing the question of the new deal's objectives for some time because I do not believe that they were as well set out by the Government as they should have been. That tended to be borne out by the evidence that we took from Peter Davis, the man from the Pru. I know that work is on-going. I am somewhat troubled that, rather than resulting in a more precisely defined objective, the shift away from any objective involving a figure or a measurable acceleration in the trend rate of declining unemployment will result in a more nebulous concept of employability.
  If are trying to measure whether we are getting value for the £3.5 billion of public money that is being spent. I am concerned that it is not possible to measure employability in any meaningful sense. All the evidence that the Select Committee has taken from many well-informed sources on the subject has tended to point to that conclusion. Evidence that we took about the position in Australia also bore out the suggestion that, after the long running of a similar scheme there, there was no generally agreed measure of success or failure. The only real measure has been that Australian business has become rather disaffected with the programme, and it has therefore been discontinued.
  Such a policy, particularly the job subsidy element, will result in displacement, substitution, changed practices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, and changes in the way in which employers make their decisions. Paragraph 8 of the Select Committee report accepts that the policy would displace not only some people who are currently short-term unemployed and who would otherwise have found work fairly quickly but some people who are currently in work. That is a serious possibility on which we should reflect at length. If we are talking about the introduction of a Government policy which, whatever its arguable merits in global terms or its long-term benefits to the labour market as a whole, will put some people who are currently in low-skilled jobs out of work, depriving them and their families of their livelihoods—as we found in the Select Committee report—that is a matter of considerable concern.
  The new deal is focused principally on the marginal elements of the labour market, on those groups who have the greatest difficulty in finding employment, such as lone parents and the disabled. Increasingly, as the number of young, long-term unemployed declines, a greater emphasis is being placed on the idea that there is a mass, of whatever size, which nobody has tried to define, of the unemployable young or dysfunctional young—people who find it difficult to contemplate entry into the employment market.
  Given that some of those people have significant difficulties in entering work, one has to consider the Government's contention that there is no fifth option in the new deal and the possible effects of that. Will inability to continue claiming benefits encourage people to discover that they are not as dysfunctional as they thought, and decide that they may be able to enter the labour market? Or will it drive them on to the black economy

  611
  and off benefits into uncategorised groups such as those to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) referred? If so, I cannot help wondering whether the Government will find a new fondness for the claimant count as a way of measuring unemployment because we may find that a large number of people suddenly disappear from the employment totals. We shall watch that with interest.
  The Government are optimistic about their programme and like to claim that the business community is too. I have had a number of conversations not just with the small business sector, but with large businesses, which are concerned about the programme and do not regard it so optimistically. Understandably, they are not inclined to make a public song and dance about that. The Government must learn that people sometimes talk to Ministers differently from the way in which they talk to Opposition Members; Ministers should not be fooled by the slightly sycophantic approach of some business men when talking to them, rather than about Government policies.
  The simple, inescapable logic when it comes to the job subsidy element of the new deal has been discussed before but is central to the case: if reducing costs for employers increases employment, increasing costs will lead to unemployment. The Government have not answered that point, and I do not believe they can, as it is logically inescapable. The hon. Member for Edgbaston was right to link the policy to the minimum wage—the two are inextricably linked.
  The minimum wage is not about poverty, but is another facet of the welfare-to-work programme. But in this instance it is not about the transfer of unemployed people to work but about the transfer of £4 billion to £5 billion of benefit costs from the state to employers. It is an inescapable conclusion—I see that the hon. Member for Edgbaston is shaking her head. The minimum wage will reduce in-work benefits as income from people's employment rises, and there will be a significant claw-back for the Treasury. There will therefore be a big Government saving from the minimum wage, but that saving will be picked up by employers—there is a cost to employers.
  Ms Stuart: Surely even the simplest economics tells us that, if people in work claim family benefits, the taxpayer will pick up the bill. Is there not something very wrong in the taxpayer picking up the bill for employers who pay such poverty level wages that employees must claim benefit?
  Mr. Brady: It depends on one's policy. If the Government's policy is to reduce unemployment, they will have to accept that the costs of doing so will have to be met from somewhere. In transferring that £4 billion cost to business, the Government will make unemployment levels rise, and make it less likely that people will be in employment and more likely that they will be on benefit.
  All hon. Members would prefer it if the taxpayer did not foot the bill for benefit payments, but we cannot simply magic away that cost. In imposing a minimum wage, one is not removing the need for payments but
  612
  transferring the bill to employers. I argue—I do not think that any serious commentator has disagreed with this view—that loading those costs on to business will make businesses able to employ fewer people.
  Mr. Dorrell: Would my hon. Friend like to make an observation on the irony of the intervention by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who seemed to suggest that it was wrong for the taxpayer to support employment on relatively low wages through family credit? I do not understand how that is reconcilable with her support for the £60-a-week subsidy that is a key part of the welfare-to-work package.
  Mr. Brady: It is also at least arguable that the job subsidy will—because of the competitive effect—depress wage costs in the overall economy. Whereas transferring benefit costs to business may cost it £4 billion or £5 billion, the Government's subsidy programme will cost the taxpayer £3 billion to £4 billion. It may be no coincidence that the figures are not that different. The new deal is necessary partly to mitigate the most deleterious effects of the introduction of a minimum wage. That is why the Government have chosen to focus on marginal groups in the labour market—the long-term and young unemployed, the disabled and lone parents, all of whom will be hardest hit by the minimum wage.
  As I said, distortion of the labour market is not only an academic concern: it is central to people's lives. We talk about distorting a labour market, and it sounds distant. However, if we are distorting a labour market so that it takes away someone's job or creates a situation in which someone is less likely to get back into work—and has not yet been unemployed for as much as six months, when they can qualify for the subsidy—we are possibly having a very real and damaging effect on the living and livelihood of individuals and their families.
  The policy is old-fashioned socialist intervention in the labour market, and I do not believe that that works. From the rhetoric with which the Labour party fought the general election and some of Ministers' statements since, I had hoped that they had learnt something about how business works and how markets operate and that a flexible labour market generates more employment and higher living standards. In its current form, the policy indicates precisely the opposite: they have not learnt anything.
  1.22 pm
  Mr. Andrew Love: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his determination in holding to an ambitious timetable. It is no mean achievement to go, in less than a year, from scratch to the national launch of the main programme for the young unemployed. I also pay tribute to the unique design features of the new deal, which incorporates two strengths: first, local determination of the delivery vehicle, responding to local circumstances and the strengths of local providers and agencies; secondly—as hon. Members have already mentioned—flexibility. Ministers have left considerable scope for change and adaptation of the programme. Indeed, this Minister has shown considerable flexibility in many aspects of the programme, but the one that I would mention especially involves allowing participants the opportunity to sample the different options available before making their choice.
  vasanth

  613
  I have one caveat in respect of those two strengths: flexibility and local determination must not be achieved at the expense of quality, either of the programme itself or of the jobs and training that it delivers.
  I shall deal now with the three aspects of the programme. The first is the gateway—the advice, guidance, counselling and support service. This is unique to the new deal, and its effectiveness will be vital to its success. It must be a high-quality service that provides a comprehensive range of other specialist services covering homelessness through to drug dependency. The gateway element will indeed be a major determinant of the success or failure of welfare to work.
  The Employment Service will co-ordinate and lead the new deal programme and has responsibility for the gateway. It is widely recognised, certainly in London, that the Employment Service has an image problem—not, it must be said, all of its own making—because it is associated in the minds of many clients with its policing role in regard to the jobseeker's allowance. That perception may jeopardise its ability to deliver the gateway service. That is widely recognised, not least by the Employment Service itself, and steps have been taken to bring in outside agencies to help deliver the service. However, more needs to be done to strengthen its role in the gateway.
  Employment Service staff have little experience in delivering the intensive advice and guidance required of the gateway. A comprehensive training programme for personal advisers to help them assess the needs of the client group properly would go a long way to address that weakness. In addition, many of the services provided by gateway could and should be sub-contracted and, where sensible—as has recently happened with a number of private sector organisations—the gateway itself should be subcontracted.
  The second option is the employment option. This is likely to be the most popular, as it provides a job with an employer. We need to guard against its turning into the preferred option for all clients to the extent that other options are seen as second best. That can be assured only if the other options deliver real jobs as alternatives to the employment option.
  An impressive list of national employers is lining up to provide places on welfare to work, to join the regional assessment panels and the other bodies and, indeed, to second staff to assist. I wholeheartedly welcome this, but experience in other countries shows that, to be successful, such programmes require the support and participation of small and medium enterprises. They are critical to the programme's success. We must target small enterprises in particular with our publicity and draw them into the programme. The new deal needs their support and good will, but it must ensure their compliance with the terms of the employment agreement. That will be a difficult balancing act, but we must try to prevent abuse.
  Many small enterprises are too small to fulfil the terms of the employment agreement for the client group. That is especially true for the training element, and every effort should be made to contract this type of service on behalf of small enterprises through local consortiums.
  In recent years, there has been an enormous growth in the services for small businesses provided through business links. Presenting the new deal in this way would be a much more positive approach and would link it to the development of the individual small business.
  614
  Finally, I shall deal with evaluation and adaptation. There has been a great deal of research into job subsidy. Indeed, the debate rages—we have hear something of it this morning—around the impact of deadweight, substitution and displacement. The existence of those effects is not in doubt, but their extent is. Numerous studies have been talked about this morning. There was no unanimity in the academic opinion canvassed by the Select Committee, but the studies tend to show that deadweight is substantial. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) mentioned additionality, which the studies show can be up to 30 per cent. However, those studies covered previous job subsidy programmes. The new deal is different because of the intensive support, advice and guidance offered, and the quality of the training to NVQ standard provided as part of each option.
  Those features address some of the shortcomings of previous schemes, but it is important to adapt the programme to ensure that the subsidy is targeted and achieves the maximum benefit. That requires evaluation, but effective evaluation can be achieved only against clear objectives. Although the design document is a little vague, the Select Committee report outlines two main objectives for the programme—employability of young people and a sustainable reduction in the levels of long-term unemployment. If the programme is to be successful, we must try to measure the effects of subsidies on employability and adapt it accordingly.
  Can that be achieved? The new deal will clearly have an impact on employability. First, it will keep participants in touch with the world of work. Secondly, it should improve the clients' motivation to find and retain employment. Thirdly—and perhaps most important—the relative skill levels of the participants will be improved. The new deal task force has addressed those issues and continues to do so. There is widespread recognition that to be successful the programme must clarify its objectives and monitor its delivery. That must include an evaluation of subsequent employment patterns to measure that improved employability so that we can improve the design and targeting of the job subsidy element of the programme.
  We are only five or six days from the launch of the pathfinder and three months from the rollout of the national new deal programme. I look forward to fulfilling our manifesto objective of providing 250,000 jobs for young people and giving them new skills, enhanced motivation and, most important, hope for the future.
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Last week's vote on the abolition of lone parent premiums was more significant than we realised. More important than the Conservatives voting with the Labour Government against old Labour socialists was the size of the rebellion, with 47 Labour Members voting against the Government and at least 25 others abstaining, not to mention the many Labour Members who voted with the Government with a heavy heart and may not do so on another, similar occasion.
  The Government can no longer claim to be a radical, welfare reforming Government. They realise that they have no chance of getting through any welfare reform measures worthy of the name. We shall have no more than some tinkering with the existing system. Of course,

  615
  it will be dressed up in the usual Alastair Campbell hype, but very little significant welfare reform will emanate from the Government.
  We have many reviews: the child benefit review; the welfare-to-work task force; the tax and benefits task force; the social exclusion unit; the family policy committee; the pensions review; the long-term welfare review; the disability benefit review; the industrial injuries compensation review; the royal commission on long-term care; and, of course, the comprehensive spending review. Very little will come out of those reviews, apart from a large amount of hype, a press conference and perhaps, if the mood takes the Government, a statement to the House. Little, however, will happen in terms of policy.
  We are talking about more than just a crisis at the Department of Social Security or the Department for Education and Employment: we are talking about a crisis across the whole of this new Government. Their welfare reforms were meant to form the basis of their economic policy. The initial injection of capital from the windfall tax was meant to give rise, in due course, to savings in the welfare budget, to spending falls and, ultimately, to higher tax revenues as more people got into work, giving the Government billions of pounds to spend on education and health. None of that will happen because the welfare reforms will amount to so little.
  We can already see the problem with the tax and benefits task force. When it was established in May, the event was reported in all the newspapers. They used similar phrases, so we could see the hand of Charlie Whelan. One newspaper wrote that the panel of experts headed by the Barclays bank chief would recommend radical reform, including
  "full scale merger of the tax and benefit system."
  Another newspaper used a similar phrase, referring to
  "integration of the tax and benefit system."
  The reality, which we began to see in evidence from Department of Social Security officials to the Social Security Committee, in the green Budget and in the publication of the first report from the Taylor review, is that the change amounts merely to streamlining and modernisation of the tax and benefits systems. The only four issues being discussed are a working family tax credit, some tinkering with the level of national insurance contributions at the lower end of the income scale, a 10p rate of income tax as the lowest rate and a tinkering with benefit withdrawal tapers. That does not sound like the full-scale integration of tax and benefits.
  Let us consider the working family tax credit. It is nothing more than family credit, which was highly successful and was introduced by the previous Government. The only difference is that it will be paid to the income earner rather than to the spouse who looks after the family.
  Some of us on the Social Security Committee suspect that the change is likely to result in an accounting benefit for the Government. Family credit is clearly public expenditure, but the working family tax credit, to the extent that it results in the income earner being relieved of tax instead of having the relief paid to the family, will result in the benefit being accounted for as tax forgone rather than as public expenditure. Approximately two
  616
  thirds of all recipients of family credit pay income tax. With family credit costing about £2 billion a year, there could be a significant shift in the way in which public expenditure is accounted for. In other words, the policy is pure window dressing and no substance.
  The essence of welfare-to-work programmes is to get people into work. In those terms, the previous Conservative Government had the most successful welfare-to-work programme ever. For at least four consecutive years, unemployment fell month in, month out. Unemployment is now at 5.2 per cent., which is lower than the rate in our major competitor countries in Europe. In Germany and France, the figure is 12 per cent. and in Spain, youth unemployment is a staggering 40 per cent.
  This Government have inherited a golden legacy, with steady growth, low inflation and falling unemployment. If the new Labour Government had continued with the same economic policies, the golden legacy would have continued undamaged. That is what the public believed would happen when they voted for Labour on 1 May.
  Mr. Keetch: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some Liberal Democrat Members have criticised the Government for maintaining the economic performance of the previous Administration and for keeping within their financial limits? In many ways, this Government are continuing with the policies followed by the previous Government.
  Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In some ways, he is right. The Government have stuck to the spending plans of the previous Government, but they have also undone many of their economic policies. Since 1 May, there have been five interest rate rises and an emergency Budget raising £5 billion a year from the nation's pension fund. That will have to be paid for by higher contributions that, for the average person, will amount to about £20 a month. That Budget also raised £5.2 billion from the windfall tax and in November a further £2 billion was extracted from the corporate sector as a result of the abolition of advance corporation tax and the introduction of quarterly corporation tax payments.
  As a result of that and the high level of sterling, it is clear that the economy will slow down next year to such an extent that unemployment is likely to rise. Indeed, in his pre-Budget reports the Chancellor has acknowledged that there will be a slowdown in the economy. It really is a scandal. If only the Government had continued with the same economic policies, unemployment would have continued to fall and welfare to work really would have been the order of the day.
  It is in some ways ironic, if it were not so tragic, that the windfall tax, which will raise £5.2 billion—the first instalment having been paid at the beginning of this month—will eventually be spent on welfare-to-work projects. The very act of raising the money by imposing the new tax will contribute to the contraction in the economy instigated by the Government, and that contraction will lead to higher unemployment. The policy designed to reduce unemployment will actually contribute to it.
  One of the most successful welfare reform measures introduced by the previous Conservative Government was the jobseeker' s allowance. In addition to a successfully

  617
  managed economy, the jobseeker's allowance contributed significantly to falling unemployment throughout the country month in, month out, for the past four years.
  The jobseeker's allowance—which was opposed at every step by Labour in opposition, but is not now to be scrapped by Labour in government—involves contracts between the Employment Service and those claiming the benefit to ensure that effective steps are taken to obtain a job. It works because, as well as providing advice and help in finding a job, at the end of the day there is an element of compulsion.
  With the Government's new welfare-to-work programme, it is difficult to ascertain precisely what sanctions will be applied to those who, in the Prime Minister's words, decide to go for the fifth option.
  In respect of the new deal, there is a clear division in the Department of Social Security ministerial team about how much compulsion should be applied. The Secretary of State said on the BBC's "Question Time" on 2 October this year that compulsion was absolutely not the issue, but the Minister for Welfare Reform, in an article entitled "Reinventing Welfare: a Response to Lawrence Mead's paper 'From Welfare to Work: Lessons from America— said:
  "Mead criticises voluntary approaches for assuming the poor are all primed to work and only need a better chance."
  The Minister agreed with that, saying:
  "Here he is surely right. Policy makers need to recognise that the unemployed are not dashing around all the time in a frantic search for a job."
  The Secretary of State does not want compulsion, whereas the Minister for Welfare Reform does. Who is right? Perhaps the Minister could intervene in the dispute between his colleagues at the Department.
  A further paradox in the Government's welfare-to-work policy is the introduction of the minimum wage. Professor Baine has been quoted in The Times as saying, in what I consider a very callous phrase:
  "I would be surprised if there were not some job losses but the question is whether those jobs would be better lost anyway."
  Perhaps his tone would be different if the job in question were his own.
  The Department of Trade and Industry has calculated that a minimum wage of £4.15 an hour, with an assumption of a 50 per cent. restoration of wage differentials, would destroy more than 1 million jobs. The Confederation of British Industry, which I was hoping the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) would mention, has said that a minimum wage of £3.20 an hour would lead to significant job losses.
  The question whether the minimum wage will be applied to the groups of people who are the subject of the welfare-to-work programme also arises. Will it apply to lone parents who are seeking a job for the first time, to young long-term unemployed people and to disabled people? If so, who will pay those wages? The £60 a week subsidy is a drop in the ocean compared with the weekly wage bill of someone who earns £4 an hour. The insanity of a minimum wage policy, combined with the damage that will be caused by signing the social chapter and all the economic problems that measures taken by the Government since 1 May have caused, means that, far from there being a welfare-to-work policy, the Government have created a work-to-welfare policy.
  618
  Even aside from all those issues, there is no evidence that welfare-to-work schemes work. The Economist said in March:
  "Labour isn't thinking …Labour is underestimating the difficulties. Its plan to fund the job creation scheme with a one off windfall tax on the privatised utilities, even though the costs of any such scheme will be recurring, not one off … Most of those helped by workfare will be given low paid jobs; these will have to be supported by in-work benefits, a continuing cost to the taxpayer. Welfare to work is not a cheap idea and it will not necessarily reduce the overall employment count."
  Welfare to work will certainly not result in savings of billions of pounds—as the Government claim and which they have earmarked for spending on health and education.
  Indeed, research conducted by National Research Associates in 1995 on 17 wage subsidy schemes from 10 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed that at least half the subsidy went on people who would have found a job anyway. The most likely effect of such schemes is an incentive to employers not to take on the school leavers they would normally have taken on and instead to take on a young employed person with a £60 a week subsidy.
  The Employment Policy Institute paper, "Employment Subsidies and the Intermediate Labour Market" poured scorn on the proposals. It said:
  "If take-up of the recruitment subsidy element of the New Deal does proves to be low"—
  which it may be in places such as those represented by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)—
  "relatively more emphasis will have to be placed on environmental and voluntary sector programme options",
  particularly in "depressed localities".
  "This possibility raises concern about the overall effectiveness of the New Deal given that community jobs programmes, whatever their broader merits, do little to improve the long-run unemployability of participants. The European Commission …concludes that studies indicate that community jobs schemes may have undesirable consequences for the future career prospects of participants. Such schemes risk diverting participants on to 'side tracks' which sometimes turn out to be dead-ends, and make it difficult for them to return to regular employment."
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points which I could not let pass. One was about the overall costs of the scheme. Does he know of the pilot of all pilots that is being conducted by Nortel in north London? It has embarked on the scheme, ahead of anything, by investing £200,000 to train young men and women between the ages of 18 and 24 and provide for day release. If they are successful, they are then put on the company's modern apprenticeship schemes. One of our strongest leading companies in the country thinks that it worth spending almost a quarter of a million pounds on such a scheme. If that is not recognising the value of investment, I do not know what is.
  The other point is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. What the hon. Member said will be sufficient for the time being.
  Mr. Gibb: That £200,000 is not the billions of pounds that we were promised before and during the election

  619
  campaign would arise from the great panacea of the welfare-to-work scheme. We were told that that money would be pumped into education. That was the basis of the Government's economic policy and election strategy.
  The level of unemployment in an economy is directly linked to the level of activity in the economy. The jobseeker's allowance sought to ensure that people available for work were genuinely looking for work. When that was coupled with a successful economic policy, unemployment rolls tumbled. Indeed, David Webster's report, which has been mentioned several times today, showed a direct correlation between the number of long-term unemployed and the overall unemployment level. If he is right—many hon. Members have implied that he is—subsidising the long-term unemployed is an ineffective policy.
  There we have it: the whole basis of the Government's economic policy—of their claim that they could pump billions of pounds of extra money into education and health without raising extra taxes—is found to be flawed. The basis of Labour's policy is
  "We will reduce spending on the costs of unemployment and increase it on education."
  None of the measures so far proposed under the title of welfare to work will result in the saving of one penny of taxpayers' money.
  Instead, when we take into account the ludicrous policies for a minimum wage and the adoption of the social chapter, the five interest rate rises, the £10 billion of tax rises in the contractionary Budget in July and the £2 billion extra corporation tax a year announced in November, we see that the economy will slow down and unemployment will soon follow.
  On top of that slowing down, it became clear after last Wednesday's vote that the Government will no longer be able to get any of their radical welfare reform measures through their party. That vote signalled the beginning of the end of the current Secretary of State for Social Security, but it also signalled the end of any measure that the Minister for Welfare Reform might propose. It signalled the end of thinking the unthinkable; it signalled the end of tough sanctions; it signalled the end of being able to save billions of pounds from the social security budget to pump into education and health; it signalled a huge dent in the Government's public spending strategy; and it signalled the complete chaos in the Government on welfare reform.
  That vote also exposed the fundamental flaw in all the rhetoric of Labour in opposition about shifting resources from the welfare budget to education and health. The policy is beginning to unravel, including the clever-clever tax on pension funds that the Government thought nobody would notice—but which people have noticed—and the disastrous policy on savings that the Government thought people would swallow, but have not. We have seen the nanny state bossiness over beef on the bone and now we see that new Labour cannot deliver on the most fundamental aspect of its social and economic policy.
  1.51 pm
  Mr. Roger Casale: I am grateful for the opportunity to report to the House on the excellent progress that has been made in preparing to implement
  620
  the new deal for the young unemployed in south-west London. I also wish to share with the House some of the insights that I have gained from directly participating in and assisting with those preparations in my constituency of Wimbledon in the London borough of Merton. I feel that I have been able to act as an ambassador for the new deal.
  The three major parties are represented in the constituencies covered by the local Employment Service district, and all the local Members of Parliament, from whichever party, have played a role in helping with the new deal. Indeed, the Employment Service district report stated:
  "Local MPs …have agreed to use their existing employer networks to spread the word about New Deal through organisations such as the Merton and Kingston Chambers of Commerce and the Sutton Business Federation."
  I welcome and applaud the involvement of all my parliamentary colleagues in the area in advocating and promoting the new deal.
  I also wish to draw attention, as other hon. Members have done, to the central importance of the new deal in the context of welfare reform. The new deal is the most exciting of all the new projects introduced by the new Government and is the touchstone by which all our achievements in this Parliament will be judged and the foundation on which the rest of our proposals will stand or fail. That is because the Government are committed to reducing the benefit bill, but as a Labour Government they recognise that that can be done only by helping those who can work, and want to work, off welfare and into work.
  I said that I would report on the progress of the new deal in south-west London. On 14 November the delivery plan for our new deal was presented by Colin Purtill, the director of the local Employment Service, to the regional panel. I am delighted to say that it was one of the few to receive category A approval—a rating that testifies to the desire of all concerned to make the plan work, and to the fact that the Employment Service can design local provision of real quality based on a flexible planning partnership approach tailored flexibly to local needs.
  The key elements of the local delivery plan in south-west London include the following. First, there is a flexible approach to the design of the gateway, based on five focal points in Mitcham, Wimbledon, Sutton, Kingston and Epsom, with the use of independent advisers as well as Employment Service staff.
  The Employment Service recognises, as I do and as the Government do, that young people out of work have a multiplicity of needs. They are often without a home, and may also lack skills. That is why we need to draw on the expertise and advice of many outside the Employment Service in the design of the gateway. That is the approach that we are taking in south-west London.
  Secondly, we are establishing a management consortium that includes, among others, the local training and enterprise council AZTEC, SOLOTEC—a local voluntary sector consortium—and the local authorities. The fact that it also includes employer representatives and other partners not intending to act as providers has been a key element in getting us category A approval. Such a consortium is seen as the best way of capturing local expertise and making sure that the voluntary sector in particular and the social economy in general plays a leading role in making the new deal work locally.

  621
  The final aspect of our delivery plan that I shall highlight is the clear commitment to quality assurance, to the monitoring of progress and evaluation, and in particular to equal opportunities. That means that the new deal in south-west London will not simply cream off the best among the young unemployed; underlying it will be the principles of fairness, of equal opportunity, and of opening up access to all.
  Commenting on the local delivery plan, Ian Parkes, the managing director of AZTEC, said:
  "Getting ready for the New Deal in South West London has gone very well—we are well prepared—only perhaps a little frustrated that we have to wait till April to get started".
  Colin Purtill of the local Employment Service told me that many employers had responded enthusiastically to the new deal, and would even take on young people without subsidies. He asked me to raise with the Minister during the debate the idea of getting this message across more strongly so that more employers might take on young people under the new deal without subsidies. That would allow resources to be directed at those with really difficult needs.
  I take this opportunity to congratulate publicly all who have contributed to the successful design of our local delivery plan. More than 100 organisations, with their expertise and enthusiasm, made the consultation process so successful, and I know that they are as committed as I am to making the implementation of our delivery plan an equal success.
  The Minister knows of our commitment in south-west London to making the new deal work for our community. Indeed, he recently visited a small business in my constituency to emphasise, with the parliamentary spokesperson for the Federation of Small Businesses, the importance and value of employment in small businesses to the overall success of the new deal strategy.
  The Minister will be aware of the view voiced strongly in south-west London during the consultation process that, if the new deal is to work anywhere, it must work there. London has 15 per cent. of the total number of young unemployed people; 50 per cent. of those are black or from other ethnic communities, and 50 per cent. have no qualification higher than NVQ level 1.
  The commitment and self-confidence that I have found in south-west London to helping the Government implement the new deal was driven home to me forcibly during the consultation process. I had the privilege of chairing one of the key meetings during the consultation phase, which took place at the YMCA and drew on that organisation's considerable experience of foyer projects in Wimbledon.
  That meeting brought together more than 40 organisations, including representatives of statutory and voluntary bodies, housing associations, further education colleges, local employers, trade unions and local churches. They all said with one voice that the new deal was an opportunity to focus the local community's considerable resources and energy on a common purpose, and an opportunity to build on existing local partnerships such as the Wandle valley partnership for the benefit of the community as a whole.
  The director of the Merton Voluntary Services Council, Ms Chris Frost, said that the consultation process had been excellent,
  622
  "building on well-established local networks and long experience of good co-operation between statutory and voluntary bodies."
  The industrial chaplain in Merton, Andrew Wakefield, said:
  "Despite the tight time constraints, a genuine process of consultation took place, for the first time in a long time."
  In his closing remarks, the chief executive of the YMCA, Stuart Page, said:
  "Look around at the resources represented by those present at this seminar today. There are more than enough means to solve the problems suffered by the young unemployed in this district."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, if we look around this Chamber we see that each of us has a role to play and a responsibility to make the new deal work.
  The new deal is not a half-hearted stab at paying lip service to the Government's duty to ensure that the young have life opportunities; it is a thorough strategy for social regeneration and national renewal, which puts young people's needs to the fore.
  Mr. Heald: Some 250,000 people over the age of 25 are registered as long-term unemployed—out of work for more than two years—but only some 100,000 people under the age of 25 are unemployed. Can it be right to spend £3.1 billion on the 100,000 and £350 million—a tenth of that—on the 250,000? The emphasis in the new deal structure is wrong.
  Mr. Casale: Had the hon. Gentleman been here earlier in the debate he would know that that point has been raised a number of times and has been adequately dealt with.
  The Government's pledge to create 250,000 jobs for the young unemployed is at the core of our project for national and social renewal. If the new deal is successful, it will be the greatest living monument to the new Government, and we shall share the credit with hon. Members on both sides of the House who contribute to its success in their local communities.
  In reconnecting young people with work, we shall reconnect them with a society from which they have become disaffected because it seemed not to care. The dynamic gains to be made from the new deal can and must be reinvested to tackle unemployment among other groups, particularly the long-term unemployed and people with learning difficulties and physical disabilities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said. We must put those resources at the heart of the on-going process of social regeneration and our commitment to national renewal.
  I am delighted to have had an opportunity to report on the progress that has been made in south-west London, and I commend the report to the House.
  2.2 pm
  Mr. John Randall: Welfare to work has been highlighted as a central part of the Government's programme. It builds on the series of employment and training programmes introduced over the past 25 years to ameliorate some of the effects of unemployment. The main goal of the Government's proposal is to take 250,000 people defined as long-term unemployed off the

  623
  dole queue. That job has been made much easier as a result of the continuing fall in unemployment which the Government inherited from their predecessor.
  The Conservative party shares the ambition of reducing unemployment. The continuing growth in new jobs reminds us that the main source of job creation is a successful economy. That will always be the case, but it does not mean that there are not specific problems associated with long-term unemployment which must be dealt with by other means.
  As for the details of the Government scheme, no matter how important the objective it does not free us from critically analysing what is proposed. We share the desire to reduce unemployment, but as the Opposition it is our responsibility to highlight potential difficulties, while acknowledging the strengths of the scheme.
  Unemployment is bad for the people who experience it and bad for the economy. It demoralises the individual and places strain on their families. It leads to de-skilling and a lowering of personal motivation. The longer people are unemployed, the more their skills deteriorate. They become increasingly ineffective in their search for new work, and employers become more unlikely to take them on to the payroll.
  The exclusion of the long-term unemployed from the economy is not only a waste of human talent; it is economically damaging. If a large number of potential workers are excluded from participation in the labour market, it can lead to increasing skills shortages. There is a risk of generating a vicious circle of rising inflation and rising unemployment, which leads to reduced Government revenue and pushes up social security spending.
  That unemployment is a bad thing and successful job creation a good thing is self-evident. The question is how best the latter can be done and how effective schemes such as the one proposed by the Government will be in reducing long-term unemployment.
  There has been something of a sea change in that area in recent years, not least on the Labour Benches. There has been a steady but gradual shift in the welfare-to-work debate. It is now widely recognised that the Government are under an obligation to the taxpayer as well as to the unemployed. It is no longer acceptable or desirable from any perspective or point of view to allow the unemployed simply to accept financial support from the state without taking on reciprocal responsibilities in return. It is in the interests of both the unemployed and those in work to minimise unemployment.
  When the Beveridge system was first designed, it was assumed that after a certain period payments would be conditional on the recipient accepting work or training. That original aspiration was never put into practice. The debate has rightly returned to that point of reference. In employment terms, the world has changed beyond recognition from the days of Beveridge. Global economic and technological change has resulted in unemployment levels that were not envisaged at the time of his report. Now, people may have to change jobs several times in a lifetime. That changing pattern of employment poses new challenges and creates new problems.
  One of the problems of having high levels of unemployment, particularly of the long-term sort, is the strain that it places on other finances. The average cost of
  624
  an unemployed person claiming benefit works out at roughly £3,900 per annum, which amounts to a total of £7.16 billion or 10 per cent. of the social security budget. In addition, the Government lose on average £6,000 in unpaid taxes and national insurance, so the total cost to the Exchequer is in excess of £9,000 per unemployed individual—10 per cent. of the social security budget, as I said.
  Therefore, the Exchequer impact of high unemployment is considerable, although an accurate assessment of the respective costs and savings is dependent on the unemployed group that are returned to work. The average payment to the under-25s is around 70 per cent. of the average for all unemployed claimants. That means that savings for that group would be nearer £750 million, compared with the £1 billion for the over-25s.
  The problems associated with the job subsidy element of the proposed welfare-to-work scheme are not unique to this scheme. They are difficulties that have been identified by a host of countries that have adopted similar initiatives. Wage subsidies form a key part of the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and for those who are unemployed for more than two years. The rationale behind the subsidy is that it is financed by transferring part of the benefit cost to a prospective employer. That way the new employee earns more than the dole, while the employer cuts his or her costs. Meanwhile, the Exchequer is no worse off, because it would have paid out that money anyway.
  As we witness the continuing fall in unemployment, the problem of those who would find jobs regardless of such schemes is clearly illustrated. That makes it difficult to measure the true value of such initiatives. A proportion of those who benefit from the subsidy would have returned to employment in any case.
  An evaluation of 17 wage subsidy schemes in 10 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries estimated that that applied to 50 per cent. of the jobs covered by the schemes. That must be put into perspective. The report was produced at the same time that the British workstart scheme was piloted by the previous Government. Workstart offered employers subsidies of £60 a week for six months to take on people who had been unemployed for more than two years. A report on the scheme by the Institute of Employment Studies found that it met its main aim of influencing employers' selection decisions in favour of the long-term unemployed.
  I know that the Government carefully considered many of the flaws in the schemes when they prepared the new deal. The commitment to one day a week's training, combined with employer contracts, may deter the more cynical, who are simply interested in attracting a subsidy. That, alongside the co-operation of training and enterprise councils in tailoring the training to the specific needs of the local labour market, is vital. I know from speaking to people at my local TEC that that is important if they are to deliver their side of the bargain.
  The OECD report suggests that the targeting of subsidies can make them more effective in combination with training, as proposed in the new deal. The longer-term effect of such schemes is felt in putting the unemployed back in touch with the world of work. It may well be that, even if the subsidised element is not strictly efficient in creating longer-term opportunities, it will help to re-motivate the unemployed.

  625
  Another problem is of people being substituted through schemes. I know that the Government are committed to monitoring the position. Employers do not sack people to replace them with those from the scheme, but the problem comes from the employer who would have replaced an employee in the normal way, who then recruits someone from the scheme. That will be difficult to assess in practice.
  There are many international examples of workfare programmes. The overall value of the scheme will be established only in practice. I wish it well, and hope that any deficiencies that may materialise can be ironed out, for the benefit of those most in need. Only time will tell whether this large sum is being well spent.
  2.11 pm
  Yvette Cooper: We have had an extremely good debate on the Government's welfare-to-work proposals. Hon. Members of all parties have been constructive and positive, with the exception of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb); I am amazed that he could keep a straight face, because the weirdest economic logic was involved in arguing that we do not need a welfare-to-work programme and a new deal because the previous Government's macro-economic strategy would have solved all the problems and brought unemployment down. That is complete nonsense. I pick up on it because it takes to extremes an argument based on a misconception shared by many Conservative Members.
  The argument is that unemployment is falling because of the previous Government's macro-economic strategy, and that, if we carried on cutting interest rates, it would fall further and we would not have a problem. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that we should continue the policy from before the general election, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor, did not put up interest rates, despite the fact that the economy was growing.
  Mr. Gibb: My right hon. and learned Friend may not have put them up at that time, but he had put them up; he did not cut interest rates for the whole period. To say that our economic policy was based solely on cutting interest rates is a travesty of the truth. The previous Government conducted a sensible economic, monetary and fiscal policy. Since 1 May, we have had an over-zealous monetary policy and huge tax rises.
  Yvette Cooper: That so-called sensible macro-economic, monetary and fiscal policy caused the two deepest recessions since the war and put millions of people into unemployment—more than at any other time. The claim that Conservative macro-economic management is good for jobs will seem a bit rich to people in Pontefract and Castleford who were pushed out of work in the 1990s recession and had very little help from the previous Government to get back into work.
  The problems of unemployment are not just to do with macro-economic management, bad though the previous Government's management was. The people struggling to find jobs in my constituency are clear evidence of the huge need for a new deal, especially for the young unemployed—despite the decline in youth unemployment.
  626
  In Wakefield district, we did a survey of 18 to 25-year-olds who have been out of work for more than six months—the people who will be targeted by the new deal—and found that 48 per cent. of them had no educational or vocational qualifications at all. That is shocking; it is much worse than the national average, which is about 25 per cent. It points up the problem with our skills base. Long-term unemployment is concentrated among the unskilled, right across the country. That cannot be solved purely by macro-economic management. We need to examine the particular needs and problems of the people who are out of work.
  The demand for high skills has risen in recent years, but this country's skills supply has not kept up with it. In countries where the supply of skilled labour has kept up, the relative position of the unskilled has not deteriorated; whereas in Britain, because the former Government failed to encourage the growth of skills in line with demand for them, skills shortages developed and the wages of those with qualifications kept rising, while the living standards, pay and chances of finding a job of those denied qualifications continued to fall. Hence the need for a new deal.
  The problem continues from one generation to another. Twenty per cent. of the sons of the unemployed are unemployed themselves and 67 per cent. of the daughters of women with degrees will take degrees themselves, but only 8 per cent. of the daughters of women with no qualifications will go on to get degrees. From one generation to another, the same disadvantages are being passed down. We must put a stop to that. It explains why we are starting with young people and the young unemployed.
  I take the serious point of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the problems of unemployment among the over-40s and over-50s. The people of Pontefract and Castleford, however, would find his party's concern slightly more plausible if, during the heavy industrial transition of the 1980s, more had been done to help older workers into new jobs when their former jobs in mining and the heavy industries were destroyed. We need to tackle generational injustice, in other words, not just the lack of employment opportunities.
  Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Lady accept that there will come a point when youth unemployment has fallen to a certain level, whereupon the programme should be refocused? If so, what would that level be?
  Yvette Cooper: As we bring down youth unemployment, it will be right to help other groups if the resources are then available. Other groups will need different kinds of help, so a new deal for the over-50s would be differently shaped. We must not, however, be complacent or suppose that, because we have got youth unemployment down, we have solved the problem. The group of people who will be left among the unemployed young will be the most difficult to help. The fact that so many people in my area are entirely without qualifications is very worrying.
  We talked to those people in focus groups about what they wanted, and they said that they just wanted jobs—they did not want education and training. That shows the need to change attitudes, to help those people to see that education and training will help their long-term prospects, not just their immediate chances of earning.

  627
  Conservative Members asked whether supporting a job subsidy was incompatible with arguing that the reason for introducing a minimum wage is to get rid of unfocused employment subsidies through family credit. There is a big difference between top-up benefits and the minimum wage. With top-up payments, in effect, we subsidise the worst employers, allowing them to keep on cutting wages to £3, £2.50, £2 and £1.50 an hour; they know that the state will just top it up. That subsidy could go on indefinitely. It is unfocused and it does not target the people we want to help.
  If we have a minimum wage, we stop subsidising bad employers and such exploitation, and we positively subsidise the group of people whom we want to help. Conservative Members mentioned that effective subsidies are those that are targeted. We target the subsidy. We know exactly how much it costs and we focus it on the people whom we want to help to get jobs, who we know would not get them otherwise.
  This has been a positive debate. I welcome other hon. Members' contributions on the new deal in their constituencies. In my constituency, too, a strong partnership has developed. People there believe strongly in opportunities for young people, for lone parents and for the long-term unemployed. I hope that we shall be able to focus in particular on the education and training element in the new deal, because that is the most powerful way in which to tackle long-term inequality, long-term unfairness and long-term unemployment.
  I congratulate the many members of my local Employment Service who have been putting together the positive new deal. A commentator said two days ago that there was a danger that the Government would make welfare to work the cornerstone of their programme for the next five years. Frankly, I hope that it is the cornerstone, because the programme is the most important thing that we could introduce.
  2.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate, which has been interesting and well informed. In the nine minutes remaining, I shall do my best to do justice to the high calibre of the contributions.
  I think that everyone has recognised that, when we address welfare to work, we confront an enormous challenge of tremendous significance for the future of our whole society. Our welfare-to-work policy tackles social exclusion and aims to ensure that we bring employment, training and benefits to people in the right way, so that they have the standard and quality of life that we want in a civilised society, and so that they can contribute as full members of that society, which is obviously good both for them and for the character of the whole community.
  I should like to pick up on a point raised by several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love), and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). They called for flexibility and asked the Government to learn from the experience of the programme as it develops. I pledge that the Government will do just that. We shall listen to hon.
  628
  Members on both sides of the House, just as we shall listen to people from all parts of the community, because it is important that we get this right. We need to draw on the wealth of experience, innovation and ideas, to change the way in which welfare works for good, and to change it for the better.
  An important feature of the new deal is the decentralisation that we have introduced, drawing in ideas from local partnerships. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) could not be more wrong in claiming that we were somehow picking examples from here and there and banging them down indiscriminately throughout the country. I appreciated his contorted effort to portray the new deal as centralist and as showing the dead hand of old-style socialism. I could not recognise the description and, judging by the faces of his hon. Friends, I do not think that they could, either. The welfare-to-work programme is innovative and flexible. It draws on the strengths of each local community in responding to the particular needs of each local community.
  I shall address as many as I can of the issues and questions that have been raised, including those raised by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). The priority that has been given to the young unemployed has been questioned. Like so many of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) and for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others—I make no apology for the priority that we are giving to the needs of the young unemployed.
  Anyone who knows the situation in the inner cities, on the estates and in pockets of deprivation in suburban and rural areas, knows that record youth unemployment under the previous Government blighted the lives of millions, inflicted incalculable damage on the fabric of society and saw an explosion of drug abuse and crime. Anyone who knows those areas is aware that something has to be done to ensure that nothing like it happens again.
  As for there being "only" 120,000 young unemployed people now, that means that 120,000 young people face drifting on, month after month, towards long-term unemployment.
  Mr. Dorrell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I am sorry, but I have so much to cover in a short time that I cannot give way.
  For each one of those young people, his or her unemployment is 100 per cent. For every month that goes by, there are another 15,000 people passing the threshold of six months' unemployment. Surely it is right that we take every action we can to enhance their employability, to provide them with work experience and to equip them with skills so that they can get, and stay in, jobs.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way.
  The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the long-term young unemployed face a lifetime of unemployment. I agree that dealing with the problem is an important priority, but we must deal with facts, not illusions. Does he accept that, in his evidence to the Select Committee, Jon Stern said:
  "The probability that someone aged under 25 and unemployed over 6 months in April 1996 would have left unemployment by April 1997 was 82 per cent."?

  629
  It is simply not true to say that, once past the six-month barrier, those people face a lifetime of unemployment. Within one year, they have an 82 per cent. chance of employment. Let us deal with facts—that is not to belittle the problem.
  Mr. Smith: I want to deal with facts: what about the other 18 per cent? That is precisely the group on which we need to focus to ensure that those people get jobs. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is like claiming that just because 95 per cent. of people are not damaged in road accidents, it is not a priority to deal with the remaining 5 per cent. We must focus attention on those who most need it, and the new deal is designed to do precisely that. That is one reason why an early priority for gateway will be to get those who are close to job readiness immediately into unsubsidised employment. That also answers the point about deadweight that the right hon. Gentleman and a number of other Conservative Members raised.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the danger of a subsidy giving a perverse incentive to recruit the young unemployed. The subsidy provides a more level playing field for a group that has historically fared badly in the labour market. It is an incentive for employers to consider what those young people have to offer when they have had the benefit of basic skills training, help to become motivated and assistance to get them to the right position to be able to take on a job—that is what the gateway and the new deal will provide.
  It has been claimed that the previous Government cut youth unemployment and somehow delivered Labour's promise in advance. Which Government increased youth unemployment by 400,000? None of the Conservative Members acknowledged that, still less apologised for it, as they should.
  I echo the praise of many of my hon. Friends for what has been accomplished by the Employment Service. I place on record my appreciation of the work that is being done to prepare personal advisers for their role in the new deal, which will be particularly important. We can all see how critical that first interview will be for young people early in January, when they will realise that this programme is on their side and that it offers them the opportunity of gaining the skills and chances that have so far passed them by. We wish those personal advisers every good fortune in the important work that they will undertake.
  I shall answer the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) when he drew attention to the particular need for employment
  630
  opportunities for disabled people and those with learning difficulties. He recounted the moving experience of his constituent with Down's syndrome. I, too, have seen the remarkable transformation that can be accomplished by such support and job coaching—by, with and on behalf of people who have often been written out of the script of employment. The £195 million that the Chancellor allocated in the Budget for the new deal for disabled people and those suffering long-term sickness will bring about more projects to pilot innovative work on access, dedicated training and job coaching, to help many more such people into work.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) asked whether normal terms and conditions would operate for those employed under the programme. That is one of our precise objectives for people taken on under the employment option. Yes, there will be the subsidy and the £750 training grant, but those people will also be taken on as ordinary employees. The expectation is that they will be taken on at the normal rate for the job.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  PUBLIC PROCESSIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Meacher be added to the Environmental Audit Committee.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SCOTLAND.BILL)
  Ordered,
  That a Motion relating to Scotland Bill (Programme) in the names of Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mrs. Margaret Ewing may be proceeded with at any hour through opposed, and, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time to bills), the Speaker shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings thereon (including the Question on any Amendment which may have been selected and may then be moved) not later than three-quarters of an hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Freshwater (Leasehold Management)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Had I not thought that it might be considered discourteous to refer to my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction as "my grandmother", I might have been forgiven for commencing this debate by proffering an egg and two straws. No hon. Member can be unaware of the years of research and campaigning that my hon. Friend has devoted to the subject of leasehold reform. I certainly have no intention of trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, and it is with a keen awareness of my own lack of expertise in these matters that I detain the House today, on behalf of my constituents.
  In January 1992, one of the 156 companies in the Freshwater group, of which Mr. Benzion Freshwater was a director—a company called St. Leonards Properties Ltd., of 158–62 Shaftesbury avenue, London—sold the head lease of the block of 30 flats known as Mountaire Court, in my constituency, to a company called Maringrove Ltd., the director of which was a man called Paul Chater.
  The flats were in an extremely bad state of repair and had declined under Freshwater's ownership. Interestingly, Freshwater promptly bought back long leases on 14 of the 30 flats, some of which it has subsequently let to tenants on a rack-rent basis. Maringrove Ltd. appointed a company called Avery Management to act as managing agents of Mountaire Court—at which point things began to get interesting.
  On the instructions of Maringrove, the registered office of which is at Bishop House, Guildford road, Leatherhead, Avery Management—the registered office of which just happens also to be Bishop House, Guildford road, Leatherhead—decided to embark on a programme of major structural repairs. Tenders were solicited, and Willmott Dixon Ltd. submitted the lowest bid, at £477,263. All went quiet—until another company, George Smith Group, submitted a bid that was just below Willmott Dixon's bid, at £475,000.
  I have managed to contact all the other four contractors who tendered for the work. Willmott Dixon's manager certainly remembered it. He said:
  "We came in the lowest, then all went quiet. It seemed like a scam. If we'd known at the beginning we wouldn't have bothered tendering for it."
  I eventually traced the successful contractors, the George Smith group, in the phone book to an address at 52 Brooks mews, London. It is a building called Avery house, and it also happens to be the head office of Avery Management. Unfortunately, the telephone number that the directory gave me was unobtainable, having been disconnected on 8 December this year, just five days after I began asking questions. However, let us go back to 1992.
  Avery Management invoiced all leaseholders for £22,150.86 for the repair work in advance. After that, there was a period of wrangling during which some leaseholders paid up while others, threatened with repossession, handed their keys back to the building
  632
  society and walked away. Others, such as the leaseholders of the 14 Freshwater flats, paid nothing at all. However, the repair works to the block were never completed.
  On 4 March 1996, Maringrove Ltd. went into liquidation and was put in the hands of the official receiver. On 14 June that year, a company of liquidators called Leonard Curtis was appointed to wind up Maringrove's affairs. Leonard Curtis then set about appointing a new managing agent, a company called Parkgate-Aspen whose employees I had the honour to meet on 3 December after the residents of Mountaire Court had approached me in desperation.
  The new managing agents had demanded a further £5,500 from each of the flats in June this year to do the very work for which the leaseholders had already paid Maringrove Ltd. Their appointed surveyor, Chris Negus of Brooke, Vincent and Partners, stated at the meeting on 3 December that the first time he had tried to survey the property was in July 1997. When I challenged him as to how Parkgate-Aspen had issued a demand on 21 June, prior to the July survey, Mr. Negus said that he had given a rough estimate to Parkgate-Aspen the previous November after "walking around the outside" of the property. When I asked him to check what that estimate was, he confirmed the figure of £75,000. The demand notice issued in June by Parkgate-Aspen had been for £140,000. The cost had almost doubled before any survey was carried out. Mr. Brown from Parkgate-Aspen assured us that he knew what he was doing; he had worked for Freshwater many times before.
  Questions also hang over the actions of the liquidators, Leonard Curtis of Eastbourne terrace, London. Why, for example, have they not notified the land registry, some 18 months after their appointment, that Maringrove is even in liquidation? Why have they not after 18 months contacted all Maringrove's creditors? Most important, why have they not done what liquidators do—liquidate? Why have they not liquidated Maringrove's head lease at Mountaire Court?
  As an asset, a head lease is the inverse of the property itself. The more work required, the more attractive it is to buy: the more work a manager needs to do on the property, the more he can charge for the job of managing. Perversely, by trying to manage the property themselves, the liquidators are diminishing the asset that they are supposed to be liquidating.
  I tried to give Leonard Curtis the opportunity to answer my questions earlier today. However, four of the partners—Mr. Monjack, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Swaden and Mr. Schapira—would not admit to being in the office at 10.15 this morning. The only other partner, Mr. Barry, who was in the office, declined to speak to me.
  I hope that I have convinced the House that the important amendments that my hon. Friend the Minister introduced to the Housing Act 1996 when he was in opposition still leave leaseholders inadequately protected against unscrupulous, rapacious landlords. The tenants at Mountaire Court have been made aware of the role of leasehold valuation tribunals in resolving disputed charges. They now know that under section 81 of that Act they are protected against bully-boy tactics that threaten forfeiture, but I ask the Minister to consider the merits of some specific proposals.
  First, we should impose a limit on a superior lessor or freeholder's ability to dispose of an interest without first complying with their obligations to repair and manage the

  633
  property properly. That would stop landlords running down a property and then running out on it by selling a head lease on.
  Secondly, we should require that all leaseholders should be advised by head leaseholders or freeholders of the basis of their rateable contribution to any service charge or capital worth and of the rateable proportions of all other affected leaseholders.
  Thirdly, if a head leaseholder goes into liquidation, the management of the property should pass to a managing agent jointly appointed by freeholder and leaseholders. They should then jointly decide whether the head lease is sold on.
  Fourthly, any money required in advance of work being done should be held in a trust account, with signatures required from the leaseholders and the landlord.
  Fifthly, we should move to the system of commonhold, whereby each leaseholder owns the lease to their property and they jointly hold the freehold to the land and common parts of the building.
  Sixthly, the Government should give leaseholders the right to manage themselves. Let us see an end to feudalism.
  During my research for the debate, I have spoken to many people whose lives have been ruined and whose life savings have been lost because of venal and greedy landlords. I pay tribute to the help that I have had in that research from the Evening Standard, particularly Mira Bar Hillel.
  I have seen people worn down by such venal landlords, but venal and greedy people do not always appear to be so. Sometimes they wear a cloak of excessive politeness. Sometimes they appeal for our sympathy. Yesterday, I received a hand delivered letter from the Freshwater group. It politely stated:
  "I know you will want to be correctly informed when you speak in the debate on Friday."
  Indeed, that is true. It also said that Maringrove
  " is totally unconnected with Freshwater".
  I have here evidence of a very close working relationship between Maringrove and Freshwater which long predates the purchase of the head lease in 1992. Not only was that relationship close and in existence, but it involved other properties in different parts of the country.
  Finally and pathetically, the letter states:
  "Freshwater is in the same unfortunate position as the other long lessees."
  What I have in my possession—and what the other long lessees do not have—is a companies form 395. The name of the company on it is Maringrove Ltd. and the form registers a first charge against that company for £15,938.38 plus interest accruing. The charge was created on 5 June 1992. It gives the presenter a prior claim on a liquidation fund arising from the winding-up of Maringrove Ltd. It is signed:
  "P. M. Crystal. Freshwaters Legal Department."
  2.45 pm
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for raising these important and troubling matters on the Adjournment. He has highlighted a matter of very real
  634
  concern that affects his constituents. He has clearly been assiduous in his research and in his work on behalf of his constituents, uncovering what can only be described as a veritable can of worms.
  My hon. Friend has highlighted a distressing series of events that have left his constituents feeling shabbily treated. They are, I fear, all too typical of the problems faced by many residential leaseholders in recent years. Many landlords, of course, are good managers, but there is an all too significant minority whose management styles range from the incompetent to the criminal, the result of which is all the attendant misery the leaseholders have to endure.
  Some landlords are absent or neglectful, so essential work remains undone; others are lazy and keep on contractors or agents for year after year without testing the market, with the result that the leaseholders, who pay for the services, do not get value for money. The more unscrupulous charge for work that has not been done, or undertake works that are unnecessary, or to too high a specification, or to too low a standard, with the result that leaseholders pay a high price for work they do not need and which may then have to be expensively remedied. Then there are the out-and-out criminals who misappropriate the service charge and sinking funds. That is not an exhaustive list of the sufferings of leaseholders, but I believe that it will give the House a flavour of what we are dealing with.
  I shall answer my hon. Friend by expanding on the points in the letter that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing wrote to him on A December in response to initial representations that he was rightly making to our Department at that time. I must stress that I cannot comment on the merits of any party's actions in the case, especially as litigation may be pending. I must also not attempt to interpret the statutes; that function is reserved to the courts. What I can do is set out the main provisions of the law relating to leasehold management. That will, I hope, shed some light on leaseholders' rights and how they may be exercised.
  What happens to service charge contributions when leaseholders pay them over to their landlord or managing agent—a point my hon. Friend highlighted in the series of questions at the end of his speech? Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 provides that service charge moneys should be held on trust, with any interest accruing, for the purposes for which they have been paid and, subject to that, for the benefit of the leaseholders. That is automatic and does not require a special trust deed to be signed. If the landlord or managing agent to whom the service charges have been paid goes into liquidation, the service charge moneys are protected by the trust from the other creditors. If the money has not been spent on the works for which it was paid and the liquidators cannot find it, it is possible that a criminal offence, such as fraud or theft, has been committed. If that is suspected, the police should be asked to investigate.
  Where leaseholders are in dispute with their landlords over service charges, they can seek a determination of the reasonableness of those service charges from their local leasehold valuation tribunal. My hon. Friend referred to the new rights that can be exercised through leasehold valuation tribunals as a result of changes under the Housing Act 1996.

  635
  As well as challenging bills for work already done, or purported to have been done, leaseholders can challenge the scope, extent and cost of proposed works. That jurisdiction has been available since 1 September 1997. Leaseholders can also apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a new manager if the management of the block is thought to be unsatisfactory.
  The grounds for the appointment of a new manager include a track record of excessive service charges and failure to abide by an approved code of management practice. The relevant code for most leasehold blocks would be the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors service charge residential management code, which is available from the institution at a modest cost.
  Leasehold valuation tribunals charge fees of up to £500 per case, but do not award costs. Landlords may seek to include their costs in their next service charge demand if the leases permit this, but leaseholders can prevent that by obtaining an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. A section 20C order can be made by any tribunal or court which hears service charge disputes and leaseholders can apply at the hearing or subsequently. That provides one remedy to another problem that my hon. Friend rightly highlighted.
  Leaseholders may well feel that they have to obtain some evidence in addition to their own correspondence before taking any action. As well as the information on service charge accounts that they are entitled to under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, they may wish to undertake a management audit of their landlord's service charge operations, or appoint a surveyor who can advise them on the condition of their building and the need for any works.
  A management audit, under chapter V of part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, can be required by a two-thirds majority of the service charge paying leaseholders in a block. On the surface, it would appear that this option may not be available to the leaseholders of Mountaire Court because 14 of the 30 flats are leased by Freshwater. However, I understand from the correspondence to which my hon. Friend referred—I also received a copy—that Freshwater, as lessee, identifies itself as being in the same unfortunate position as the other residents who are being asked to pay the sums described by my hon. Friend. The remedies granted by statute are available to Freshwater, just as they are to the resident lessees. Therefore, Freshwater might consider that a management audit would be appropriate. The auditors, who must be qualified accountants or surveyors, have the right to inspect the relevant documents and premises in order to carry out their functions.
  Under section 84 of the Housing Act 1996, a recognised tenants association also has the right to appoint a surveyor, who can inspect the common parts of the block and any documents which it is reasonable for him to see. A tenants association can be recognised by the landlord or, if he will not do so, by a member of the local rent assessment committee. The committee is the same organisation as the leasehold valuation tribunal, but constituted for different purposes. The committee would normally expect a tenants association to have at least 60 per cent. support before recognising it.
  636
  The threat of forfeiture of a lease has now been decoupled from service charge disputes. Since 24 September 1996, landlords have been unable to forfeit a residential lease for non-payment of a service charge unless and until that charge has been agreed or admitted by the leaseholder, or the reasonableness of the charge has been determined by a court or arbitral tribunal. I should emphasise here that a leasehold valuation tribunal is not an arbitral tribunal. That means that its decisions must be confirmed by a court before they can be enforced.
  Therefore, if a landlord wants to enforce the payment of a service charge, he may apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination and then seek to enforce it in court if the leaseholders do not pay. Alternatively, he may go to court to enforce the payment of the alleged debt. The court would then be likely to remit the question of the reasonableness of the service charge to the leasehold valuation tribunal, whose decision would then be fed back into the court process. If any party is dissatisfied with the leasehold valuation tribunal's decision, they can, by leave, appeal to the Lands Tribunal. In contrast to leasehold valuation tribunals, the Lands Tribunal can award costs.
  In due course, I would expect the liquidators in this case to sell the head lease. When they do, the right of first refusal, under part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, will probably come into play. The Act provides that landlords selling an interest in a block of flats which is immediately superior to those of the occupying leaseholders must first offer it to them.
  From my hon. Friend's comments, it would appear that, when Freshwater sold the head lease in 1992, it did not offer the right of first refusal to the other leaseholders as it should have done in order to ensure compliance with the 1987 Act. There was no criminal sanction at that stage, but consequent to changes made under the 1996 Act, the landlord selling without offering his interest to the qualifying tenants would be guilty of a criminal offence.
  As well as offering his interest directly, a landlord may use the auction route. That enables him to obtain the open market value for the asset, but allows the leaseholders to take the contract from the successful bidder at the auction. I understand that some property auctioneers can provide a comprehensive service, which includes serving the necessary notices on the residents.
  Before leaseholders embark on the exercise of their rights, it is essential that they obtain as much information as possible, followed by sound professional advice. My Department publishes a range of free booklets that set out leaseholders' rights. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing sent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North copies of the relevant ones with her letter of 3 December. My Department also funds, with the private sector, the independent leasehold advisory service known as LEASE. LEASE offers free initial advice to leaseholders and freeholders on residential landlord and tenant matters, including service charge issues and the right of first refusal.
  Finally, there is the question of what the Government are going to do next in the complex area of leasehold law. I have not touched on leasehold enfranchisement on this occasion, as it is not immediately relevant to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, but he will be aware that we are committed to streamlining and simplifying procedures to make it easier for leaseholders to exercise their right to enfranchise.

  637
  I hope that I have been able to assure my hon. Friend that a wide range of safeguards and remedies are already available to residential leaseholders, although some of them are virtually untried at present. However, the Government are not satisfied with the state of leasehold law, which has been patched up over the years as problems have emerged. New holes in the fabric come to light all the time, and examples similar to those to which my hon. Friend has alluded are all too common.
  The Government believe that it is time for effective and far-reaching reforms of the whole system. We have a commitment to bring forward a new package of reforms
  638
  to assist leaseholders and we are doing some hard thinking about the detailed implications. My hon. Friend will recognise that the area is extremely complex and that it is necessary to think through very carefully all the implications before proposing a package of reforms. That is what we are doing at the moment; we shall probably make an announcement about our proposals and invite comments from interested parties in the spring.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

TREASURY

  Ecclesiastical Buildings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the rate of VAT payable on the maintenance cost of churches and cathedrals which are listed as being of important historical and architectural significance. [21002]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No.

  Bingo Duty
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from how many establishments bingo duty was collected in the last year for which figures are available. [20493]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: HM Customs and Excise do not collect statistics on the number of establishments paying bingo duty.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much bingo duty the Treasury received in each of the last 10 years; [20491]

  (2) what proportion of the revenue received from taxes and duties on gaming, gambling and lotteries consisted of bingo duty in each of the last 10 years. [20492]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The information requested is contained in the table.

  Bingo duty (£ million)

  Total betting and gaming duties (£ million)

  Bingo duty as a percentage of total duty

  1987–88

  61.0

  855.0

  7.1

  1988–89

  63.3

  913.2

  6.9

  1989–90

  65.9

  976.0

  6.8

  1990–91

  67.4

  1,006.4

  6.7

  1991–92

  74.7

  1,052.8

  7.1

  1992–93

  79.1

  1,025.4

  7.7

  1993–94

  77.9

  1,105.8

  7.0

  1994–95

  84.4

  1,216.9

  6.9

  1995–96

  90.7

  1,573.3

  5.8

  1996–97

  95.8

  1,441.0

  6.6

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is contained in the Commissioners of Customs and Excise's bingo duty returns on the total number of people playing bingo each week. [20494]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The bingo duty returns made to Customs and Excise do not require any information on the number of people playing bingo.
  336

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for East Yorkshire of 26 November concerning inheritance tax reliefs for small businesses and farms. [20711]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: I have sent the hon. Member a reply to this letter today.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the deadline for the submission of self assessment tax returns; and if he will make a statement. [20712]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The statutory filing date for the first self assessment tax returns is 31 January 1998. There are no plans to extend this date.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in each of the last 10 financial years, how many people filled in income tax returns; and of those how many were(a) primarily self-employed and (b) pensioners. [20993]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: Information is not available in the form requested. The total number of returns issued to individuals in the main April issue for each year since 1994, and the number of these issued to people whose main source of income was from self-employment, rent or investment income, was as follows:

  Millions

  Total

  of which, main source self-employment, rent or investment income

  April 1994

  8.05

  4.10

  April 1995

  7.42

  4.15

  April 1996

  7.61

  4.25

  7.00

  4.19

  The criteria used to determine the issue of tax returns do not include whether or not an individual is a pensioner, and the numbers of pensioners issued with tax returns is not available.

  Duty Free Sector
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 559, if he will commission research to establish (a) the number of jobs in the United Kingdom directly related to the duty free sector and (b) the value of United Kingdom spirit sales in the duty free sector in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the rest of the EU. [21295]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: I have no plans to commission research into any of the areas mentioned.

  Capital Gains and Inheritance Taxes
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of revenue raised from(a) capital

  337
  gains tax and (b) inheritance tax in each of the last 10 financial years; and what has been the estimated cost to the Inland Revenue of collecting it. [21329]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: Following is the information requested:

  £ Million

  Capital gains tax

  Inheritance tax

  Net receipts1

  Cost of collection2,3

  Net receipts4

  Cost of collection3,5

  1987–88

  1,379

  25.1

  1,078

  25.7

  1988–89

  2,323

  26.6

  1,071

  23.2

  1989–90

  1,854

  34.3

  1,232

  25.1

  1990–91

  1,852

  39.0

  1,262

  28.0

  1991–92

  1,140

  43.3

  1,299

  26.9

  1992–93

  982

  38.4

  1,211

  26.2

  1993–94

  710

  41.9

  1,333

  25.3

  1994–95

  926

  33.5

  1,411

  36.4

  1995–96

  796

  32.6

  1,518

  37.9

  1996–97

  1,131

  30.3

  1,558

  31.9

  1 Excludes tax on gains of companies which are charged to corporation tax.

  2 Relates mainly to the costs arising from gains to individuals and trustees, but some other costs (mainly of land valuations for companies) cannot be separately identified and are included in the collection costs of capital gains tax.

  3 The basis for compiling collection costs changed from 1989–90. Direct comparison of these and later figures with those of earlier years may be misleading.

  4 Includes capital transfer tax and estate duty.

  5 Includes the cost of work done by the Shares Valuation Division of the Capital Taxes Office for other Inland Revenue purposes.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the date at which the PAYE computer system at the Inland Revenue will become millennium computer compliant; and if he will make a statement. [21554]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The work needed to make the Inland Revenue's PAYE computer systems Year 2000 compliant will be completed in three phases by April 1999. The majority of the work lies in the first two phases which will be delivered in April and October 1998.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many public appointments he has made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these(a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin. [16788]

  The Prime Minister
  I have made 14 new public appointments since 1 May to bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies"; 64 per cent. receive remuneration. Owing to the small numbers involved the information about ethnic origin cannot be provided since to do so would risk identifying individuals without consent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has provided information for all Departments in an aggregated form.
  338
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the names of all those people whom he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [19979]

  The Prime Minister
  I have made the following new public appointments to bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" since 1 May:

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Councillor Rosemary Butler

  Mr. Ian McKenzie Smith

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Ms Mary Ann Sieghart

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  Sir Anthony May

  Dame Janet Smith

  Sir John Blelloch1

  Sir Peter Woodhead1

  Dr. George Gray1

  Mr. Peter Jones1

  Committee on Standards in Public Life

  Sir Patrick Neill1

  Lord Goodhart1

  The right hon. John MacGregor MP1

  Sir Anthony Cleaver1

  Mrs. Frances Heaton1

  1Receive remuneration.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will initiate proposals for a quarterly meeting with(a) the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and (b) other organisations representing the Black and Asian Community. [21869]

  The Prime Minister
  The Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on a number of occasions. Leading members of ethnic minority communities have met my right hon. Friend and other Home Office Ministers and Ministers of other Departments. A further opportunity to speak directly to Ministers will be given by my right hon. Friend' s recently announced Race Relations Forum. I do not plan to hold regular meetings.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to meet the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. [21868]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet Sir Herman Ouseley from time to time in the course of my official duties.

  Beef Import Ban
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 15 December,Official Report, column 33, if he will make a statement on how the Government will ensure that the policing of the import ban is appropriate. [21846]

  The Prime Minister
  Imports of animal products from non-EU Member States must be imported through Border Inspection Posts. All consignments undergo documentary checks. Some also undergo identity and physical checks.
  339
  Because of our obligations under the EU treaties, there are no routine checks on products from other EU Member States. Border controls were removed on the introduction of the Single Market. Controls on imported animal products depend on random non-discriminatory checks. For the purpose of the SRM controls, we are seeking to introduce a number of measures designed to police the requirement for veterinary certification, involving MAFF and local authorities.

  IRA Meeting
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received opposing the visits of IRA Army Council members to Downing Street on 11 December. [21702]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on the talks process.

WALES

  European Funding
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of Objective 5b funding in Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) 1996. [21592]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  £26.8 million was committed under the Dyfed Gwynedd Powys Operational Programme for 1992–93 through the ERDF and ESF Structural funds. The Rural Wales Single Programming Document 1994–99 makes available some £129 million through the ERDF, ESF and EAGGF Structural Funds.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he is undertaking in relation to the future of the Information Group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority as regards linkage with a health authority or the Welsh Assembly. [21812]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Department has established a group representing the Authority, Health Authorities and NHS Trusts to consider options for the management of all of the Authority's functions and it will report in the Spring.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has received concerning the impact of the Welsh Assembly on the future management responsibility for the information group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority; and if he will make a statement; [21814]

  (2) what proposals he has to retain the information group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority as a single entity after the establishment of the Welsh Assembly; and when he proposes to make a statement about the future of the groups. [21815]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Department has established a group representing the Authority, Health Authorities and NHS Trusts to consider options for the management of all of the Authority's functions and it will report in the Spring. I have received one letter about the future of the Information Group and its contents will be taken into account in preparing options.
  340

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  to ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the Stoner Report into the latest proposals for horizontal groundwater drainage wells in the areas affected by the impoundment of the lake behind the Cardiff Bay Barrage. [21813]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  This report has now been considered by my Department and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid (Personal Injury)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total number of legal aid certificates in personal injury cases in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many of these in each year related to(a) medical negligence cases and (b) other cases, indicating each type. [21694]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of legal aid certificates issued in respect of personal injury litigation in each of the last three years, by category of case, was as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Medical negligence

  12,198

  13,418

  9,165

  Accidents at work

  18,820

  18,567

  17,141

  Running down

  15,911

  14,116

  12,689

  Other personal injury

  40,880

  46,165

  47,014

  Total personal injury

  87,809

  92,226

  86,009

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received in respect of the Government's policy on the Royal Opera House. [20931]

  Mr. Fisher
  My right hon. Friend announced on 3 November 1997 that he had asked Sir Richard Eyre to lead a review of the future of the Royal Opera House companies and Covent Garden. Since that announcement we have received over 1,000 letters from a range of sources.

  Departmental Corporate Identity Strategy
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the cost of the project to develop his Department's corporate identity strategy; and how many officials from his Department it will involve. [21113]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To date, there has been no expenditure on the Department's corporate identity strategy, which is being developed with the assistance of the Design Council.
  341
  The current estimate of the costs to develop and implement the Department's corporate identity strategy is £79,000.

  Elements of these costs will be off-set against:

  on-going departmental projects (eg IiP).

  efficiency savings arising from the project. These savings cannot at present be precisely estimated, but are expected to be substantial.

  CDT have been appointed to work with the Department on the strategy and a final contract is being negotiated with them to take the process forward in parallel with the Departmental Spending Review.

  The exercise is expected to involve wide consultation with Departmental staff and a Steering Group, including staff representatives, has been set up.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people living in sheltered housing accommodation benefit from the concessions of the television licensing scheme. [21388]

  Mr. Fisher
  Approximately 398,000 concessionary television licences are currently in force in sheltered accommodation, out of a total of approximately 643,000 concessionary licences. Television licences cover households rather than individuals; the precise number of beneficiaries is therefore not known.

  BBC
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review the system of public funding of the BBC from the licence fee to include an assessment of the effects of its broadcasts on British exports. [21701]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government's Agreement with the BBC guarantees the licence fee until the end of March 2002. We intend to conduct well before then a review of the funding arrangements. This will take account of anticipated commercial revenue, including revenue from international programme sales.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what progress has been made in the process of decontaminating the Millennium Exhibition site at Greenwich; and what steps he has taken to ensure public safety. [21015]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, purchased the site at Greenwich Peninsula from British Gas in February 1997, work on remediating the land has progressed quickly. British Gas were responsible for the statutory decontamination. English Partnerships has undertaken extensive further work to a standard suitable for accommodating the Millennium Experience. All aspects of the remediation work have been carried out to statutory health and safety standards.
  342

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Algeria (Military Exports)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 645, what is the Government's policy concerning the underwriting of defence equipment sales to the Government of Algeria by the ECGD; and what measures have been taken for the recovery of the £97.8 million not yet recovered. [20569]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There is currently no medium term or short term ECGD cover for defence equipment sales to Algeria. ECGD medium term and short term cover is primarily available for sales of equipment to Oil and Gas Sector. Recovery of amounts owed to ECGD in respect of military and civil sales is being made through debt rescheduling agreements signed following multilateral negotiations between Algeria and its major creditors under the auspices of the Paris Club.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 419, if she will make a statement on the number of inspection visits made by Euratom safeguards inspectors to each (a) facility and (b) material balance area at (i) Sellafield and (ii) Dounreay in each year since 1988; and if she will list the annual total of safeguards inspection person-days for each year in this period committed to United Kingdom nuclear facilities by (1) Euratom and (2) International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. [20778]

  Mrs. Roche
  Reports on the operation of Euratom safeguards are published periodically by the European Commission. These reports include information on typical Euratom safeguards inspection effort both by country and by type of installation.

  The most recent Euratom report, published in 1994, contains figures for total inspection effort in the UK for the years 1989–92. Figures for subsequent years have also been published, most recently in a paper presented at the IAEA Safeguards Symposium held in Vienna in October 1997 (a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House). These figures show Euratom safeguards inspection effort in the UK rising from slightly under 2,000 person days in 1989 to just over 3,000 person days in 1996. Although the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) do not themselves routinely publish corresponding figures for their inspections in the UK, the information they have provided to us shows that such effort has ranged between approximately 400 and 670 person days per year for the period in question.

  In the case of both Sellafield and Dounreay there is essentially continual Euratom inspector presence. The detailed information sought on numbers of Euratom safeguards inspection visits to Sellafield and Dounreay since 1988 is not included in the Commission's reports and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Copies of the Commission's 1994 report and of its reports for previous years have been placed in the Library of the House.
  343

  Ministerial Expenses
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated budget for the year from 1 May for(a) travel and (b) other office costs and expenses for her private office. [21766]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Budgets are allocated on an annual basis for a financial year beginning in April.

  The 1997–98 budget in my office for travel and subsistence is £90,000.

  Other office costs and expenses, including staff salaries, for the same period total £766,000.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many official functions of her Department she has held in her official apartment since 1 May. [21767]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Three.

  Government Chemist
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to receive the Annual Review of the Government Chemist for 1996–97. [22246]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have today received the Annual Review of the Government Chemist for 1996–97. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the deep-mine collieries which she and her fellow Ministers have visited since 1 May. [19178]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: I visited a number of deep mines before assuming responsibility for coal industry matters. My concern has been to deal with the substantial problems that had been created for the coal industry not least at Asfordby mine and Monktonhall whose representatives I have met on a number of occasions since 1 May. This has required intensive exchanges with key players, particularly representatives of the industry at all levels, and the development of policies to establish a level playing-field for coal at home and new markets for coal abroad.

  Energy
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, columns 1002–03, when she expects to announce the Government's proposals relating to the long-term energy requirements of the country. [20912]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The timetable of the review of our policy towards approval of new power stations, including the role which coal should play, will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the relative efficiencies of coal-fired, gas-fired and oil-fired electricity power stations; and if he will make a statement. [21273]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: These vary according to the design and technology used. Modern Combined Cycle plant, all of which is presently gas fired, can achieve thermal efficiencies of up to
  344
  55 per cent. with the latest designs. This compares to typical operating efficiencies in the range 36 per cent. to 39 per cent. for plant using more conventional technology be they coal, oil or gas. More advanced clean coal plant based on combustion and gasification technologies are now available which offer efficiencies of 43 per cent. or more. Properly sized combined heat and power plant can achieve thermal efficiencies considerably in excess of any of the above.

  In assessing our future policy towards the electricity industry the Government are taking into account the contribution made by each fuel to its overall goal of ensuring security diversity sustainability and competitive prices.

  Domestic Gas Appliances
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many domestic gas appliances were condemned as unsafe by registered installers in the last year for which figures are available; and in how many cases this was due to the emission of carbon monoxide. [20722]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive that the information is not available in the form requested. However, under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 gas installers registered with the Council of Registered Gas Installers (CORGI) have a duty to notify to the Health and Safety Executive any gas fitting, or any flue or ventilation, used in connection with that fitting which is or has been likely to cause death, or any major injury by accidental leakage of gas; inadequate combustion of gas; or inadequate removal of the products of combustion of gas.

  The latest provisional figures for 1996–97 show that the Health and Safety Executive received 5,819 such notifications. A breakdown of these is given in the Health and Safety Commission's "Health and Safety Statistics 1996–97" (page 163) a copy of which has been placed in the House library. However, the data do not show how many appliances were considered dangerous because they were emitting carbon monoxide.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Smoking
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) improvement notices, (b) prohibition notices and (c) prosecutions the HSE has initiated in each of the last three years in relation to the hazards of (i) smoking and (ii) passive smoking. [20124]

  Angela Eagle
  There were no legal proceedings taken by HSE's Field Operations Directorate in each of the last three years in relation to the hazards of (i) smoking and (ii) passive smoking in the workplace.

  There were no notices issued in 1996–971 in relation to the hazards of smoking and passive smoking. The information is not available for the two preceding years.
  345
  HSE Inspectors are asked to promote the development of workplace smoking policies, where appropriate, to reduce employees' exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. This approach will be reviewed once new evidence on the risks of passive smoking has been considered further.
  1Figures for 1996–97 are provisional.

  Sonar Equipment
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what year side scan sonar equipment became available to(a) the Royal Navy and (b) offshore oil exploration companies. [20358]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Side scan sonar equipment has been available to the Royal Navy since the Second World War. It was optimised for use in the relatively shallow waters of the Continental Shelf. In the mid-1970s the capability of equipment held by commercial oil exploration companies to locate and identify objects on the seabed was similar to that available to the Royal Navy.

  EU Transport Directive
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on European Commission Proposed Directive OJ C25/28.1.93 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for transport activities and workplaces on means of transport. [20470]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There has been no progress made on reaching agreement on this proposed Directive since 1993.

  Water Consumption
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures he intends to take to make new buildings more water efficient; and if he will make a statement; [20345]

  (2) what measures he intends to take to promote greater water efficiency in households; and if he will make a statement. [20344]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Act 1995 introduced a duty for the water companies to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. At the Water Summit we encouraged the water companies to fulfil this duty with vigour, imagination and enthusiasm. We also said that we would make new Water Regulations which would include significantly tighter requirements for water efficiency. The Water Regulations Advisory Committee have recently consulted on their proposals and we are now considering their recommendations.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average water consumption per person in each region of England and Wales(a) was in 1977, (b) was in 1987, (c) is estimated to be in 1997, (d) is projected to be for the year 2007 and (e) is projected to be for the year 2017. [20343]

  Angela Eagle
  Forecasts of per capita consumption for the years 2007 and 2017 will be collected by the Office of Water Services as part of its forthcoming Periodic Review. At the last review projected per capita 346
  consumption estimates were not separated from estimates of supply pipe leakage for the years in question. There are no published figures for 1977 and 1987. The average domestic water consumption per capita for 1996–97 in each water undertaker's area in litres per day is:

  Litres per day

  Water and sewerage companies

  Anglian

  152.0

  Dwr Cymru

  145.6

  North West

  136.4

  Northumbrian

  143.4

  Severn Trent

  136.4

  South West

  151.9

  Southern

  156.4

  Thames

  158.7

  Wessex

  143.1

  Yorkshire

  131.0

  Water only companies

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  164.3

  Bristol

  155.9

  Cambridge

  148.1

  Chester

  154.4

  Essex and Suffolk

  160.3

  Folkestone and Dover

  156.7

  Hartlepool

  152.3

  Mid Kent

  166.1

  Mid Southern

  167.5

  North Surrey

  160.2

  Portsmouth

  161.6

  South East

  165.0

  South Staffordshire

  146.5

  Sutton/South East

  169.5

  Tendring Hundred

  145.7

  Three Valleys

  170.6

  Wrexham

  148.8

  York

  142.4

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the quantity of extra water resources required to meet the demand of the projected 44 million extra households up to the year 2016. [20342]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest household projections show the need for 4.4 million additional households between the years of 1991 and 2016. It is for water companies to quantify and provide the water supplies required. This is a normal part of the planning process.

  VDU Users (Eye Tests)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many visual display unit users have exercised their legal right to have their eye tests paid by their employer since 1993. [20479]

  Angela Eagle
  Exact information on eye tests under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 is not available, as there is no requirement for employers to report the number of tests provided. However, a survey commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive estimated that by mid-1995, nearly a million users had received eye tests provided by their employer since the Regulations were introduced in January 1993.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to ensure that employers are
  347
  meeting their legal obligations under the Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992 on eye tests for employees. [20459]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive is revising its guidance booklet "Working with VDUs" for publication early next year, which will help make both employers and their workforce more aware that employers have a duty to provide display screen users with eye tests on request. HSE and local authority inspectors will continue to advise employers how to comply with all aspects of the Regulations.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the number of workplace inspections made by Health and Safety Executive inspectors and (b) the number of prohibition notices that were issued for each of the last four years. [20404]

  Angela Eagle
  HSE inspectors carry out a range of different types of workplace inspections, for example proactive or planned inspections; visits associated with special projects; visits connected with enforcement matters; and advisory visits. During their visits, inspectors may issue a prohibition or "stop" notice on a dangerous activity if the circumstances warrant it. Over the past four years HSE inspectors made the following numbers of planned inspections:

  1993–94: 156,233;

  1994–95; 146,330;

  1995–96: 124,010;

  1996–97: 115,728.

  Over those years inspectors issued the following numbers of prohibition notices:

  1993–94: 4,105;

  1994–95; 4,296;

  1995–96: 3,467;

  1996–97: 3,627.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of factories that were revealed not to be registered with the Health and Safety Executive following visits by HSE inspectors in each of the last four years. [20405]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that the information requested is not recorded by the Health and Safety Executive and cannot therefore be supplied. Not all occupiers of workplaces for which HSE enforces health and safety are required to register with HSE. HSE's primary concern is with conditions in workplaces, regardless of how they came to its attention. To identify those factories which were first recorded following visits by HSE inspectors would involve a disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding increases in budget provision of the Health and Safety Executive in this Parliament. [21391]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced its spending priorities for 1998–99 on Tuesday 16 December 1997,Official Report, column 158–59, which include an extra £4.5 million for health and safety. This budget increase
  348
  reflects the Health and Safety Commission's estimates of the amount required to maintain direct field activity at 1996–97 and 1997–98 levels, to reinforce activity on railways and major hazards, and to start work on other agreed priorities, including increased promotion of occupational health (especially further action on stress and asbestos), continuing initiatives directed towards small firms, and protection of homeworkers.

  Provision for future years will be announced in the summer, following the completion of the Government-wide Comprehensive Spending Review and discussion of priorities.

  Mox Plutonium Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Minister for Transport replied to the letter sent to him on 5 November by the President of the Nuclear Control Institute concerning the use of roll-on/roll-off ferries to transport mox plutonium fuel; and what reply he gave. [20766]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Nuclear Control Institute is an American pressure group that has taken an anti-nuclear stance on a number of occasions. Officials replied to its letter on 2 December. Official replies are confidential to the recipient and cannot be divulged without their express prior permission.

  Carbon Monoxide
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the current standard for carbon monoxide alarms. [20758]

  Angela Eagle
  The current British Standard entitled "Carbon Monoxide detectors (electrical) for domestic use" (BS 7860) for carbon monoxide alarms was published in March 1996. The aim of monitors meeting this standard is to save lives by detecting high levels of carbon monoxide; it is not intended to detect carbon monoxide levels that may give rise to chronic illness.

  My Department and the Department of Health jointly commissioned a comprehensive assessment of the risks associated with exposure to carbon monoxide in the home. This report is to be published next year. We will review the need for additional action in light of this assessment and the information from the Carbon Monoxide Support's research.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to establish the prevalence of long term exposure to carbon monoxide in the home and in the workplace; and what steps he is taking to increase public awareness of this issue. [20757]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department and the Department of Health jointly commissioned the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environmental Health to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the risks associated with exposure to carbon monoxide in the home. This assessment has been endorsed by the Department of Health's Advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) and is to be published in the New Year. My Department is now considering what further measures should be taken in light of this report.
  349
  In 1997, the Health and Safety Commission's (HSC) Working Group on the Assessment of Toxic Chemicals endorsed the Health and Safety Executive's risk assessment of occupational exposure to carbon monoxide, which includes an assessment of repeated exposure. A proposal to reduce the occupational exposure standards will be considered by HSC's Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances and, if they agree, will be subject to public consultation in May 1998.

  My Department and other Government Departments will continue to highlight the dangers of acute poisoning by carbon monoxide through public information campaigns. These include the leaflet"Gas Appliances: Get them checked, keep them safe" (Health and Safety Executive) which is available in English and Welsh and has recently been published in five Asian languages and mailed to relevant community organisations. Also, the Department of Trade and Industry is to circulate information to all gas users warning the public of the dangers of faulty gas appliances. We are also considering a separate leaflet publicising the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning from solid fuels.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 1997,Official Report, columns 202–03, if he will list the known quantities of low-level radioactive waste deposited at each of the disposal sites. [20779]

  Angela Eagle
  There is no legal requirement for landfill operators, or those disposing of radioactive waste, to inform the Environment Agencies of each disposal. They must, however, maintain records of the quantities of radioactive waste disposed and make these available for inspection by the Environment Agencies. The information requested is therefore not available centrally.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what legislation currently governs the use of untreated sewage on agricultural land. [20669]

  Angela Eagle
  The Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/588) prescribe as industrial waste sewage disposed of in or on land (other than within a sewage treatment works) and sewage removed from a privy or cesspool. The effect of this is to apply the waste management controls of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to the recovery or disposal of these wastes.

  The use of sewage sludge (a by-product of the sewage treatment process), including untreated sewage sludges, is controlled under the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/1263).

  Kyoto Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives his Department is supporting in central and eastern Europe to assist in the collection, storage and analysis of reliable data on atmospheric pollution levels and climate 350
  change indicators; and on what occasions these matters were discussed at the Climate Change Conference in Kyoto. [20769]

  Angela Eagle
  No such initiatives are being supported by my Department; neither were such matters discussed formally in Kyoto.

  Lead in Water
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dwellings are considered to be unfit for human habitation because the drinking water contains lead in excess of 50 µg/l due to the presence of lead pipework in the dwelling; and if he will make a statement. [21257]

  Angela Eagle
  On the basis of information up to 1995, it is estimated that about 700,000 dwellings then had a water supply with a lead concentration exceeding 50 µg/litre. Measures have been taken by water companies since then in many areas to reduce the ability of water to dissolve lead, and this may have reduced the number of dwellings affected.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of dwellings which will be considered to be unfit for human habitation when the standard for lead in drinking water at the tap is 10 µg/l by the proposed Directive on Drinking Water; and if he will make a statement. [21258]

  Angela Eagle
  The standard of 10 µg/l in the proposed EC Drinking Water Directive would not apply until 15 years after adoption of the Directive, and would apply to water as supplied to the property, not at the tap. Water companies will be expected to comply with the new limit by the due date.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dwellings were considered unfit for human habitation in(a) the 1991 and (b) the 1996 English House Condition Survey due to the presence of lead pipework and the plumbosolvent nature of the water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [21256]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not available from the English House Condition Survey. Though surveyors were asked to record the presence of lead pipework, they were instructed to exclude it from any assessment of unfitness as it is not practical to measure the concentration of lead in the water supply during the physical survey.

  Roads (M66)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the M66 Denton to Heaton Park motorway to be open; which contracts for it are running late and by how much; which contracts have been granted extensions and for what reasons; which contracts have overrun their cost estimates by how much and for what reasons; and when the number 3 Audenshaw reservoir will be back in use. [21102]
  351
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The M66 extension from Denton to Middleton is programmed to be open to traffic in the year 2000. Construction is split into 4 Contracts, each of which needs to be complete before the scheme can be fully open to traffic.

  Work is either under way or complete on 3 of the contracts and were are currently seeking tenders for the fourth; we hope to start work on this one early next summer with a two year contract period.

  The contracts let so far have been in the traditional form of civil engineering contracts published by the Institute of Civil Engineers. This form of contract allows for payment to be made for the actual work undertaken, rather than an estimate at the time of tender, so where additional work becomes necessary, costs will rise.

  So far, we know that the tender prices for the three contracts will be exceeded but we cannot yet say by exactly how much because we have not settled final accounts.

  The contracts also allow for extensions of time for completion of the works in certain circumstances. On this scheme, the contract periods have so far been extended on Contract 1 by 46 weeks, on Contract 2 by 35 weeks and Contract 4 by 37 weeks to allow for unforseen ground conditions such as the extent of contaminated land and difficulties with statutory undertakers plant. Work has also been delayed by bad weather.

  Contract 1 is now expected to be complete in February 2000. Contract 2 was contractually completed this month.

  The traditional form of contract can provide good value for money when things work out as planned. There are difficulties, however, and the Highways Agency has been reviewing its procurement strategy and in the future will make use of alternative forms of contract which pass more risk to the contractor. The Agency is also keen to encourage a partnering approach on its contracts. In line with that approach the latest contract is being tendered on the basis of design and build.

  The new dam for Audenshaw No. 3 reservoir is being constructed as part of Contract 1. Completion is expected in 1999 when the dam will be handed over to the North West Water who will decide when it will be back in use.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many homes could be assisted under the home energy efficiency scheme for £380 million over two years. [21254]

  Angela Eagle
  £380 million would be sufficient to pay up to 2.3 million grants to householders under this scheme, assuming that the average grant value remained at its present level and that the scheme's infrastructure could cope with such a volume within a two year period. I intend to review the scheme as soon as possible to find out if it is helping the right people in the most effective way.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will 352
  restrict movements of heavy and wide loads to off-peak periods. [21494]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Proposed movements of vehicles and loads in excess of 80 tonnes and those in excess of 2.9 metres in width are required to be notified to the police. The timing of the movement is at the discretion of the Chief Officer(s) of police in the area(s) in which the movement is to take place. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has recommended to Police Forces that abnormal loads should, where possible, be moved at off-peak periods, including, where it is safe to do so, the hours of night. In timing the movement of such loads, it must be recognised that large loads frequently require police escort. This places considerable demands on resources and the Police service generally finds it difficult to provide a flexible escort service because other operational policing requirements frequently have to take priority at short notice. This can mean that Police Forces are sometimes left with no alternative but to escort loads at busy periods.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the movement of heavy and wide loads on the motorway network. [21493]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The movement of heavy and wide loads on all types of roads is governed by either the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, the Special Types General Order 1979 or in the case of loads greater than 150 tonnes or wider than 6.1 metres by Order made under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 issued by my Department. Movements of any load in excess of 5.0 metres is also subject to the agreement of my Department. Vehicles and loads in excess of 38 tonnes are required to be notified to the highway and bridge authorities on the proposed route. Those over 80 tonnes in weight and those in excess of 2.9 metres wide are required to be notified to the police areas in which the route passes.

  Commuter Journeys
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of daily commuting journeys(a) to London, (b) to Birmingham and (c) to Bristol in (i)1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) the latest year for which figures are available. [21772]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The average number of journeys to work per weekday in London was just under 3 million for the period 1992 to 1996. Data are not available for other years, or for Birmingham or Bristol.

  Source: National Travel Survey.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of daily commuting journeys in England, of(a) up to 10 miles, (b) 10 to 25 miles, (c) 25 to 50 miles and (d) over 50 miles, for (i) 1975, (ii)1980, (iii) 1985, (iv) 1990 and (v) the latest year for which figures are available. [21779]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Figures for the average number of journeys to work per weekday, for residents of England, are available only for the years shown:
  353

  Total weekday journeys (millions)

  1985–86

  1989–91

  1994–96

  Up to 10 miles

  15.3

  15.1

  13.3

  10 to under 25 miles

  2.5

  2.9

  2.9

  25 to under 50 miles

  0.6

  0.7

  0.8

  Over 50 miles

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  All journey lengths

  18.6

  19.0

  17.3

  Source:

  National Travel Survey.

  Wheel Loss Survey
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the results of the wheel loss survey completed on 30 April will be published. [21782]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The results of the survey looking into the number of incidents of wheel loss from commercial vehicles are currently being finalised. We expect to make these results known by the end of January 1998.

  Housing Developments
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had from, and what discussions Ministers have had with, the Environment Agency, regarding the impact of current and future new housing development on(a) sustainable water resources and supply, (b) problems of additional loading in sewage treatment works, (c) flood risk protection and (d) sustainable natural uses of flood plains in (i) England, (ii) the south-west region and (iii) Somerset. [21773]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations from, or held discussions with, the Environment Agency on these matters. The issue of flood risk protection is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The position in respect of residential development is that water companies have a statutory duty to provide supplies of water sufficient for domestic purposes and this duty extends to all new premises. Current planning guidance requires local authorities to consult with infrastructure providers, such as water suppliers, when drawing up their development plans.

  Vehicle Safety
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport. and the Regions what is the timetable for consultation on the EU Directive relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers with more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat and amending Directive 70/156/EEC. [21632]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  During the development of this proposed directive both the manufacturers and operators have been consulted extensively. The Government's position on the Commission's proposal has been described in an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum which was submitted on 30 September and to which a corrigendum, number 9734/97, has since been issued on 11 November. The Commission's proposal will now be subject to detailed discussions by Member States and we will 354
  continue to consult interested parties throughout the negotiations. It is not possible to give a precise timetable for the completion of these negotiations.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Franchising Director on the performance of the West Coast main line since privatisation. [22093]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I met the Franchising Director on 15 December to discuss current West Coast performance issues and future investment plans. In addition to that, the Franchising Director has regular liaison meetings with my officials. Key performance issues are routinely discussed at these meetings, including the performance of the West Coast Main Line since privatisation. The Franchising Director publishes quarterly bulletins of performance information against Passenger's Charter targets for all Train Operating Companies, and an annual report; these documents are in the Library of the House. The West Coast Main Line franchise was taken over by Virgin Trains on 9 March 1997. Performance of these services is slightly better than it was under British Rail but is still well below Virgin's committed target of 90 per cent. punctuality by March 1998.

  Asia Pacific Airlines
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what negotiations he is currently undertaking with Asia Pacific airlines with a view to providing greater competition for the proposed BA-AA alliance on the transatlantic route; and if he will make a statement. [21644]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The competition aspects of the proposed BA-AA alliance are being considered by the relevant authorities.

  Saudi Arabian Airlines
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that Saudi Arabian Airlines can operate in summer 1998 in line with the slots allocated to them at the recent schedule co-ordination conference. [21697]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department hopes to hold bilateral air services discussions with the Saudi Arabian authorities early next year. However, the terms of the current bilateral arrangements already make it possible for Saudi Arabian Airlines to operate all the slots which I understand they have been allocated for the summer 1998 season.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Minister for Local Government and Housing expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for East Yorkshire, relating to a meeting with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden
  355
  (Mr. Davies), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) and the hon. Member for East Yorkshire. [21953]

  Ms Armstrong
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 18 December.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Additional bilateral air service rights for UK and foreign airlines to serve UK regional airports negotiated during 1997. [21696]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Bilateral negotiations during 1997 either enabled or increased the possibility of services between UK regional airports and the following countries:Argentina, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Indonesia, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Yemen.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the occasions in the last three years when a full regional economic impact analysis, using all the factors identified in the CAA Paper, CAP 638, has been carried out in connection with bilateral air service negotiations involving routes to regional airports; and if he will name the routes involved. [21698]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since the publication of CAP 638, the full regional economic impact analyses have been carried out by the CAA for bilateral talks on air services with Australia, India, Pakistan, Canada (in respect of fifth freedom rights to India), Mauritius, Seychelles, Singapore and United Arab Emirates.

  There have been other occasions on which the CAA's economic analyses have looked at the effects of granting additional rights from regional airports, but where full regional economic analyses have not been undertaken.

  EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made towards implementing the requirements of the amended Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (97/11/EC). [22217]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's broad proposals for implementing the amended Environmental Impact Assessment Directive were set out in an initial consultation paper issued on 30 July. In the light of the responses to that paper, I am pleased to announce today the start of a second, more detailed consultation exercise on the thresholds to be used by planning authorities and others as filters in assessing whether a particular project is likely to have significant effects on the environment and so warrant environmental assessment.

  The proposed thresholds would apply to a range of projects covered by the Town and Country Planning and other consent systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  356
  Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to other Government Departments and to a wide range of business, government and environmental organisations. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Comments on the Government's proposals should be made to my Department, the Scottish Office or Northern Ireland Office as appropriate by 27 February 1998.

  EU Transport Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 10 and 11 December. [22250]

  Dr. Strang
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 10 and 11 December. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached agreement on mandates for the Commission to negotiate Community shipping agreements with India and China. Member States will continue to be involved in the negotiating process and the agreed negotiating mandates reflect this.

  The Council agreed an amendment to the EC Directive on Port State Control. This amendment will add the International Safety Management (ISM) code to the list of international safety conventions with which ships must demonstrate compliance when they enter EU ports.

  The Council took note of a progress report on discussions following the Commission's communication on maritime external relations, which was considered at the Transport Council in June.

  There was discussion of the recent Commission Decision extending application of the Community Regulation (3577/92) on maritime cabotage to the European Economic Area (EEA).

  Following a statement by Sweden on the inquiry report into the Estonia disaster, the Commission said it would consider whether new proposals would be required in the light of this and other reports.

  The Commission called on the Council for a commitment to decide at the March 1998 Council on a mandate for Community-level negotiations with the US on market access in air transport. A number of Member States, including the UK, questioned the Commission's approach and opposed setting a deadline. There will be a further discussion at the March Council. Commissioner Kinnock underlined his disappointment with this outcome, and said that the Commission would now be pursuing legal action against certain Member States.

  The Council agreed that further work preparing for the establishment of a European Aviation Safety Authority should be carried out, on the working hypothesis that the new authority would be set up as an international organisation.

  There was a progress report to the Council on preparations for Community membership of the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL); there were also progress reports on the proposed directives on airport charging and on cabin crew training.
  357
  The Council (with Germany abstaining) approved an agreement under which the Community will cooperate with EUROCONTROL and the European Space Agency (ESA) on the development of the European segment of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS).

  The Council adopted conclusions calling on Russia to end the levying of excessive charges for overflight of Siberia.

  The Council had a further discussion of the proposed directive on heavy goods vehicle taxation and charging (the "Eurovignette" directive), but was unable to reach agreement.

  The Commission reported on negotiations with Switzerland on land transport. It was agreed that negotiations should continue.

  The Council agreed conclusions noting the Commission's intention to produce proposals on working time in road transport and on driver training. A number of Member States commented on the conclusions, which were prompted by a French initiative. The UK accepted the conclusions, stating that it supported the need for decent working conditions for commercial drivers, including working time, but the treatment of working time in Community law needed careful study.

  The Council reached agreement on a Directive harmonising vehicle registration documents.

  The Council discussed lorry blockades and the Commission suggested ways of facilitating freedom of movement during disputes.

  The Commission reported on progress on a proposal to clarify and harmonise weekend and night-time lorry bans; there was also discussion of harmonised Community driving licences.

  Ecolabelling Board
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about a financial, management and policy review of the UK Ecolabelling Board. [22355]

  Mr. Meacher
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly financial management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department has now begun a thorough review of the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board (UKEB).

  The first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study, which I expect to be completed by March 1998. This study will assess the extent to which UKEB's functions are necessary and consider both the existing arrangements and possible alternatives for handling these functions.

  The review also provides an opportunity to explore what other activities might help improve the provision of environmental information for consumers. My Department will consult widely with organisations which have an interest in this field. As well as issues connected with the delivery of the present EU ecolabelling scheme, views will be invited on the case for a national award scheme and the mechanisms needed to raise the standard of environmental claims generally.
  358

  Discharges to Water
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many offences against section 85(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991 were identified by the Environment Agency for each month of 1996 and 1997 to date; and for the same period how many prosecutions were brought; how many have been successful; and how many are outstanding; and what penalties have been applied. [20647]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: This information is not available in the form requested. Of the 20,158 substantial pollution incidents recorded for 1996, which in over 90 per cent. of cases were minor and resulted only in localised environmental impacts, the Environment Agency brought 121 prosecutions under section 85(1). Of these, 117 were successful. One custodial sentence was imposed. The maximum fine was £15,000. A further 111 prosecutions relating to incidents in 1996 have been brought to date in 1997. Of these, 108 were successful. The maximum fine imposed was £15,000. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the number of outstanding prosecutions which have been brought by the Agency for offences in 1996 and 1997 under section 85(1).

  As regards 1997, data for the number of pollution incidents are not yet available. However, 36 prosecutions have been brought to date for incidents which occurred this year. All were successful. The maximum fine imposed was £7,000.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many discharges to water in excess of permitted limits have been identified by the Environment Agency for each month in 1997 to date; how many prosecutions have resulted; how many have been successful; how many are outstanding; and what penalties have been applied. [20649]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Compliance data are collected quarterly by the Environment Agency. The number of discharges which have exceeded their consented limits in each of the first three quarters of 1997 are as follows:

  Numbers

  January-March

  1,447

  April-June

  1,023

  July-September

  966

  (The second and third quarter totals do not include figures for the Environment Agency's South West region.) Most dischargers, on being notified of a failed sample, take prompt action to remedy matters.

  The Agency has brought seven prosecutions under section 85(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991 for breaches of consent which have occurred this year. Five were successful. The fines imposed ranged from £750 to £10,000. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the number of outstanding cases where the Agency has brought prosecutions in respect of such offences.
  359
  Further to my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 8 December 1997, Official Report, column 422, thirteen prosecutions were taken in 1997 under section 85(6) in respect of breaches of consent which occurred in 1996 in addition to the prosecutions taken in 1996.

  Fertilisers and Pesticides
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has, as a way of protecting the rural environment, further to tax fertilisers, pesticides and other products applied to the land. [21105]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The consultation document, "Economic Instrument for Water Pollution", issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 27 November, invited responses on a number of options to reduce water pollution. One of these options is a tax or charge on pesticides or fertilisers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if she will make a statement. [16304]

  Number and percentage of customers currently in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Industrial Disablement Benefit (IIDB) and Incapacity Benefit (IB)

  DLA—as at 31 August 19971

  IIDB—as at 30 March 19962

  IB—as at 31 May 19973

  Number of customers in Great Britain

  1,924,360

  244,798

  1,732,740

  Per cent.

  3.0

  0.4

  3.0

  Number of customers in Wansbeck

  4,340

  n/a

  n/a

  Per cent.

  7.0

  n/a

  n/a

  Number of customers in Northumberland (Northumbria District)

  11,860

  966

  12,040

  Per cent.

  4.0

  0.3

  3.9

  1. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  1 Figures based on a 5 per cent, sample of customers in receipt of Disability Living Allowance at 31 August 1997.

  2 Figures based on a 10 per cent, sample of all IIDB assessments.

  3Figures based on a 5 per cent, sample of customers in receipt of Incapacity Benefit at 31 May 1997. This includes the rates of Incapacity Short Term (Lower), Short Term (Higher) and Long Term. This figure excludes a small number of clerically processed cases.

  The percentage figure is calculated by dividing the number of customers in receipt of the benefit by the population estimate for the corresponding area. The population estimate has been provided by the Office of National Statistics and General Registrar of Scotland, population estimate at 1996.

  n/a = not available.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of each of the main disability benefits have had their benefits(a) reduced and (b) stopped, as a result of the Benefits Integrity Programme; and what proportion of these recipients are over pension age. [21521]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. We need to focus on those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have set up the Benefit Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  360
  Mr. Field
  A copy of the current guidance on the dissemination of information used by DSS Headquarters has been placed in the Library. The Department's Executive Agencies issue separate guidance for their staff.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of people are currently in receipt of(a) disability living allowance, (b)
  industrial disablement benefit and (c) incapacity benefit (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in the Wansbeck parliamentary constituency. [19276]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of social security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Denis Murphy, dated 18 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many and what percentage of people are currently in receipt of (a) Disability Living Allowance (DLA),(b) Industrial Disablement Benefit (IIDB), and (c)Incapacity Benefit (IB), (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in the Wansbeck parliamentary constituency.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics for DLA, IIDB and IB are available for Great Britain. Statistics for IIDB and IB are kept for Benefits Agency (BA) Districts and not by parliamentary constituency. The BA's Northumbria District serves the Wansbeck area.
  Such information as is available is shown in the attached table.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 18 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding how many recipients of each of the main disability benefits have had their benefits reduced and stopped as a result of the Benefits Integrity Programme (BIP), and what proportion of these recipients are over pension age.
  As at 30 November 1997, the BIP has looked at 27,511 Disability Living Allowance (DLA) awards. Of these awards 2,339 were reduced, 1,152 were disallowed entirely, 23,363 left unaltered and 657 increased. In addition staff working on the BIP have dealt with 5,979 renewal claims of which 1,080 have been disallowed, 1,541 renewed at a lower rate, 3,174 renewed at the same rate and 184 renewed at a higher rate.

  361
  The age distribution of the awards changed as a result of the BIP is not available in the format requested. However, the proportion of DLA awards to people over pension age which were looked at, inclusive of the renewal claims dealt with by BIP staff is 10,371. Of these 762 were reduced, 310 were disallowed entirely, while 265 were increased.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly mortgage interest of homebuyers in receipt of family credit; and how many have weekly mortgage interest costs of (i) up to £9.99, (ii) £10–£19.99, (iii) £20–£29.99, (iv) £30–£39.99, (v) £40–£49.99, (vi) £ 50–£59.99, (vii) £60–£69.99, (viii) £70–£79.99 and (ix) £80 or above. [21785]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  According to the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey (FRS) the average weekly mortgage interest cost to homebuyers in receipt of Family Credit (FC) was £31 (rounded to nearest £1).

  Counts of FC receipt derived from the FRS do not match administrative sources. Therefore the requested figures for homebuyer FC recipients by mortgage band are shown in the table as percentages rather than grossed up counts. In addition, the requested mortgage interest bands resulted in counts too low to be reliable. Therefore it has been necessary to enlarge the mortgage interest bands used.

  Weekly mortgage interest cost

  Homebuyers in receipt of Family Credit—percentages within each mortgage interest band

  Up to £19.99

  33

  £20 to £39.99

  40

  £40 to £59.99

  21

  £60 or above

  6

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on sample counts which have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors which control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non response.

  2. The total count of homebuyers given is based on adult owner occupiers with a mortgage where the benefit unit to which the adult belongs is in receipt of Family Credit. A benefit unit is a single adult or couple living as married and any dependent children.

  Source:

  The figures are based on information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey (FRS). The 1995–96 survey is the latest for which data are available.

  DSS Estates
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about recent developments concerning the DSS Estates. [22354]

  Ms Harman
  To support our aims for an active modern service and further to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 31 July 1997,Official Report, columns 591–94, I have today authorised the signing of a contract with Partnership Property Management Limited, which will own and
  362
  provide the Department with serviced accommodation throughout the country, except for the Tyneside area, which is covered by a separate project. The contract will start on 1 April 1998. This is an imaginative and innovative form of partnership with the private sector which will bring specialist expertise to the management of the estate; deliver improved value for money; result in more investment in our buildings; and allow us to share in gains realised by property developments. It gives us more flexibility to adjust the buildings we occupy to meet our changing service needs, while retaining control over location of our offices. This project, PRIME, has been a major Government procurement. It is a pathfinder project which puts this Department at the forefront of the way in which the public sector manages property.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the rates of improvement in Key Stage 1 SAT results in(a) English and (b) maths (i) for the schools maintained by the City of Birmingham and (ii) nationally between 1991 and 1997. [18580]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The national results for Key Stage 1 in English and mathematics of pupils at level 2 and above are as follows:

  Percentage

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  English

  78

  77

  n/a

  179

  180

  179

  180

  Mathematics

  78

  78

  n/a

  81

  78

  82

  84

  1 Teacher Assessment results as there is no overall test level.

  The Department has not published Key Stage 1 results by local education authority (LEA) since 1992. LEAs can, if they wish, publish the Key Stage 1 results for their schools alongside the 1997 Key Stage 2 results they are publishing in January 1998. The Government plan to publish 1997 Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 results for each LEA early next year.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list local education authorities in order of performance in terms of(a) percentage points of improvement between 1996 and 1997 based on pupils' achievement at level 4 and above in Key Stage 2 curriculum tests in English, mathematics and science (i) separately and (ii) taken together, and (b) their actual average scores at Level 4 and above in each of those subjects in each year. [18579]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The national figures for pupils at level 4 show improvement between 1996 and 1997 as follows:

  Percentage point improvement from 1996 in:

  Teacher assessment

  Test

  English

  3

  5

  Mathematics

  4

  8

  Science

  4

  7

  363
  The 1996 Key Stage 2 results by local education authority (LEA) area were published in March 1997 and copies placed in the Library. Each LEA will be publishing the 1997 Key Stage 2 results for schools in its area in January 1998. The Government plan to publish 1997 Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 results for each LEA early next year.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list local education authorities in rank order of deprivation, on the basis of the DoE index of deprivation, and providing for each their position in Key Stage 2 results for summer 1997. [18568]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions produces several deprivation indexes, including an Additional Educational Needs (AEN) index which is used to estimate the cost of providing a standard level of education service. The AEN index for each Local Education Authority (LEA) for 1998–99 is listed below. Each LEA will publish 1997 Key Stage 2 results for schools in its area in January 1998. The Government plan to publish 1997 Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 results for each LEA early next year.

  Additional Educational Needs (AEN) index

  LEA

  Index

  Tower Hamlets

  2.7903

  Hackney

  2.6827

  Lambeth

  2.4684

  Newham

  2.4456

  Haringey

  2.4343

  Souithwark

  2.4230

  Islington

  2.4146

  Camden

  2.2352

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2.2278

  Lewisham

  2.1486

  Brent

  2.1484

  Manchester

  2.1281

  Knowsley

  2.1032

  Liverpool

  1.9476

  Westminster

  1.9335

  Waltham Forest

  1.8859

  Greenwich

  1.8530

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1.8230

  Wandsworth

  1.8164

  Nottingham City

  1.7907

  Birmingham

  1.7692

  Ealing

  1.7531

  Leicester

  1.6644

  Middlesbrough

  1.6272

  Hounslow

  1.5880

  Slough

  1.5854

  Blackburn

  1.5810

  City of London

  1.5808

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.5362

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1.5351

  Luton

  1.5057

  Enfield

  1.5005

  Wolverhampton

  1.4960

  Salford

  1.4941

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  1.4888

  Sandwell

  1.4778

  Bradford

  1.4654

  Coventry

  1.4053

  Rochdale

  1.4041

  Croydon

  1.4020

  South Tynside

  1.3803

  Wirral

  1.3567

  Halton

  1.3510

  Oldham

  1.3473

  Southampton

  1.3141

  Redbridge

  1.3117

  364

  Additional Educational Needs (AEN) index

  LEA

  Index

  Brighton and Hove

  1.3066

  Sunderland

  1.2985

  Derby

  1.2978

  Peterborough

  1.2942

  Hartlepool

  1.2805

  City of Bristol

  1.2786

  Portsmouth

  1.2736

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.2650

  Barnet

  1.2629

  Merton

  1.2614

  Gateshead

  1.2427

  Walsall

  1.2275

  Blackpool

  1.2213

  Torbay

  1.2193

  Sheffield

  1.2116

  North-east Lincolnshire

  1.2059

  Southend

  1.1983

  Doncaster

  1.1962

  Reading

  1.1892

  Bolton

  1.1846

  Kirklees

  1.1743

  Stockton on Tees

  1.1718

  Sefton

  1.1708

  Harrow

  1.1681

  St. Helens

  1.1587

  Bournemouth

  1.1538

  Stoke on Trent

  1.1465

  The Wrekin

  1.1426

  Calderdale

  1.1368

  Leeds

  1.1357

  Hillingdon

  1.1291

  Plymouth

  1.1189

  Tameside

  1.1133

  North Tyneside

  1.1106

  Barnsley

  1.0914

  Thurrock

  1.0879

  Rotherham

  1.0855

  Darlington

  1.0710

  Milton Keynes

  1.0525

  Isle of Wight Council

  1.0426

  Trafford

  1.0339

  Durham

  1.0147

  Lancashire

  1.0076

  Rochester and Gillingham

  1.0004

  Bexley

  0.9804

  Wakefield

  0.9762

  Sutton

  0.9734

  Bury

  0.9473

  Wigan

  0.9367

  North Lincolnshire

  0.9275

  Bromley

  0.9115

  East Sussex

  0.9110

  Thamesdown

  0.9083

  Dudley

  0.8998

  Kent

  0.8947

  Havering

  0.8866

  Solihull

  0.8790

  Cornwall

  0.8784

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.8725

  Stockport

  0.8691

  Northampstonshire

  0.8669

  Warrington

  0.8438

  York

  0.8360

  Poole

  0.8316

  Norfolk

  0.8303

  Northumberland

  0.8284

  Nottinghamshire

  0.8266

  Essex

  0.8245

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.8112

  Lincolnshire

  0.8041

  Cumbria

  0.8040

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.7850

  Bedfordshire

  0.7850

  365

  Additional Educational Needs (AEN) index

  LEA

  Index

  Hertfordshire

  0.7831

  Devon

  0.7808

  Gloucestershire

  0.7574

  Cheshire

  0.7573

  West Sussex

  0.7512

  Worcestershire

  0.7381

  Suffolk

  0.7348

  Somerset

  0.7297

  Warwickshire

  0.7296

  Derbyshire

  0.7244

  Herefordshire

  0.7232

  Oxfordshire

  0.7194

  Bracknell Forest

  0.7122

  North Somerset

  0.7077

  Staffordshire

  0.6913

  Cambridgeshire

  0.6880

  Hampshire

  0.6820

  Dorset

  0.6797

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0.6733

  Buckinghamshire

  0.6725

  Wiltshire

  0.6609

  South Gloucestershire

  0.6550

  Surrey

  0.6450

  North Yorkshire

  0.6416

  Shropshire

  0.6337

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.6320

  Leicestershire

  0.5990

  Newbury

  0.5614

  Isle of Scilly

  0.5360

  Wokingham

  0.5041

  Rutland

  0.4565

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the income derived from tuition fees from medical students will be made available for medical school education. [20967]

  Dr. Howells
  Universities and colleges will retain the contribution to fees which they collect from students; and also the part of the fee they receive from local authorities, where the student is assessed as paying less than the £1,000. It is for universities with medical schools to decide how much of this income and of the grant received from the Higher Education Funding Council should be made available for medical school education.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the revenue raised through the introduction of tuition fees wil be used entirely to fund further and higher education by allowing the institutions which collect the money to spend it. [21847]

  Dr. Howells
  We have made it clear that the savings from the introduction of tuition fees will be used to improve quality, standards and opportunity for all in further and higher education.

  For 1998–99 we have already announced that the introduction of private contributions to tuition fees for higher education will mean an extra £125 million for higher education institutions, plus £4 million to allow for a modest increase in students on sub degree courses mainly in FE colleges. In addition some £15 million of the higher education savings has been allocated to the further education sector to contribute to meeting the Government's priorities for reducing social exclusion and increasing employability.
  366
  Provision for later years is being considered in the comprehensive expenditure review.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which body will be responsible for means-testing EU applicants to United Kingdom universities in order to determine the level of their contribution to the tuition fees; how this will be administered; and how much it will cost. [21848]

  Dr. Howells
  In England and Wales, local education authorities will handle applications for mandatory awards from all new entrants to higher education in 1998–99. The Department intends to offer them substantial practical assistance in handling applications from EU nations. The arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what mechanisms will be put in place to enable grant-maintained schools to re-enter the local authority-maintained sector. [21593]

  Mr. Byers
  The School Standards and Framework Bill will establish a new framework for the organisation of schools. All existing legal categories of mainstream maintained school—including the grant-maintained category—will be replaced by three new categories: community, foundation and voluntary. All three will be maintained by local education authorities.

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of research on the underlying reasons for the increase in statements of special educational need over the last five years. [21508]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of pupils with statements has risen from 161,000 in 1992 to 233,000 in 1997. Our Green Paper, "Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs" draws on the views of members of the National Advisory Group on special educational needs and on discussions with schools, local education authorities and voluntary groups. It suggests that the reasons for the increase may include financial and other differential effects of statements. While confirming the continuing importance of statements for children with complex disabilities, the Green Paper seeks views on the case for helping schools to meet the needs of more children without recourse to expensive statutory statementing processes.

  Maintenance Grants
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay the decision to reject the recommendations of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education to retain maintenance grants for students. [21849]

  Dr. Howells
  We agree with the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education that the Government should continue to provide support towards students' living costs, but we do not believe that general grants for maintenance are the answer to ensuring a modern student
  367
  support system. Instead, students' living costs should be met out of their future earnings and—in the case of better-off students—by their parents. Compared with those without degrees, graduates on average see their earnings rise by as much as £4,000 for every £20,000 of earnings within about ten years of graduation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Building (PFI)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the public sector comparator against which the Prison Service has calculated whether the prisons to be built and managed under the Private Finance Initiative at Bridgend and Fazakerley will result in cost savings; what assumptions the comparator includes; if he will publish those calculations; and if he will make a statement. [18092]

  Ms Quin
  The public sector comparator is the estimated discounted cost of alternative procurement and operation of a prison which will be designed, constructed, managed for 25 years and financed under a private finance initiative contract.

  The principal assumptions made in calculating the comparators for the prisons at Bridgend (Her Majesty's Prison Parc) and Fazakerley (Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse) were:

  (i) design and construction using public finance;

  (ii) operation by a private sector contractor;

  (iii) delays and cost overruns at a rate consistent with other recent public sector prison building projects;

  (iv) wage inflation at historical average annual rates (2 per cent. above movements in the retail price index);

  (v) an additional price increase at the end of the fifth year of the operating contract; and

  (vi) the annual cost of public finance would be six per cent. in real terms.

  The detailed calculations are not available in publishable form, but the estimated contract costs and savings against the public comparators (in Net Present Value terms) were as follows:

  Contract value (£m)

  Savings against public sector comparator, per cent.

  Bridgend 319

  17.0

  Fazakerley 248

  0.4

  Overall savings for both prisons

  10.0

  In 1996, the public sector comparator for Fazakerley was re-calculated to take account of improved efficiency within the public sector, with two significant changes to the principal assumptions. These were:

  operation by the public sector with costs reducing in line with the Prison Service's target of 5.7 per cent. in 1997–98 and salary increases at 0.5 per cent. above the retail price index after that; and

  no delays or cost overruns.

  As a result, the contract value for Fazakerley was estimated to be 1 per cent. less than the public sector comparator.
  368
  These comparators were examined in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Private Finance Initiative Contracts for Bridgend and Fazakerley Prisons (HC 253 of session 1997–98).

  Voluntary Redundancy
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many provisional applications for voluntary redundancy have been received from junior official grades at(a) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, (b) the Prison Service and (c) the other agencies and parts of his Department in the last six months; what assessment he has made of morale within his Department; and if he will make a statement. [20617]

  Mr. Straw
  In October, staff in the grades Administrative Assistant, Administrative Officer, Executive Officer and Higher Executive Officer working in Home Office offices in Croydon and Greater London were invited to make provisional applications for a possible voluntary redundancy scheme. A total of 1,002 provisional applications were received: 517 from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, 177 from the Prison Service and 308 from the centrally managed Home Office offices.

  A number of surveys of staff opinions and attitudes have been carried out in the central Home Office, the Prison Service and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in recent years. I shall place copies of the Home Office Staff Survey Report 1997 in the Library.

  In addition, I have had two formal meetings with the Home Office Trade Union side this year.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will suspend the licence granted to Huntingdon Life Sciences to breed beagles. [21333]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) on 18 December 1997,Official Report, columns 262–63.

  The care and accommodation for the dogs meet the requirements of the codes of practice and there are no legitimate grounds on which to suspend the Certificate of Designation.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his visit to Northfields, Leicester. [21873]

  Mr. Straw
  I was very impressed by the work carried out by Inspector Donaghy and his team to address the problems on the Northfields Estate. This multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood disorder fits well with the proposals in the recent Crime and Disorder Bill. The enthusiasm of the Northfields' residents in addressing local problems was particularly striking.

  Acklington Prison
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects to implement the
  369
  recommendations of H.M. Chief Inspector of Prisons relating to (a) the provision of extra work places for prisoners, (b) additional funding for evening classes, (c) weekend drug testing and (d) additional places on drug-free wings at HM Prison, Acklington. [21622]

  Ms Quin
  Weekend drug testing has already been introduced.

  The report was published on 11 December and the governor will produce an action plan within 30 working days of this date which will address all the Chief Inspector's recommendations. Those mentioned in the Question require funding, and bids are currently being considered. These will have to be prioritised against other demands.

  Community Protection Orders
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses to the consultation paper "Community Protection Orders" were received during the consultation period; and if he will make a statement. [22248]

  Mr. Straw
  92 responses were received. A list of the respondents and a summary of the main points raised can be found in the Library in a document entitled "Responses to the Home Office Consultation Document on Community Protection Orders".

  Community Penalties and Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the pilot projects to test the new community penalties introduced by sections 35, 37, 39, 40 and 43 of the new Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and electronic monitoring as a condition of bail will begin. [22249]

  Ms Quin
  The pilot projects will start on 2 January 1998 in Norfolk and in Manchester City Magistrates' Court. The remaining courts in Greater Manchester will be included in the pilot scheme from 1 April 1988. The trials of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail will begin in Norwich Magistrates' Court and Norwich Crown Court on 1 April 1998 and in Manchester City Magistrates' Court and Manchester Crown Court on 1 July 1998.

  Freemasonry
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to respond on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations on freemasonry in the police and the judiciary. [21816]

  Mr. Straw
  I had hoped to be in a position to do so by the end of November, but our consideration of the issue is not yet completed. I now expect to be able to reply to the Home Affairs Committee in the new year.

  Private Sector Employment
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997 to the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith),Official Report, column 647, if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office clearance procedure for
  370
  former officials of his Department who wish to take employment with private sector contractors; and how many individuals are currently awaiting clearance. [21584]

  Mr. Straw
  The Business Appointment Rules and associated procedures are set out in full in Annexes A and B to Chapter 4.3 of the Civil Service Management Code, a copy of which is in the Library.

  One application by a Prison Service member of staff, for permission to take up an offer of employment from a private sector contractor, is currently awaiting a decision under the rules.

  Prisons (Health Care)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 651, how many (a) nurses and (b) other health care staff within the prison service are currently undertaking national vocational qualifications in health care management. [20408]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: Detailed information on course content is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how many times Brian McHugh has been strip searched while on remand in HMP Belmarsh. [20336]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: It is not possible to provide accurate figures on the number of times Brian McHugh has been strip searched whilst on remand at Belmarsh Prison. As a High Risk prisoner, Mr. McHugh is subject to a searching policy appropriate to his security category. In particular, he will be strip searched before and after visits, on entry to and exit from the prison and on entry to and exit from the court. These routine strip searches are not recorded since they are a mandatory requirement of Prison Service security policy.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many strip-searches have taken place in each of the London prisons since 1 January. [21379]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: This information is not available since prisons do not keep records of all strip searches. However, the Prison Service is reviewing searching and I have asked them to make recommendations on the monitoring of strip searches.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the projected (i) untried and (ii) convicted unsentenced remand prison population on 1 January 1998. [21537]
  371
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The number of untried male prisoners is expected to be 8,100 on 31 December 1997, the nearest date to 1 January for which projections are made. The number of convicted unsentenced male prisoners is expected to be 3,000 on 31 December. Female remand prisoners are expected to number 570 on 31 December. The projections do not separate female remand prisoners by whether they are convicted or not.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Soil Erosion
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration the Government have given to the recommendation in section 5.41 of the report on the sustainable use of soil from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1996 on soil erosion control; and if he will make a statement. [20513]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government believe that the provision of soundly based guidance to farmers should continue to be the centrepiece of public policy on the protection of agriculture soils. For this purpose, Agriculture Departments have made available a wide range of advice about the protection of soil. In particular, the MAFF/WOAD Soil Code provides farmers with comprehensive advice about the impact of agricultural practices on soil condition. This includes advice on preventing or minimising erosion. In addition, this Department published an advisory booklet during 1997, "Controlling Soil Erosion", which gave farmers further help in dealing with soil erosion problems.

  The Department has also commissioned a step by step guide to help farmers plan erosion control systematically. The draft guide will be trailed over the winter in certain areas of England with soils at high risk of erosion by water.

  Olestra
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the licensing of the dietary additive Olestra. [21001]

  Mr. Rooker
  A number of representations have been received recently from branches of the Standing Conference of Women's Organisations asking for Olestra to be restricted to medical use only.

  This fat replacer cannot, however, be used as a food ingredient in Europe until such time as it has been approved under the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97). To date, no application for approval of Olestra under this regulation has been received.

  Krebs Report
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make a statement on the outcome of the Krebs report. [21099]
  372
  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on 16 December 1997,Official Report, columns 136–37.

  Fishing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at which meetings of the fisheries and management committees were(a) proposals and (b) decisions made relating to the minimum size of legally caught plaice; and for what purposes these proposals and decisions were made. [20970]

  Mr. Morley
  A proposal to revise the minimum landing size for legally caught plaice was made by the European Commission in June 1996 as part of a package of technical conservation measures. The size of 17 cm proposed was that at which plaice are retained and killed by 80 mm nets. The revised minimum size was intended to reduce the discarding of dead fish that could not otherwise be landed.

  On 30 October 1997, the Fisheries Council decided to increase the minimum size from 17 cm to 22 cm as part of a compromise package. This new size will apply from 1 January 2000 and is intended to take account of the fact that plaice are often targeted with nets exceeding 80 mm minimum mesh size.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) discards and (b) legally landed catches for each member state of the European Union in (i) tonnes and (ii) numbers of fish in each of the years 1992 to 1996. [20971]

  Mr. Morley
  Data on discarding are not generally available and specific information is not reported by Member States. For information on catches, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given to him today. No data are collected on numbers of fish landed.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the approximate weight and value of(a) the total fish catch of member states of the European Community, (b) fish consumption by member states, (c) total imports of fish from third nations and (d) exports of fish to third nations in each year from 1990 to 1996; and for each year what percentage (a) was of (b). [20972]

  Mr. Morley
  The available information, which has been produced by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and Eurostat, is set out in the tables.

  For parts (a) and (b) data have been given for years 1990 to 1995; data for 1996 are currently unavailable from FAO.

  Data are given for all years even though not all the current 15 Member States have been part of the European Community for the whole of this period.

  The information requested relating to the value of the total fish catch of Member States of the European Community and fish consumption by Member States is not available.
  373

  Part A: The total fish catch

  Figures refer to all fishing areas

  Metric tons in live weight (thousands)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Austria

  4.8

  4.5

  4.1

  4.6

  4.5

  4.5

  Belgium

  42.0

  40.7

  40.0

  36.9

  35.1

  36.4

  Denmark

  1,517.7

  1,793.3

  1,996.3

  1,655.8

  1,916.4

  2,041.1

  Finland

  160.4

  147.4

  169.7

  173.8

  181.0

  184.8

  France

  869.4

  819.1

  821.0

  860.4

  852.8

  793.4

  Germany

  390.7

  303.4

  307.2

  316.4

  272.8

  298.0

  Greece

  146.4

  156.8

  179.2

  199.1

  223.4

  198.2

  Ireland

  239.3

  264.9

  275.7

  308.1

  319.2

  412.7

  Italy

  525.5

  552.2

  558.3

  564.7

  576.0

  609.8

  Netherlands

  507.2

  458.8

  487.1

  532.9

  529.6

  521.4

  Portugal

  323.1

  325.9

  299.6

  293.7

  269.8

  265.5

  Spain1

  1,304.0

  1,273.0

  1,260.0

  1,255.0

  1,372.0

  1,320.0

  Sweden

  260.1

  245.0

  314.7

  347.8

  394.2

  412.2

  United Kingdom

  810.2

  851.5

  869.9

  929.0

  963.6

  1,003.7

  Note:

  1 FAO forecast.

  Source

  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  Part B: Total consumption of fish and other marine resources— FAO estimates

  Metric tons in live weight (thousands)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Austria

  71.0

  72.2

  80.1

  77.9

  n/a

  n/a

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  196.0

  194.1

  202.9

  187.2

  202.0

  215.0

  Denmark

  100.5

  105.0

  109.8

  103.3

  n/a

  n/a

  Finland

  163.8

  163.4

  164.8

  163.4

  172.0

  168.7

  France

  1,737.1

  1,696.3

  1,654.4

  1,592.4

  1,582.3

  1,537.2

  Germany

  1,046.4

  981.7

  1,026.5

  987.2

  1,060.4

  1,052.3

  Greece

  213.0

  218.6

  232.4

  245.9

  279.4

  254.4

  Ireland

  57.6

  53.2

  60.4

  64.2

  69.7

  n/a

  Italy

  1,223.3

  1,298.1

  1,255.1

  1,225.6

  1,230.1

  1,245.0

  Netherlands

  162.5

  155.3

  202.8

  210.0

  215.3

  222.7

  Portugal

  582.4

  605.8

  570.7

  584.8

  575.2

  572.7

  Spain

  1,351.1

  1,339.2

  1,373.5

  1,407.0

  1,457.2

  1,445.7

  Sweden

  233.5

  230.4

  229.0

  234.7

  248.1

  n/a

  UK

  1,107.5

  1,082.5

  1,111.7

  1,099.8

  1,121.6

  1,113.0

  Note:

  n/a= no data available.

  Source:

  Food and agriculture Organisation of the united Nations.

  The total fish catch as a percentage of fish and other marine resources consumption

  Percentages

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Austria

  6.8

  6.2

  5.1

  5.9

  n/a

  n/a

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  21.4

  21.0

  19.7

  19.7

  17.4

  169

  Denmark

  1,510.1

  1,707.4

  1,817.6

  1,603.5

  n/a

  n/a

  Finland

  97.9

  90.2

  102.9

  106.4

  105.3

  109.5

  France

  50.0

  48.3

  49.6

  54.0

  53.9

  51.6

  Germany

  37.3

  30.9

  29.9

  32.1

  25.7

  28.3

  Greece

  68.7

  71.7

  77.1

  81.0

  80.0

  77.9

  Ireland

  415.5

  498.2

  456.8

  479.5

  458.2

  n/a

  Italy

  43.0

  42.5

  44.5

  46.1

  46.8

  49.0

  Netherlands

  312.1

  295.4

  240.2

  253.8

  246.0

  234.1

  Portugal

  55.5

  53.8

  52.5

  50.2

  46.9

  46.4

  Spain

  96.5

  95.1

  91.7

  89.2

  94.2

  91.3

  Sweden

  111.4

  106.3

  137.4

  148.2

  158.9

  n/a

  UK

  73.2

  78.7

  78.2

  84.5

  85.9

  90.2

  Note:

  n/a = no data available.

  Source:

  Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
  374

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department plans to reduce the proportion of sea defence expenditure funded by public funds. [21030]

  Mr. Morley
  Allocations for MAFF grants and credit approvals to operating authorities for capital flood and coastal defence works in 1998–99 are at the same level as plans proposed last year by the previous Government. Also, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has recently announced that Revenue Support Grant allocations for 1998–99, which cover residual costs of local authorities' schemes that are not covered by grant aid, will be almost 5.1 per cent. higher than actual expenditure in 1997–98. For future years the level of funding will depend on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  International Fund for Animal Welfare
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial support his Department(a) has given and (b) plans to give to IFAW. [21028]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  BSE
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the development by Enfer Scientific of a test for BSE antibodies in tissue samples taken from dead animals. [21845]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have asked this company if they would provide us with sufficient technical information to enable us to assess the test, but they have so far declined to do so. We continue to be in contact with them and hope that they will feel able to provide us with the necessary information in future.

  Waste Cattle Bones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has given to butchers and local authorities responsible for waste collection on the disposal of waste cattle bones from butchers' shops following the ban on the sale of beef on the bone. [21139]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: In response to inquiries from butchers and local authorities, the Department's officials have advised that bones are not classified as Specified Risk Material (SRM) under the Beef Bones Regulations 1997, and can be disposed of in accordance with Part II of Schedule I to the Animal By Products Order 1992. Arrangements for actual disposal are a commercial matter between individual butchers and those who collect their waste.

  Animal Carcases
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the backlog of animal carcases awaiting incineration; and what action the Government are taking under the Over Thirty Months Scheme to expedite the processing. [21497]
  375
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: There is no backlog of the Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS) carcases awaiting incineration. On average 15,000 animals a week are presented for the scheme, of which around 1,500 cattle, mostly on-farm casualties, are directly incinerated in appropriately authorised incinerators. The remainder are rendered and the remains securely stored pending disposal. Following a tender held last year, the amount of direct carcase incineration capacity available to the scheme is expected to increase to around 5,000 animals a week by spring 1998, subject to the successful companies obtaining the necessary planning and environmental consents. Much of this increase will be in respect of incinerators that are associated with scheme abattoirs, thus providing an integrated disposal solution.

  Beef
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what external advice he sought when SEAC's recommendations were first notified to him. [21610]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: When SEAC's advice was notified to my right hon. Friend, and having taken into account the views of the Chief Medical Officer, he announced his intention to consult widely on proposals to prohibit the sale of beef on the bone from animals aged over six months. My right hon. Friend has received a large number of comments which were taken into account before he introduced legislation in this House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the voluntary grammar schools which have preparatory departments; and if she will make a statement on the enrolments of these preparatory departments at each school. [20696]

  Mr. Worthington
  Nineteen of Northern Ireland's 54 voluntary grammar schools have preparatory departments. The most recent year for which enrolment figures are available is 1996–97 and the table shows the enrolment figure at each school.

  Voluntary grammer schools preparatory departments

  Name of school

  Number of pupils

  Armagh Royal

  49

  Ballymena Academy

  90

  Ballymoney Dalriada

  104

  Bangor Grammar

  121

  Belfast Bloomfield Collegiate

  93

  Belfast Campbell College

  189

  Belfast Hunterhouse College

  91

  Belfast Methodist College

  555

  Belfast Royal Academical Institution

  237

  Belfast Royal Academy

  291

  Belfast Strathearn

  171

  Belfast Victoria College

  161

  Dungannon Royal

  35

  Holywood Sullivan Upper

  189

  Larne Grammar

  48

  Lisburn Friends

  190

  Lisburn The Wallace

  196

  376

  Voluntary grammar schools preparatory departments

  Name of school

  Number of pupils

  Londonderry Foyle College

  51

  Magherafelt Rainey Endowed

  52

  Total

  2,913

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the costs of the current DENI capital building programme for(a)the controlled,(b)the maintained,(c)the integrated and (d) the voluntary grammar school sector; and in each case if she will list the approved schemes and their values. [21032]

  Mr. Worthington
  The details of my Department's major capital building programme are set out in the table. In addition, four school projects are being pursued under the Private Finance Initiative—St. Genevieve's High School, Wellington College, Balmoral High School (all Belfast) and Drumglass High School, Dungannon. The estimated capital cost of these projects is just over £31 million.

  School

  Scheme

  Estimated cost School £ million

  Controlled Schools

  South Lisburn Primary

  New School

  1.3

  Glaskermore Primary, Banbridge

  New School

  1.2

  Belmont Primary, Belfast

  New School

  1.3

  Muckamore House Special

  New School

  3.6

  Drumahoe Primary

  New School

  1.1

  Ballykeel Primary, Ballymena

  New School

  3.5

  Grosvenor Grammar

  Extension/Refurbishment

  4.4

  Limavady Grammar

  Extension/Refurbishment

  6.4

  Moira Primary

  New School

  1.8

  Newtownabbey Community High

  Extension/Refurbishment

  3.3

  Total

  27.9

  Maintained Schools

  St. Dallen's Primary, Warrenpoint

  New School

  4.0

  St. Bride's Primary, Belfast

  Conversion/Refurbishment

  1.0

  St. Patrick's High, Keady

  New School

  12.4

  St. Malachy's High, Castlewellan

  New School

  12.8

  Holy Trinity Primary, Cookstown

  Extension/Refurbishment

  3.0

  Mullanaskea Primary

  New School

  1.0

  Gaelscoil na bhFal Primary, Belfast

  New School

  2.0

  Total

  36.2

  Integrated Schools

  Oakgrove Integrated Primary, Londonderry

  New School

  2.6

  Hazelwood College, Belfast

  Extension/Refurbishment

  9.9

  Total

  12.5

  Voluntary Grammar Schools

  Lumen Christi College, Londonderry

  Extension/Refurbishment

  5.1

  St. Columb's College, Londonderry

  Extension

  11.5

  Total

  16.6

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland if the funding of administration costs of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools will be
  377
  subject to the same economies and constraints as are applicable to the headquarters costs of education and library boards. [21265]

  Mr. Worthington
  The administration costs of the Council will be subject to economies and constraints but the level of constraint will be determined after consideration of the Council's individual circumstances.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the controlled primary schools in the North Down constituency, specifying in each case the spare capacity in terms of pupil numbers. [21424]

  Mr. Worthington
  The following controlled primary schools are within the North Down constituency:

  Name of School

  Spare capacity at November 1997 (places)

  Dundonald Primary Schools are within the North Down constituency

  None

  Gilnahirk Primary School

  None

  Holywood Primary School

  None

  Crawfordsburn Primary School

  12

  Ballyholme Primary School

  None

  Clandeboye Primary School

  82

  Bangor Central Primary School

  None

  Redburn Primary School

  189

  Glencraig Primary School

  59

  Bloomfield Road Primary School

  95

  Conlig Primary School

  61

  Tullycarnet Primary School

  265

  Grange Park Primary School

  19

  Kilcooley Primary School

  389

  Rathmore Primary School

  176

  Towerview Primary School

  77

  Kilmaine Primary School

  140

  Ballymagee Primary School

  64

  The above list does not include Groomsport Primary School which was damaged by fire in 1966.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to consult parents concerning preparatory schooling funding; and if she will make a statement on the consultation undertaken and the amount of correspondence received to date. [21426]

  Mr. Worthington
  A consultative letter was issued on 8 October to all schools with preparatory departments. It was then a matter for each school to consult with and take the views of parents. The Department of Education has to date received approximately 900 responses during the consultation process.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of preparatory school pupils attend establishments that are not categorised as Catholic for fair employment statistical purposes. [21425]

  Mr. Worthington
  100 per cent.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account was taken of the Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment guidelines in the decision to review Preparatory Department funding; and if she will make a statement. [21427]
  378
  Mr. Worthington
  A Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment analysis will be carried out concurrent with the analysis of all the comments received during the consultation process. This analysis will be an integral part of the final decision-making process.

  Cottonmount Landfill Site
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the implications of phase 2 of the Cottonmount landfill site for re-cycling measures in Northern Ireland; [20783]

  (2) if an environmental impact study was carried out on phase 1 of the Cottonmount landfill site; [20786]

  (3) if an environmental impact study will be carried out before any decision is taken on phase 2 of the Cottonmount landfill site; [20787]

  (4) to what extent she will take the draft EC Directive on the Landfill of Waste into account before a decision on phase 2 of the Cottonmount landfill site is made; [20788]

  (5) if the minimum separation distance from site boundaries to residential and recreational areas of phase 2 of Cottonmount landfill site is less than the draft EC directive's general requirements; [20782]

  (6) what assessment she has made of the Newtownabbey Borough Council independent environmental study into the effects of phase 1 of Cottonmount landfill site on local residents.[20784]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Kate Hoey, dated 19 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the Cottonmount landfill site at Mallusk Belfast.
  There are no direct implications of Phase 2 of the Cottonmount landfill site for recycling measures in Northern Ireland. The new Waste Management and Contaminated Land (NI) Order 1997 includes a requirement that a Northern Ireland Waste Strategy be prepared. Work is already under way on the Strategy which will inter alia promote the hierarchy of waste management options which range from waste minimisation, through re-cycling to landfill at the bottom of the list. The recycling measures which flow from the Order together with the landfill tax all mitigate against landfill. However, there is likely to be an on-going need for landfill sites for materials which are not recyclable and, for example, residues from incineration.
  The application to landfill Phase 1 of the Cottonmount site was submitted on 31 May 1988 prior to the introduction of the Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989 on 1 March 1989. A formal environmental statement could not therefore have been sought for that application. An

  379
  environmental statement was requested, submitted and carefully considered with the current application for Phase 2 prior to the Notice of Opinion to approve issuing.
  The EC Directive has been in preparation for a number of years and a previous draft was rejected by the European Parliament in May 1996. Article 18 of the EC directive states that Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 30 June 2000. While the draft EC Directive is a material consideration, only limited cognisance can be taken of it.
  Annex 1 of the draft Directive states that the separation distance from the boundary of the site to residential areas should be a minimum of 500 metres in the case of municipal waste landfills and 2 kilometres in the case of hazardous waste landfills. In Phase 2 of the Cottonmount site residential and recreation areas are closer to the boundary than currently stated in the draft EC Directive.
  Newtownabbey Borough Council has appointed independent consultants to consider the landfilling practices of the operators and to investigate particularly the causes of odours generated by Phase 1 of Cottonmount. As work on the study has not yet commenced no account can be taken of it. The Department however, consulted Newtownabbey Borough Council for advice on the environmental health issues when processing the current application and took account of the advice when reaching an opinion as to how the application should be determined.
  I hope this clarifies the position.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visitors visas to the United Kingdom were received in the last 12 months at Lagos; and how many of these applications were refused. [21332]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The number of applications for visitors visas to the United Kingdom and number of applications refused in Lagos in the last 12 months were:

  Applications received

  Refusals

  December 1996

  2,785

  n/a

  January 1997

  2,604

  736

  February 1997

  2,366

  569

  March 1997

  3,366

  441

  April 1997

  3,189

  507

  May 1997

  3,930

  774

  June 1997

  3,923

  866

  July 1997

  4,986

  1,033

  August 1997

  4,365

  727

  September 1997

  3,383

  735

  October 1997

  2,885

  762

  November 1997

  3,119

  861

  na = not available.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many infringements of Cyprus air-space by Turkish military aircraft have been reported in 1997 to date; and if he will make a statement. [21397]
  380
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have no independent statistics on infringements. We continue to support efforts to encourage the parties involved to agree a sustained moratorium on military overflights.

  Turkey
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government conduct their relationship with Turkey on the basis that it is their policy to support Turkey in its application to be a member state of the European Union. [21705]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our relationship with Turkey is conducted on the basis that Turkey is a candidate to join the EU; that major changes (including in the human rights field) will be required before accession negotiations can begin; but that, if over time the necessary wide-ranging reforms are made, we will welcome Turkey into the EU.

DEFENCE

  Low Pay
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the hourly rates payable to full-time employees in his Department in the range £4.03 an hour to £3.36 an hour; and how many people receive each hourly rate of pay as specified, in each region defined by the regional government offices. [20606]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Details of the pay rates of most MOD staff are not held by geographical area. The table therefore shows the total number of staff (all non-industrials) receiving the hourly rates of pay specified across the department as a whole.

  MOD staff receiving the specified hourly pay rates

  Hourly rate

  Number of staff

  £3.36

  525

  £3.38

  1

  £3.39

  17

  £3.42

  21

  £3.43

  1

  £3.47

  20

  £3.48

  1,299

  £3.50

  2

  £3.51

  3

  £3.53

  9

  £3.54

  1

  £3.55

  5

  £3.56

  23

  £3.57

  4

  £3.58

  134

  £3.59

  6

  £3.60

  19

  £3.61

  118

  £3.62

  22

  £3.63

  18

  £3.64

  89

  £3.65

  4

  £3.66

  12

  £3.67

  144

  £3.68

  18

  £3.69

  11

  £3.70

  91

  £3.71

  29

  £3.72

  38

  381

  MOD staff receiving the specified hourly pay rates

  Hourly rate

  Number of staff

  £3.73

  27

  £3.74

  15

  £3.75

  15

  £3.76

  40

  £3.77

  18

  £3.78

  18

  £3.79

  29

  £3.80

  18

  £3.81

  11

  £3.82

  136

  £3.83

  22

  £3.84

  27

  £3.85

  25

  £3.86

  12

  £3.87

  19

  £3.88

  62

  £3.89

  18

  £3.90

  10

  £3.91

  22

  £3.92

  18

  £3.93

  9

  £3.94

  8

  £3.95

  35

  £3.96

  42

  £3.97

  11

  £3.98

  18

  £3.99

  10

  £4.00

  23

  £4.01

  30

  £4.02

  8

  £4.03

  5

  Total staff

  3,445

  In the case of the Armed Forces, pay is based on recommendations made by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) and published annually. The 1997 AFPRB Report (Cmnd 3537) is in the Library. The Armed Forces pay is based on daily, not hourly rates, with no regional variations in basic pay.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 177, if he will list by regions defined by the regional government offices, the number of civilian staff paid at an hourly rate of (a) £3.36,(b) between £3.50 and £3.75 and (c) between £3.75 and £4. [20653]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: Details of the pay rates of MOD non-industrial staff are not held by geographical area. The following list below therefore shows the total number of staff (all non-industrials) in the specified bands across the department as a whole.

  MOD civilian staff with hourly pay rates in the following bands

  £3.36: 525

  £3.50–3.75: 857

  £3.76–4.00:661.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the working parties he has established on smart 382
  procurement through the National Defence Industries Council, including the terms of reference on each one, its chairman and members together with their companies or organisations; and when each working party (a) first met and (b) will report to Ministers. [21125]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no NDIC groups dealing solely with Smart Procurement. However, following the meeting of the NDIC on 17 July a sub group was established and tasked with producing a paper reflecting industry's views on industrial aspects of the Strategic Defence Review, including Smart Procurement.

  The Strategic Defence Review Sub Group formally met for the first time on 24 September. This meeting was chaired by Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Support).

  The Strategic Defence Review Sub Group presented the results of their work to ministers at the NDIC meeting on 29 October.

  The trade associations represented on the sub group are the Defence Industries Council, the Defence Manufacturers Association, the British Naval Equipment Association, the Federation of Electronics Industries, and the Society of British Aerospace Companies.

  A wide range of companies were also represented including BAe, Cobham, Fairey Hydraulics, Rolls-Royce, FR Aviation, GKN, Racal, Smith's Industries, Computing Devices (UK), GEC, GEC-Marconi, TI/Messier-Dowty and Vickers.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy framework within which the United Kingdom defence industry can make decisions on how to restructure. [21127]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is for defence companies themselves to take the lead on determining the future structure of the industry. However, we recognise that Governments, who are the only legitimate buyers of defence equipment, can have a major constructive influence. Accordingly, the UK, France and Germany have been working together to set a baseline position for the restructuring of the European aerospace and defence industries. These discussions culminated in the issue of a statement by the three Heads of Government on 9 December. The clear message of the statement is that the three Governments, whose industries form the bulk of the European defence industrial base, are now working together to facilitate the process of change.

  A programme of work to resolve practical issues falling mainly within the sphere of Defence Ministers has been agreed and is being taken forward by the National Armaments Directors of the three nations.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) United Kingdom defence companies, (b) foreign-owned defence companies based in the United Kingdom, (c) foreign defence companies, (d) foreign governments and (e) the European

  383
  Commission on the Government's role in facilitating international agreements to allow mergers or joint ventures to proceed. [21126]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence meets a wide range of defence companies, both UK and foreign, on a regular basis. Where appropriate, discussions at these meetings cover defence industry restructuring and the Government's role in facilitating this.

  The Governments of the UK, France and Germany have been working together to establish a baseline position for the restructuring of the European aerospace and defence industries. These discussions culminated in the issue of a statement by the three heads of Government on 9 December.

  There have been no discussions as yet with the European Commission.

  Royal Ordnance, Bridgwater
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of Royal Ordnance, Bridgwater. [21123]

  Mr. Spellar
  The production of military explosives at Royal Ordnance, Bridgwater would cease if Royal Ordnance pic and the French company Societe Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs (SNPE) were to form the joint venture that the companies have expressed an intention of forming in the field of ammunition and military explosives.

  If pursued, such a joint venture would need to be considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities and in consultation with the French Government. The strategic implications of any proposal would be examined with great care as part of that consideration.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future anti-personnel scatterable mine project. [21570]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 3 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development signed the Ottawa Convention which will ban the use, stockpiling, import, export, transfer and manufacture of anti-personnel mines. Accordingly, the United Kingdom will not procure any new anti-personnel mines; we will therefore not proceed with the Future Anti-Personnel Scatterable Mine project.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there has been any modification of the contract to supply 29 volcano vehicle launched scatterable mine systems and associated equipment and munitions, due to enter service in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [21571]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  384

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the effect on the overseas sales potential of Eurofighter of the questions put to the Minister for Defence Procurement by the BBC at the Dubai Air Show and broadcast on "Panorama".

  Mr. Spellar
  None. As my noble Friend made clear at Dubai, the Eurofighter programme is proceeding well and the aircraft has significant export potential.

SCOTLAND

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department's estimates of the total costs of resolving the millennium compliance problem include costs relating to the embedded chip problem; and if he will make a statement. [21569]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: My Department's estimates of the total costs of resolving the millennium compliance problem do not specifically include costs relating to the embedded chip problem. However, initial investigative work suggests that these costs are unlikely to be substantial and can be met from within existing budgets.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what millennium compliance problems have occurred to date in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) other public bodies; and if he will make a statement. [21568]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: To date there have been no reported millennium compliance problems in my Department or its Agencies. Action by other public bodies in Scotland is a matter for them as separate corporate entities, although my Department monitors Year 2000 compliance activity in the public sector in Scotland generally; no compliance problems have been reported to date. My Department has taken steps to ensure that public sector organisations in Scotland are aware of the actions necessary to address the problem and will continue to monitor progress.

HEALTH

  Tobacco Consumption
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what percentage tobacco consumption in the United Kingdom has changed up to 1996 since (i) 1975, (ii) 1978, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1993. [19707]

  Ms Jowell
  Information about cigarettes released for home consumption in the United Kingdom is shown in the table. The data include home produced and imported cigarettes, but exclude cigars, hand rolling tobacco and other tobacco products.
  385

  Cigarettes released for home consumption

  United Kingdom, 1975 to 1996

  Thousand million

  11975

  21977

  1978

  1990

  1993

  1996

  Cigarettes released

  132.6

  124.9

  125.7

  97.8

  95.2

  83.3

  Percentage change up to 1996

  -37

  -33

  -34

  -15

  -13

  —

  Note

  The figures do not include cigarettes where UK duty has not been paid.

  Sources

  1 1975—Sales data from Tobacco Advisory Council (TAC), now Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA) cited in Wald & Nicolaides-Bouman: UK Smoking Statistics.

  2 1977 onwards—HM Customs & Excise.

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking

  Great Britain, 1992 to 1996

  Percentages

  1992

  28

  1994

  27

  1996

  28

  Note:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  Source:

  ONS General Household Survey Analysis by DH (SD2D).

  Cigarettes released for home consumption

  UK, 1992 to 1996

  Billions

  1992

  85

  1993

  95

  1994

  93

  1995

  80

  1996

  83

  Notes:

  Based on calendar years.

  Data rounded to the nearest billion.

  Source:

  HM Customs & Excise.

  Analysis by DH (SD2D).

  Speech Impediments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in the United Kingdom who are(a) physically unable to speak and (b) have serious speech impediment. [19657]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: Estimates of this kind vary because of the wide range of conditions involved and the different criteria used. However, a study by Enderby and Davies (1989) suggested that the number of individuals unable to speak or with significant difficulty in doing so may be classified as follows:

  Per 100,000 population

  Cerebral Palsy

  20

  Parkinson's Disease

  23

  Multiple Sclerosis

  10

  Muscular Dystrophy

  2

  Motor Neurone Disease

  1.2

  Myasthenia Gravis

  0.5

  Huntingdon's Chorea

  0.2

  Friedrich's Syndrome

  0.7

  386
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioner fundholders have purchased communication aids for use by people physically unable to speak in the last year. [19659]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: General practitioner fundholders have been able to purchase communication aids for their patients since 1995. They were also given a leaflet containing expert advice on the subject at this time. We do not have information about the percentage of them who have purchased these aids.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people who are(a) physically unable to speak and (b) have serious speech impediments have been provided with a communication aid by the National Health Service in the last year. [19658]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: The number of communication aids provided is not collected centrally. The Department has sought to reduce the burden of data collection on the National Health Service and the collection of additional information of this kind would not be in line with this policy.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria determined his choice of the Minister for Public Health to lead the Tobacco Review. [16746]

  Mr. Dobson
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is responsible for policy on tobacco. Work on the Tobacco Review forms part of these duties.

  Public Health
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for taking forward European Union public health issues during the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the EU. [22251]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's main priority in the public health sphere during the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union will be to demonstrate the practical relevance of the EU in promoting better health.

  There is already a substantial agenda for the Health Council which will meet on 30 April 1998 and which I shall chair. The main topics for the Health Council during the UK Presidency will be:
  Communicable diseases
  The European Parliament is due to adopt in January its opinion on the Council's common position on the proposal to establish a Community network for the surveillance of communicable diseases. The UK Presidency will seek to reach agreement on a final version of the decision. We will also arrange for the Council to review progress by the European Union-United States task force which is considering how to establish a global network for communicable disease surveillance.
  Tobacco
  The UK Presidency will take forward as appropriate any new proposals for the Community action which the Commission may bring forward to follow up its communication on combating tobacco consumption. The European Parliament will be considering the Council's common position on the

  387
  proposal for a Directive banning tobacco advertising and the UK Presidency will stand ready to facilitate adoption of a final version of the Directive.
  Rare diseases, pollution-related diseases and injury prevention
  The UK Presidency hopes that the European Parliament will deliver its opinion on these three proposals for new public health programmes in time for the Council to adopt common positions at the Health Council meeting on 30 April.
  Screening of blood donors and donations
  We will take forward consideration of the Commission's proposal for a Council recommendation on the screening of blood donors and donations. Although a recommendation is not binding on Member States, its adoption will signal their commitment to coordinate measures across the EU to secure blood safety.
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs)
  The UK Presidency will ensure the Council keeps under review developments in understanding of the causes and routes of transmission of the agent responsible for new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
  Discussion on the future of public health in the EU
  The UK Presidency hopes to hold a discussion on Community action in the field of public health after 2001 taking into account the new European Treaty agreed in Amsterdam in June, should this be ratified, and the forthcoming enlargement of the Union.
  The discussion could also focus on how Health Ministers of the 15 EU Member States might establish effective working relationships with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus to ensure that public health policy matters are properly considered in their plans to join the European Union so that an enlarged Union is able to continue to provide a high level of health protection for its citizens. In this context, the Council would clearly need to take account of the work already being done in the field of public health by the World Health Organisation and in particular its European Region and by the Council of Europe.

  The Government also intend using opportunities outside the formal EU institutional framework to raise the profile of the EU public health agenda and to consider how it can contribute in practical ways to better public health across the Union. The Department of Health is discussing with, among others, the British Medical Association and the Royal college of Nursing about conferences planned for the UK Presidency to build on the discussions started in the Health Council about the future of public health in the EU in the next century. These events will provide further evidence of the Government's determination to demonstrate how the EU public health machinery can be made to work towards achieving a better quality of life for the people of Europe.

  Primary Care Data
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if primary care will continue to receive funding to collect activity data. [21362]

  Mr. Milburn
  Primary Care Groups will receive financial support to fulfil their management functions.

  Payment for data collection beyond normal primary care duties will continue to be considered on a case by case basis.

  "The New NHS"
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraph 5.19 of the White Paper "The New 388
  NHS" (Cm 3807) how the prescribing budget will relate to the unified budget; and if he will make a statement on the setting of the budget. [21363]

  Mr. Milburn
  The prescribing budget will form one of the elements within the unified budget, but the Primary Care Group will be able to choose how its total budget is deployed, and no individual element will be artificially capped.

  All elements of the health authority's and Primary Care Group's unified budget will have fair, target, shares set by a weighted capitation formula. Practice level prescribing budgets will be set using similar methodologies to those used now.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the impact of proposals in the White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807) on the numbers of health authorities in isolated areas. [21365]

  Mr. Milburn
  We expect to see fewer health authorities covering larger areas. As the White Paper makes clear, however, there will be no central blueprint for health authority mergers: local decision rather than national edict will determine the numbers and location of health authorities.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the proposals contained in the White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807) on geographical equity of access to(a)fertility treatments, (b) contraception and (c) abortion services. [21366]

  Ms Jowell
  The White Paper "The New NHS" outlines a number of steps which the Government will be taking to improve the consistency of service provision throughout the National Health Service. We will challenge and address variations which are not based on the health needs and wishes of local people. We will aim for maximum consistency while still allowing appropriate local and individual responsiveness.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraph 3.9 of the White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807) if the single unified budget will be capped. [21367]

  Mr. Milburn
  Yes. Primary Care Groups which take devolved responsibility for the single unified budget will be responsible for managing services within a cash limit, as health authorities and general practitioner fundholders currently are.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807) how freedom of referral according to patient need and choice will be maintained. [21370]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper "The New NHS" (Cm 3807) is fully consistent with general practitioners' freedom of referral. Primary Care Groups will be able to develop long term agreements with National Health Service trusts that reflect the views of all local GPs and are sensitive to their referral choices. The arrangements to replace the internal market system of extra contractual referrals, substituting adjustments to allocations for the former bureaucratic invoicing system, will cover the freedom to refer outside these agreements in special cases, combining the freedom to refer with the ability to fund.
  389

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures will be followed in circumstances where the advice given by the proposed 24-hour telephone advice line, NHS Direct, is contrary to advice given by other 24-hour services funded by his Department. [21364]

  Mr. Boateng
  Advice from the National Health Service Direct 24-hour telephone advice lines will have the same status as any other clinical advice in the NHS. NHS Direct will be staffed by qualified nurses trained in giving telephone advice and who will have access to medical support when needed.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the legal responsibility for advice given over the proposed 24-hour telephone advice line will lie. [21368]

  Mr. Boateng
  National Health Service bodies providing the NHS Direct advice lines will have a duty of care towards callers, as they do towards the users of the other services they provide.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which budget the resources to fund the proposed 24-hour telephone advice line will come. [21369]

  Mr. Boateng
  The three pilot helplines, due to start in March 1998, will be funded centrally. Decisions about the longer term funding of the National Health Service Direct-24 hour telephone advice lines will be made in due course when the pilots have been evaluated.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy not to implement the regulations which reduce from 24 months to 15 months the dental registration period. [21645]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service (General Dental Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulation 1996 SI 1996/2051, which implemented the changes to the registration period, were laid before Parliament on 6 August 1996, and came into force on 1 September 1996.

  We have no plans to review this policy, which will improve value for money by focusing payments to dentists on those patients receiving active care from them.

  Any savings generated will be put back into the General Dental Service, in a targeted way to achieve better oral health for the population.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of people who will be deregistered from dentists' lists in 1998 as a consequence of the implementation of the regulations reducing the dental registration period from 24 months to 15 months. [21647]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 423.

  NHS (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds will be made available to celebrate the 390
  50th anniversary of the National Health Service; and if he will ensure that the maximum proportion of such funds is used in ways which promote patient care. [21703]

  Mr. Milburn
  Ministers have decided that the special occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the National Health Service should be marked with events and initiatives that reflect the Service's achievements and, equally important, herald its further development over the coming years. The Service has been issued with guidance that emphasises that the main focus should be at local level, with the active participation of staff and patients, and should reflect the caring ethos of the Health Service.

  The guidance also emphasises that events should be low cost, sponsored or self financing so that resources are not diverted from patient care.

  Resource Allocation
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the new Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation introduces a factor to take account of particular problems faced by islands. [21371]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have asked the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to consider whether further investigation in this area would be useful.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the Government use to measure the adequacy of NHS funding. [21372]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government have made a commitment in our election manifesto to raise spending on the National Health Service in real terms every year so that we can deliver our manifesto commitments and produce a health service that is modern and dependable.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding the Government have allocated to research into Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [21433]

  Mr. Boateng
  Priorities for funding research in the Department are set very carefully, based on the burden of disease and other criteria. Bids for conducting research into chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) are therefore always considered on that basis. The Department continues to fund research into the management and treatment of CFS/ME through the National Health Service Research and Development Programme. It is currently funding an on-going research project, costing about £60,000, which is looking at whether general practitioners are best placed to manage CFS/ME patients. A recently completed research project, costing over £65,000, considered whether a particular type of psychological treatment was effective in reducing disability in CFS/ME patients. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The Council currently provides support for one Small Project Grant in the area of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome entitled "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis of the chronic fatigue syndrome". The total amount awarded was £37,000.
  391

  University Hospital, Birmingham
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the levels of bed occupancy in the University Hospital Trust PFI scheme in Birmingham; [21428]

  (2) what is the forecast case mix of the new University Hospital Trust PFI scheme in Birmingham; [21430]

  (3) if he will estimate (a) the capital cost and (b) the revenue cost of the new PFI scheme at University Hospital Trust in Birmingham. [21432]

  Mr. Milburn
  No Private Finance Initiative scheme has been submitted by the University Hospital Birmingham Trust to the Department of Health at this time.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlie the acute bed admission assumptions 392
  made by the University Hospital Trust in Birmingham for the next year. [21429]

  Mr. Milburn
  Assumptions will be based on projected activity resulting from contracts placed by health authorities and general practitioners with the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust which will decide what level of services will be required for next year. It is anticipated that activity will be broadly the same as this year.

  Dr. Brand
  to ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of acute beds at the University Hospital Trust in Birmingham for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [21431]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are currently 1,100 beds in the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust. There are no plans to alter this number significantly. There may be fluctuations around 1,100 either up or down based on the time of year or commissioning requirements.